Federal Register Vol. 81, No.110,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 110 (June 8, 2016)

Page Range36787-37120
FR Document

81_FR_110
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 36861 - Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA); Cotton Ginning Cost-Share (CGCS) Program Payments to Cotton ProducersPDF
81 FR 36957 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 36842 - Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Prong 4-2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2,PDF
81 FR 36848 - Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; MS; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5PDF
81 FR 36959 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records NoticePDF
81 FR 36801 - Privacy Act of 1974; ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 36954 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Lakeshore Museum Center, Muskegon, MIPDF
81 FR 36952 - Notice of Inventory Completion: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PAPDF
81 FR 36944 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
81 FR 36945 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
81 FR 36950 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CAPDF
81 FR 36950 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, INPDF
81 FR 36952 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IAPDF
81 FR 36947 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, ILPDF
81 FR 36946 - Notice of Inventory Completion: Evanston History Center, Evanston, ILPDF
81 FR 36949 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CAPDF
81 FR 36945 - Notice of Intent To Repatriate Cultural Items: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CAPDF
81 FR 36895 - Applications for New Awards; Comprehensive Centers Program-National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With DisabilitiesPDF
81 FR 36831 - Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile 42.5 to 43.0, Chester, West VirginiaPDF
81 FR 36911 - Cannon Drive Drum Superfund Site Social Circle, Walton County, Georgia; Notice of SettlementPDF
81 FR 36800 - Safety Zone; Cincinnati Reds Season FireworksPDF
81 FR 36913 - Notice of Receipt of Requests To Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations To Terminate Certain UsesPDF
81 FR 36912 - Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) Submitted Under Title II of the Clean Air Act and Related RegulationsPDF
81 FR 36870 - Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 36873 - Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 36874 - Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 36919 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 36918 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 36922 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 36920 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 36963 - Fuel Retrievability in Spent Fuel Storage ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 36892 - National Coastal Mapping Strategy 1.0: Coastal Lidar Elevation for a 3D Nation Draft for ReviewPDF
81 FR 36860 - Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Mangoes From India Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 36894 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36942 - Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/WashingtonPDF
81 FR 36858 - Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep ApneaPDF
81 FR 36958 - NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education MeetingPDF
81 FR 36894 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36864 - Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 36915 - Notice of Request for Comment on the Exposure Draft Titled Tax Expenditures: Management's Discussion and Analysis and Disclosure RequirementsPDF
81 FR 36933 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public HealthPDF
81 FR 36941 - Notice of Intent To Amend the Land Use Plans for the BLM-Administered Public Lands in Wisconsin and Minnesota and Prepare an Associated Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 36943 - Notice of Realty Action: Proposed Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Fresno and Monterey Counties, CAPDF
81 FR 36984 - Notice of Intent To Release Airport Property at St. Petersburg-Clearwater International (PIE), St. Petersburg, FLPDF
81 FR 36964 - Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes: Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 36903 - Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement NationsPDF
81 FR 36923 - Announcement of Requirements and Registration for “A Bill You Can Understand” Design and Innovation Challenge: Help Patients Understand Their Medical Bills and the Financial Aspect of Health; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 36940 - Public Assistance Program Minimum Standards; Reopening of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 36864 - Information Collection Activity; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36932 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
81 FR 36932 - Meeting Notice for the President's Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood PartnershipsPDF
81 FR 36987 - Proposed Collection of Information: Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) Market Research StudyPDF
81 FR 36863 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36810 - National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Proposed Rule; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 36876 - Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 36887 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From Canada: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 36876 - Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 36917 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 36939 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Amended Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36933 - Prospective Grant of an Exclusive License: The Development of an Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) Based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human CancersPDF
81 FR 36937 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36881 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 36989 - Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 36928 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ALPROLIXPDF
81 FR 36988 - Unblocking of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons, Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation ActPDF
81 FR 36895 - Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 36931 - Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36924 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Mammography Quality Standards Act RequirementsPDF
81 FR 36929 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; ELOCTATEPDF
81 FR 36957 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Interstate Firearms Shipment Report of Theft/Loss (ATF F 3310.6)PDF
81 FR 36893 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Monitoring Systems and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS)PDF
81 FR 36790 - New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug ApplicationPDF
81 FR 36787 - New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of SponsorshipPDF
81 FR 36940 - Towing Safety Advisory Committee; June 2016 TeleconferencePDF
81 FR 36967 - Carey Credit Income Fund, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 36909 - Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 36905 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 36939 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36963 - ForumPDF
81 FR 36866 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Mexico Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 36865 - Advisory Committees ExpirationPDF
81 FR 36867 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee To Discuss Approval of a Report to the Commission Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Relations in the StatePDF
81 FR 36937 - National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36937 - National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 36935 - National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36934 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36936 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 36936 - Center For Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting.PDF
81 FR 36935 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 36938 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 36956 - Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Terminating the Investigation; Issuance of Consent Order and Termination of the InvestigationPDF
81 FR 36935 - National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 36803 - Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C) State Implementation Plan Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5PDF
81 FR 36986 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
81 FR 36916 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 36858 - Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
81 FR 36884 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 36965 - Self-Regulatory Organizations: Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 1015, Disciplinary FunctionsPDF
81 FR 36867 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional MeasuresPDF
81 FR 36871 - Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 36979 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Approving Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, To Update and Formalize the ICC Stress Testing FrameworkPDF
81 FR 36966 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Fee Schedule To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 36967 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Fee Schedule To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 36981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Establish Certain End User Fees, Amend the Definition of Affiliate, and Amend the Co-Location Section of the Price List To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 36973 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Price List To Eliminate Certain Services That Are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete TextPDF
81 FR 36981 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule and the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services To Eliminate Certain Services That Are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete TextPDF
81 FR 36975 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Change Amending the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Eliminate Certain Services That are No Longer Utilized by Users and To Remove Obsolete TextPDF
81 FR 36806 - Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Tribal Usual and Accustomed Fishing AreasPDF
81 FR 36891 - Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 36955 - Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 36978 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36977 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36984 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 36954 - Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated With an Index ZonePDF
81 FR 36902 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Race to the Top-Early Learning Challenge Annual Performance ReportPDF
81 FR 36988 - Sanctions Actions Pursuant to Executive Order 13712PDF
81 FR 36798 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FLPDF
81 FR 36923 - Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 36833 - Secretary's Proposed Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant ProgramsPDF
81 FR 36791 - Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 36808 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Other Hook-and-Line Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of AlaskaPDF
81 FR 36962 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Renew an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 36907 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 36910 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 36909 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 36904 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 36910 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 36793 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; Final and Temporary RegulationsPDF
81 FR 36816 - Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]PDF
81 FR 36836 - Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska-Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged LandsPDF
81 FR 36985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; Clearance of a New Approval of Information Collection: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Rebate SystemPDF
81 FR 36815 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lakota, NDPDF
81 FR 36810 - Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36826 - Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel ExhaustPDF
81 FR 36818 - Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal MinesPDF
81 FR 36805 - Updating Competitive Bidding RulesPDF
81 FR 36813 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 36991 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat PumpsPDF

Issue

81 110 Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Contents Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES National Organic Program: Livestock and Poultry Practices, 36810 2016-13537 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Commodity Credit Corporation

See

Farm Service Agency

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Interstate Firearms Shipment Report of Theft/Loss, 36957 2016-13520 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Importation of Mangoes from India into the Continental United States, 36860-36861 2016-13567 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36918-36923 2016-13570 2016-13571 2016-13572 2016-13573 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES A Bill You Can Understand Design and Innovation Challenge: Help Patients Understand Their Medical Bills and the Financial Aspect of Health; Requirements and Registration; Correction, 36923 2016-13548 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Missouri Advisory Committee, 36867 2016-13506 New Mexico Advisory Committee, 36866-36867 2016-13508 Requests for Nominations: North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma Advisory Committees, 36865-36866 2016-13507 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL, 36798-36800 2016-13458 Safety Zones: Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks, 36800-36801 2016-13584 PROPOSED RULES Safety Zones: Ohio River Mile 42.5 to 43.0, Chester, WV, 36831-36833 2016-13586 NOTICES Meetings: Towing Safety Advisory Committee; Correction, 36940 2016-13515 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Commodity Credit Commodity Credit Corporation NOTICES Availability of Funds: Cotton Ginning Cost-Share Program Payments to Cotton Producers, 36861-36863 2016-13672 Defense Department Defense Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36894-36895 2016-13561 2016-13566 Meetings: Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing, 36895 2016-13524 Education Department Education Department PROPOSED RULES Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant Programs, 36833-36836 2016-13456 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Race to the Top: Early Learning Challenge Annual Performance Report, 36902-36903 2016-13460 Applications for New Awards: Comprehensive Centers Program: National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities, 36895-36902 2016-13587 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 36992-37120 2016-12592 NOTICES Applications to Export Liquefied Natural Gas: Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC, 36903-36904 2016-13550
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; El Dorado County Air Quality Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS; Completeness Findings, 36803-36805 2016-13491 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Mississippi: Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 36848-36858 2016-13601 South Carolina; Prong 4—2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5, 36842-36848 2016-13606 NOTICES Access by EPA Contractors to Information Claimed as Confidential Business Information, 36912-36913 2016-13580 Receipt of Requests to Voluntarily Cancel Certain Pesticide Registrations and Amend Registrations to Terminate Certain Uses, 36913-36915 2016-13581 Settlements: Cannon Drive Drum Superfund Site, Social Circle, Walton County, GA, 36911 2016-13585 Farm Service Farm Service Agency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36863-36864 2016-13538 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Tax Expenditures: Management's Discussion and Analysis and Disclosure Requirements, 36915-36916 2016-13559 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 36813-36815 2016-12887 PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes, 36810-36813 2016-13249 Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace: Lakota, ND, 36815-36816 2016-13304 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) Rebate System, 36985-36986 2016-13307 Intents to Release Airport Properties: St. Petersburg-Clearwater International, St. Petersburg, FL, 36984-36985 2016-13554 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Updating Competitive Bidding Rules, 36805-36806 2016-13088 PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsiderations of Actions in Rulemaking Proceedings, 36858 2016-13485 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36916-36917 2016-13486 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Public Assistance Program Minimum Standards; Reopening of Comment Period, 36940-36941 2016-13546 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 36904-36911 2016-13444 2016-13445 2016-13446 2016-13447 2016-13448 2016-13512 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Sempra Gas and Power Marketing, LLC, 36909 2016-13513 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 36917-36918 2016-13532 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea, 36858-36859 2016-13564 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration PROPOSED RULES Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea, 36858-36859 2016-13564 NOTICES Compliance Waivers; Petitions: South Central Florida Express, 36986-36987 2016-13487 Fiscal Fiscal Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Funds Transfer Market Research Study, 36987-36988 2016-13539 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Subsistence Management Regulations: Public Lands in Alaska: Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands, 36836-36842 2016-13374 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES New Animal Drugs: Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship, 36787-36790 2016-13517 Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application, 36790-36791 2016-13518 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Mammography Quality Standards Act Requirements, 36924-36928 2016-13522 Determinations of Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extensions: ALPROLIX, 36928-36929 2016-13526 ELOCTATE, 36929-36931 2016-13521 Meetings: Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee, 36923-36924 2016-13457 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 36988 2016-13459 2016-13525 Forest Forest Service PROPOSED RULES Subsistence Management Regulations: Public Lands in Alaska: Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands, 36836-36842 2016-13374 NOTICES Meetings: Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee, 36864 2016-13560 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Findings of Research Misconduct, 36932-36933 2016-13541 Meetings: Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health, 36933 2016-13558 President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, 36932 2016-13540
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry, 36931 2016-13523 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts, 36793-36798 2016-13443 PROPOSED RULES Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies and Real Estate Investment Trusts, 36816-36818 2016-13425 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Furfuryl Alcohol from the People's Republic of China, 36873-36874 2016-13576 Magnesium Metal from the People's Republic of China, 36874-36875 2016-13574 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 36891-36892 2016-13468 Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China, 36870-36871 2016-13578 Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada, 36887-36890 2016-13535 Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China, 36876-36881 2016-13533 Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Turkey, 36876 2016-13536 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan, 36867-36870 2016-13481 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 36884-36887 2016-13484 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, 36871-36873 2016-13480 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates, 36881-36884 2016-13528 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof, 36956-36957 2016-13495 Certain Composite Aerogel Insulation Materials and Methods for Manufacturing the Same, 36955-36956 2016-13467 Justice Department Justice Department See

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Bureau

Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Amendment of Land Use Plans for BLM-Administered Public Lands in Wisconsin and Minnesota, 36941-36942 2016-13557 Plats of Surveys: Oregon/Washington, 36942-36943 2016-13565 Realty Actions: Proposed Non-Competitive (Direct) Sale of Public Land in Fresno and Monterey Counties, CA, 36943-36944 2016-13555 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 36957-36958 2016-13644 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration PROPOSED RULES Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines, 36818-36826 2016-13218 Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust, 36826-36831 2016-13219 NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Meetings: NASA Advisory Council; Ad Hoc Task Force on STEM Education, 36958 2016-13562 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration RULES Privacy Act; Exemptions, 36801-36803 2016-13599 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 36959-36962 2016-13600 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Exclusive Licenses; Proposed Approvals: Development of Anti-GPC3 Chimeric Antigen Receptor based on HN3 for the Treatment of Human Cancers, 36933-36934 2016-13530 Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 36936-36937 2016-13499 Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 36935-36936, 36938-36939 2016-13496 2016-13497 2016-13498 National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 36935, 36939 2016-13494 2016-13531 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 36934-36935 2016-13500 2016-13501 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, 36937-36938 2016-13502 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 36937 2016-13529 National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, 36937 2016-13503 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Other Hook-and-Line Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of Alaska, 36808-36809 2016-13454 Fisheries Off West Coast States: Tribal Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas, 36806-36808 2016-13469 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Monitoring Systems and Vessel Monitoring Systems for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species, 36893-36894 2016-13519 National Coastal Mapping Strategy 1.0; Coastal Lidar Elevation for a 3D Nation, 36892-36893 2016-13568 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Inventory Completions: Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, 36950 2016-13593 Evanston History Center, Evanston, IL, 36946-36947 2016-13590 Lake County Discovery Museum, Wauconda, IL, 36947-36949 2016-13591 Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA, 36950-36951 2016-13594 Office of the State Archaeologist, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, 36944-36945, 36952 2016-13592 2016-13595 2016-13596 University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia, PA, 36952-36954 2016-13597 Repatriation of Cultural Items: Catalina Island Museum, Avalon, CA, 36945-36946, 36949 2016-13588 2016-13589 Lakeshore Museum Center, Muskegon, MI, 36954 2016-13598 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36962-36963 2016-13449 National Transportation National Transportation Safety Board NOTICES Meetings: PIREPs: Pay it Forward . . . Because Weather for One, is Weather for None; Forum, 36963 2016-13509 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Interim Staff Guidances: Fuel Retrievability in Spent Fuel Storage Applications, 36963-36964 2016-13569 Meetings: Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes, 36964-36965 2016-13552 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue NOTICES Major Portion Prices and Due Date for Additional Royalty Payments on Indian Gas Production in Designated Areas Not Associated with an Index Zone, 36954-36955 2016-13461 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36864-36865 2016-13543 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36977-36979, 36984 2016-13463 2016-13464 2016-13465 2016-13466 Applications: Carey Credit Income Fund, et al., 36967-36973 2016-13514 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: ICE Clear Credit, LLC, 36979-36981 2016-13477 Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, 36965-36966 2016-13483 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 36973-36975, 36981 2016-13473 2016-13474 NYSE Arca, Inc., 36967, 36981-36984 2016-13472 2016-13475 NYSE MKT, LLC, 36966-36967, 36975-36977 2016-13471 2016-13476 State Department State Department RULES Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment, 36791-36793 2016-13455 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 36939-36940 2016-13511 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Fiscal Service

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service Scientific Merit Review Board, 36989 2016-13527 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Energy Department, 36992-37120 2016-12592 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.

81 110 Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 510, 520, 522, 556, and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Withdrawal of Approval of New Animal Drug Applications; Changes of Sponsorship AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Final rule; technical amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect application-related actions for new animal drug applications (NADAs) and abbreviated new animal drug applications (ANADAs) during March and April 2016. FDA is also informing the public of the availability of summaries of the basis of approval and of environmental review documents, where applicable. The animal drug regulations are also being amended to reflect changes of sponsorship of applications and the voluntary withdrawals of approval of applications that occurred in January and February.

DATES:

This rule is effective June 8, 2016 except for the amendments to 21 CFR 520.1696b, 520.2325a, 520.2261a, 558.248, and 558.625, which are effective June 20, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5689, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Approval Actions

FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval actions for NADAs and ANADAs during March and April 2016, as listed in table 1. In addition, FDA is informing the public of the availability, where applicable, of documentation of environmental review required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, for actions requiring review of safety or effectiveness data, summaries of the basis of approval (FOI Summaries) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These public documents may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain these documents at the CVM FOIA Electronic Reading Room: http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/CVM/CVMFOIAElectronicReadingRoom/default.htm. Marketing exclusivity and patent information may be accessed in FDA's publication, Approved Animal Drug Products Online (Green Book), at: http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/Products/ApprovedAnimalDrugProducts/default.htm.

Table 1—Original and Supplemental NADAs and ANADAs Approved During March and April 2016 File No. Sponsor Product name Action 21 CFR
  • section
  • FOIA
  • summary
  • NEPA
  • review
  • 141-392 Elanco Animal Health, a Division of Eli Lilly & Co., Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN 46285 IMRESTOR (pegbovigrastim injection) Original approval for the reduction in the incidence of clinical mastitis in the first 30 days of lactation in periparturient dairy cows and periparturient replacement dairy heifers 522.1684 yes EA/FONSI 1 141-455 Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211 GALLIPRANT (grapiprant tablets) Original approval for the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis in dogs 510.600
  • 520.1084
  • yes CE 23
    141-460 ECO LLC, 344 Nassau St., Princeton, NJ 08540 AIVLOSIN 17% (tylvalosin tartrate) Type A Medicated Article Original approval for control of porcine proliferative enteropathy (PPE) associated with Lawsonia intracellularis infection in groups of swine in buildings experiencing an outbreak of PPE 558.633 yes CE 24 1 The Agency has carefully considered an environmental assessment (EA) of the potential environmental impact of this action and has made a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). 2 The Agency has determined that this action is categorically excluded (CE) from the requirement to submit an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement because it is of a type that does not have a significant effect on the human environment. 3 CE granted under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(1). 4 CE granted under 21 CFR 25.33(d)(5).
    II. Changes of Sponsorship

    Bayer HealthCare LLC, Animal Health Division, P.O. Box 390, Shawnee Mission, KS 66201 (Bayer) has informed FDA that it has transferred ownership of, and all rights and interest in, the following approved applications to Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland:

    File No. Product name 21 CFR
  • section
  • 099-169 Oxytocin Injection 522.1680 124-241 PVL Oxytocin Injectable Solution 522.1680 200-069 OvaCyst (gonadorelin diacetate tetrahydrate) Injection 522.1077 200-253 ProstaMate (dinoprost tromethamine) Injectable Solution 522.690

    Bayer has also transferred sponsorship of NADA 141-070 for RAPINOVET (propofol) Injectable Emulsion to iVaoes Animal Health, 4300 SW 73rd Ave., suite 110, Miami, FL 33155. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these changes of sponsorship.

    III. Withdrawals of Approval

    In addition, during March and April 2016, the following two sponsors have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs and ANADAs listed in the following table because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:

    File No. Sponsor Product name 21 CFR
  • section
  • 007-076 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland SULFA-NOX Liquid (sulfaquinoxaline) 3.44% Solution 520.2325a 008-244 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland SULFA-NOX Concentrate (sulfaquinoxaline) 12.85% Solution 520.2325a 041-955 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland Erythromycin Medicated Premix 558.248 049-729 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland PURINA Sulfa (sulfamethazine) 12.5% Solution 520.2261a 100-128 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland Supersweet Medipak TYLAN 10 558.625 200-307 1 Vetoquinol N.-A., Inc., 2000 chemin Georges, Lavaltrie (PQ), Canada J5T 3S5 Penicillin G Potassium Soluble Powder 520.1696b 1 These NADAs were identified as being affected by guidance for industry #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,” December 2013.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA gave notice that approval of NADAs 007-076, 008-244, 041-955, 049-729, 100-128, and ANADA 200-307, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is withdrawn, effective June 20, 2016. As provided in the regulatory text of this document, the animal drug regulations are amended to reflect these voluntary withdrawals of approval.

    IV. Technical Amendments

    FDA has noticed that the section heading for 21 CFR 520.1430 does not accurately reflect the new animal drug for which approved conditions of use are codified. At this time, we are amending the section heading to read “Mibolerone” rather than “Megestrol acetate tablets.” This action is being taken to improve the accuracy of the regulations.

    This rule does not meet the definition of “rule” in 5 U.S.C. 804(3)(A) because it is a rule of “particular applicability.” Therefore, it is not subject to the congressional review requirements in 5 U.S.C. 801-808.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 510

    Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Parts 520 and 522

    Animal drugs.

    21 CFR Part 556

    Animal drugs, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 558

    Animal drugs, Animal feeds.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, parts 510, 520, 522, 556, and 558 are amended as follows:

    PART 510—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 1. The authority citation for part 510 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352, 353, 360b, 371, 379e.

    § 510.600 [Amended]
    2. In § 510.600: a. In the table in paragraph (c)(1), alphabetically add entries for “Aratana Therapeutics, Inc.” and “iVaoes Animal Health” and revise entry for “Huvepharma AD;” and b. In the table in paragraph (c)(2), revise the entry for “016592” and numerically add entries for “086026” and “086064.”

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 510.600 Names, addresses, and drug labeler codes of sponsors of approved applications.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    Firm name and address Drug labeler code *         *         *         *         *         *         * Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211 086026 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Huvepharma EOOD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria 016592 *         *         *         *         *         *         * iVaoes Animal Health, 4300 SW 73rd Ave., suite 110, Miami, FL 33155 086064 *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (2) * * *

    Drug labeler code Firm name and address *         *         *         *         *         *         * 016592 Huvepharma EOOD, 5th Floor, 3A Nikolay Haytov Str., 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria *         *         *         *         *         *         * 086026 Aratana Therapeutics, Inc., 11400 Tomahawk Creek Pkwy., Leawood, KS 66211 *         *         *         *         *         *         * 086064 iVaoes Animal Health, 4300 SW 73rd Ave., suite 110, Miami, FL 33155 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    PART 520—ORAL DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 3. The authority citation for part 520 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    4. Add § 520.1084 to read as follows:
    § 520.1084 Grapiprant.

    (a) Specifications. Each tablet contains 20, 60, or 100 milligrams (mg) grapiprant.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 086026 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (c) Conditions of use in dogs—(1) Amount. Administer 0.9 mg/lb (2 mg/kg) once daily by mouth.

    (2) Indications for use. For the control of pain and inflammation associated with osteoarthritis in dogs.

    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    5. Revise the heading of § 520.1430 to read as follows:
    § 520.1430 Mibolerone.
    § 520.1696b [Amended]
    6. Effective June 20, 2016, in § 520.1696b, in paragraph (b), remove “059320,”.
    § 520.2261a [Amended]
    7. Effective June 20, 2016, in § 520.2261a, in paragraph (b), remove “Nos. 016592 and 061623” and in its place add “No. 016592”.
    § 520.2325a [Amended]
    8. Effective June 20, 2016, in § 520.2325a, remove paragraph (a)(2) and redesignate paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) as paragraphs (a)(2) and (3).
    PART 522—IMPLANTATION OR INJECTABLE DOSAGE FORM NEW ANIMAL DRUGS 9. The authority citation for part 522 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 360b.

    § 522.690 [Amended]
    10. In § 522.690, in paragraph (b)(3), remove “000859” and in its place add “061623”.
    § 522.1077 [Amended]
    11. In § 522.1077, in paragraph (b)(3), remove “000859 and 050604” and in its place add “050604 and 061623”.
    § 522.1680 [Amended]
    12. In § 522.1680, in paragraph (b), remove “000859”. 13. Add § 522.1684 to read as follows:
    § 522.1684 Pegbovigrastim.

    (a) Specifications. Each pre-filled, single-dose syringe contains 15 milligrams of pegbovigrastim.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 000986 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (c) Conditions of use in cattle—(1) Amount. Administer the first dose (syringe) by subcutaneous injection 7 days prior to the cow's or heifer's anticipated calving date. If necessary, the first dose may be administered within a range of 4 to 10 days prior to the anticipated calving date to accommodate management schedules. Administer the second dose (syringe) by subcutaneous injection within 24 hours after calving.

    (2) Indications for use. For the reduction in the incidence of clinical mastitis in the first 30 days of lactation in periparturient dairy cows and periparturient replacement dairy heifers.

    (3) Limitations. Federal law restricts this drug to use by or on the order of a licensed veterinarian.

    § 522.2005 [Amended]
    14. In § 522.2005, in paragraph (b)(1), remove “000859” and in its place add “086064”.
    PART 556—TOLERANCES FOR RESIDUES OF NEW ANIMAL DRUGS IN FOOD 15. The authority citation for part 556 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 360b, 371.

    16. In § 556.748, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 556.748 Tylvalosin.

    (c) Related conditions of use. See §§ 520.2645 and 558.633 of this chapter.

    PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 17. The authority citation for part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 354, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 371.

    18. In § 558.4, in paragraph (d), in the “Category I” table, add an entry in alphabetical order for “Tylvalosin” to read as follows:
    § 558.4 Requirement of a medicated feed mill license.

    (d) * * *

    Category I Drug Assay limits percent Type A Type B maximum (200x) Assay limits percent Type B/C *         *         *         *         *         *         * Tylvalosin 90-110 3.86 g/lb 85-115 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    § 558.248 [Amended]
    19. Effective June 20, 2016, in § 558.248, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) and remove and reserve paragraph (d)(1)(iii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 558.248 Erythromycin.

    (a) Specifications. Type A medicated articles containing 5 or 10 percent erythromycin thiocyanate.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 061623 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    § 558.625 [Amended]
    20. Effective June 20, 2016, in § 558.625, remove paragraph (b)(3) and redesignate paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) as paragraphs (b)(3) and (4). 21. Add § 558.633 to read as follows:
    § 558.633 Tylvalosin.

    (a) Specifications. Type A medicated articles containing 77.12 grams tylvalosin per pound as tylvalosin tartrate.

    (b) Sponsor. See No. 066916 in § 510.600(c) of this chapter.

    (c) Related tolerances. See § 556.748 of this chapter.

    (d) Special considerations—(1) Federal law restricts tylvalosin medicated feeds to use under a veterinary feed directive (VFD) and the professional supervision of a licensed veterinarian. See § 558.6 of this chapter for additional requirements.

    (2) VFDs for tylvalosin shall not be refilled.

    (3) An expiration date of 1 week is required for tylvalosin Type C medicated swine feeds in pelleted or crumbled form.

    (e) Conditions of use in swine—(1) Amount. Administer 38.6 grams tylvalosin per ton of Type C medicated feed (42.5 ppm) as the sole ration for 14 consecutive days.

    (2) Indications for use. For the control of porcine proliferative enteropathy (PPE) associated with Lawsonia intracellularis infection in groups of swine in buildings experiencing an outbreak of PPE.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Tracey Forfa, Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13517 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Parts 520 and 558 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0002] New Animal Drugs; Withdrawal of Approval of a New Animal Drug Application AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notification of withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is withdrawing approval of five new animal drug applications (NADAs) and an abbreviated new animal drug application (ANADA). This action is being taken at the sponsors' request because these products are no longer manufactured or marketed.

    DATES:

    Withdrawal of approval is effective June 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujaya Dessai, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-212), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-5761, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The sponsors of the following applications have requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NADAs and ANADA listed in the following table because the products are no longer manufactured or marketed:

    File No. Sponsor Product name 21 CFR section 007-076 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland SULFA-NOX Liquid (sulfaquinoxaline) 3.44% Solution 520.2325a 008-244 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland SULFA-NOX Concentrate (sulfaquinoxaline) 12.85% Solution 520.2325a 041-955 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland Erythromycin Medicated Premix 558.248 049-729 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland PURINA Sulfa (sulfamethazine) 12.5% Solution 522.2260a 100-128 1 Cross Vetpharm Group Ltd., Broomhill Rd., Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland Supersweet Medipak TYLAN 10 558.625 200-307 1 Vetoquinol N.-A., Inc., 2000 chemin Georges, Lavaltrie (PQ), Canada J5T 3S5 Penicillin G Potassium, USP, Soluble Powder 520.1696b 1These NADAs were identified as being affected by guidance for industry #213, “New Animal Drugs and New Animal Drug Combination Products Administered in or on Medicated Feed or Drinking Water of Food-Producing Animals: Recommendations for Drug Sponsors for Voluntarily Aligning Product Use Conditions with GFI #209,” December 2013.

    Therefore, under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and in accordance with § 514.116 Notice of withdrawal of approval of application (21 CFR 514.116), notice is given that approval of NADAs 007-076, 008-244, 041-955, 049-729, 100-128, and ANADA 200-307, and all supplements and amendments thereto, is hereby withdrawn, effective June 20, 2016.

    Elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, FDA is amending the animal drug regulations to reflect the voluntary withdrawal of approval of these applications.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Tracey Forfa, Acting Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13518 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 35, 103, 127, and 138 [Public Notice: 9536] RIN 1400-AD94 Civil Monetary Penalties Inflationary Adjustment AGENCY:

    Department of State.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule is issued to adjust the civil monetary penalties (CMP) for regulatory provisions maintained and enforced by the Department of State. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act), required the head of each agency to adjust its CMPs for inflation no later than October 23, 1996 and required agencies to make adjustments at least once every four years thereafter. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act) further amended the 1990 Act by requiring agencies to adjust CMPs, if necessary, pursuant to a “catch-up” adjustment methodology prescribed by the 2015 Act, which mandates that the catch up adjustment take effect no later than August 1, 2016. Additionally, the 2015 Act requires agencies to make annual adjustments to their respective CMPs in accordance with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget. The revised CMP adjustments in this rule will apply only to those penalties assessed after its effective date; subsequent annual adjustments are to be published not later than January 15 of each year. In keeping with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget, the new penalty levels will apply to all assessments made on or after August 1, 2016, regardless of the date on which the underlying facts or violations occurred.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective August 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alice Kottmyer, Attorney-Adviser, Office of Management, [email protected] ATTN: Regulatory Change, CMP Adjustments, (202) 647-2318.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 1990 Act (Pub. L. 101-410) provided for the regular evaluation of CMPs by federal agencies. Periodic inflationary adjustments of CMPs ensure that the consequences of statutory violations adequately reflect the gravity of such offenses and that CMPs are properly accounted for and collected by the federal government. In April 1996, the 1990 Act was amended by the 1996 Act (Pub. L. 104-134), which required federal agencies to adjust their CMPs at least once every four years. However, because inflationary adjustments to CMPs were statutorily capped at ten percent of the maximum penalty amount, but only required to be calculated every four years, CMPs in many cases did not correspond with the true measure of inflation over the preceding four year period, leading to a decline in the real value of the penalty. To remedy this decline, the 2015 Act (section 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) requires agencies to adjust the level of CMPs with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through a rulemaking and to make subsequent annual inflationary adjustments to their respective CMPs using a methodology mandated by the legislation.

    The 1990 Act defines civil monetary penalty as any penalty, fine, or other sanction that:

    • Is for a specific monetary amount as provided for in federal law; or has a maximum amount provided for by federal law; and

    • is assessed or enforced by an agency as pursuant to federal law; and,

    • is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the federal courts.

    Within the Department of State (Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations), this rule affects four areas:

    (1) Part 35, which implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (PFCRA), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812;

    (2) Part 103, which implements the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (CWC Act);

    (3) Part 127, which implements the penalty provisions of sections 38(e), 39A(c), and 40(k) of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2778(e), 2779a(c), 2780(k)); and

    (4) Part 138, which implements Section 319 of Public Law 101-221, codified at 31 U.S.C. 1352, and prohibits recipients of federal contracts, grants, and loans from using appropriated funds for lobbying the Executive or Legislative Branches of the federal government in connection with a specific contract.

    The 2015 Act instructs agencies to make a one-time catch-up adjustment to CMPs using the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties as they were “most recently established or adjusted under a provision of law other than [the 1990] Act.” Nevertheless, the 2015 Act specifies that the catch-up adjustment amount will in no case exceed 150% of the penalty amount which was in force at the enactment date of the 2015 Act on November 2, 2015; therefore, the total revised penalty amount will not exceed 250% of the total maximum penalty amount on November 2, 2015.

    Specific Changes to 22 CFR Made by This Rule I. Part 35

    The PFRCA, enacted in 1986, authorizes agencies, with approval from the Department of Justice, to pursue individuals or firms for false claims. The maximum liability under the PFRCA is $5,000 for each false claim, up to a maximum of $150,000, in addition to twice the amount of the claim submitted contrary to the PFRCA.

    According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for the PFRCA (a 1986 statute) is 2.15628; therefore, the new maximum penalty for each false claim or statement is $10,781, up to a maximum of $323,442.

    II. Part 103

    The CWC Act provided domestic implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. The penalty provisions of the CWC Act are codified at 22 U.S.C. 6761. A person violating 22 U.S.C. 6761(a)(1)(A), Prohibited acts relating to inspections, is subject to a civil penalty of an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each such violation. A person violating 22 U.S.C. 6761(a)(1)(B), Recordkeeping violations, is subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $5,000 for each such violation.

    According to OMB Guidance, the multiplier for the CWC Act (a 1998 statute) is 1.45023. Therefore, the new maximum civil monetary penalty for prohibited acts relating to inspections is $36,256 for each violation; and the new maximum civil monetary penalty for recordkeeping violations is $7,251 for each such violation.

    III. Part 127

    The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs is responsible for the imposition of CMPs under the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which is administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). Each of the penalty provisions of the AECA provides that the CMP for each relevant violation may not exceed $500,000.

    (1) AECA Section 38(e)

    The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 38(e), 22 U.S.C. 2778(e), occurred in 1985 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 38(e) is 2.18802; therefore, the new maximum penalty will be $1,094,010 per violation.

    (2) AECA Section 39A(c)

    The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 39A(c), 22 U.S.C. 2779a(c), occurred in 1994 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 39A(c) is 1.59089; therefore, the new maximum adjusted penalty level will be $795,445 per violation.

    (3) AECA Section 40(k)

    The most recent statutory modification of the CMPs provided for under AECA section 40(k), 22 U.S.C. 2780(k), occurred in 1989 when the maximum penalty amount was capped at $500,000 per violation. According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for AECA section 40(k) is 1.89361; therefore, the new maximum adjusted penalty level will be $946,805 per violation.

    IV. Part 138

    Section 319 of Public Law 101-121, codified at 31 U.S.C. 1352, provides penalties for recipients of federal contracts, grants, and loans who use appropriated funds to lobby the Executive or Legislative Branches of the federal government in connection with a specific contract, grant, or loan. Any person who violates that prohibition is subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure. The statute also requires each person who requests or receives a federal contract, grant, cooperative agreement, loan, or a federal commitment to insure or guarantee a loan, to disclose any lobbying; the penalty for failure to disclose is not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

    According to OMB guidance, the multiplier for 31 U.S.C. 1352 (a 1989 statute) is 1.89361. Therefore, the new maximum civil violations under the statute, for both improper expenditures and failure to disclose, are: Not less than $18,936 and not more than $189,361.

    Effective Date of Penalties

    The revised CMP amounts will go into effect on August 1, 2016. All violations for which CMPs are assessed after the effective date of this rule, regardless of whether the violation occurred before the effective date, will be assessed at the adjusted penalty level.

    Future Adjustments and Reporting

    The 2015 Act directs agencies to undertake an annual review of CMPs using a formula prescribed by the statute. Hereafter, annual adjustments to CMPs will be made in accordance with the guidance issued by OMB. The Department of State will publish notification of annual inflation adjustments to CMPs in the Federal Register no later than January 15 of each year, with the adjusted amount taking effect immediately upon publication. Furthermore, OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, directs agencies to identify any changes to CMPs in the Agency Financial Report (AFR), including the affected penalties, dates and amounts of adjustments, and applicable statutes and regulations.

    Regulatory Analysis and Notices Administrative Procedure Act

    The Department of State is publishing this rule using the “good cause” exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), as the Department has determined that public comment on this rulemaking would be impractical, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. This rulemaking is mandatory; it implements Public Law 114-74.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this rulemaking is exempt from Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule does not involve a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 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 has been found not to be a major rule within the meaning of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

    Executive Orders 12372 and 13132

    This rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to require consultations or warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on federal programs and activities do not apply to this rulemaking.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    The Department believes that benefits of the rulemaking outweigh any costs, and there are no feasible alternatives to this rulemaking. It is the Department's position that this rulemaking is not an economically significant rule under the criteria of Executive Order 12866, and is consistent with the provisions of Executive Order 13563.

    Executive Order 12988

    The Department of State has reviewed the proposed amendment in light of Executive Order 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Department of State has determined that this rulemaking will not have tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and will not preempt tribal law. Accordingly, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose or revise any information collections subject to 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    List of Subjects 22 CFR Part 35

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

    22 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Classified information, Foreign relations, Freedom of information, International organization, Investigations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    22 CFR Part 127

    Arms and munitions, Exports.

    22 CFR Part 138

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

    For the reasons set forth above, 22 CFR parts 127, 35, 103, and 138 are amended as follows:

    PART 35—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES 1. The authority citation for part 35 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

    2. In § 35.3: a. Remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$10,781”, wherever it occurs. b. Add paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 35.3 Basis for civil penalties and assessments.

    (f) The maximum penalty for each false claim or statement is $10,781, up to a maximum of $323,442.

    PART 103—REGULATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AND THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION IMPLEMENTATION ACT OF 1998 ON THE TAKING OF SAMPLES AND ON ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING RECORDKEEPING AND INSPECTIONS 3. The authority citation for part 103 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

    § 103.6 [Amended]
    4. Amend § 103.6 to remove “$25,000” and add in its place “$36,256” in paragraph (a)(1), and to remove “$5,000”, and add in its place $7,251” in paragraph (a)(2).
    PART 127—VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES 5. The authority citation for part 127 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 2, 38, and 42, Pub. L. 90-629, 90 Stat. 744 (22 U.S.C. 2752, 2778, 2791); 22 U.S.C. 401; 22 U.S.C. 2651a; 22 U.S.C. 2779a; 22 U.S.C. 2780; E.O. 13637, 78 FR 16129; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

    6. Section 127.10 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 127.10 Civil penalty.

    (a)(1) The Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs is authorized to impose a civil penalty, as follows:

    (i) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2778, an amount not to exceed $1,094,010;

    (ii) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2779a, an amount not to exceed $795,445; and

    (iii) For each violation of 22 U.S.C. 2780, an amount not to exceed $946,805.

    (2) The civil penalty may be either in addition to, or in lieu of, any other liability or penalty which may be imposed.

    PART 138—NEW RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING 7. The authority citation for part 138 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    22 U.S.C. 2651a; 31 U.S.C. 1352; Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584.

    § 138.400 [Amended]
    8. Amend § 138.400 by removing “$10,000” and “$100,000”, and adding in their place “$18,936” and “$189,361” respectively, wherever they occur.
    Dated: June 1, 2016. Lisa Aguirre, Managing Director, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls Department of State.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13455 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-25-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9770] RIN 1545-BN39 Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs]; Final and Temporary Regulations AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final and temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final and temporary regulations effecting the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 and preventing abuse of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. The temporary regulations impose corporate level tax on certain transactions in which property of a C corporation becomes the property of a REIT. The temporary regulations affect RICs, REITs, C corporations the property of which becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT, and their shareholders. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of part of the proposed regulations in the related notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-126452-15) set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    These regulations are effective June 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5085 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background 1. The General Utilities Doctrine, Its Repeal, and Section 337(d)

    In general, gain on a sale of appreciated property by a C corporation is taxed to the corporation when the sale occurs and to the shareholders when the proceeds are distributed as dividends. Historically however, a corporation generally could distribute appreciated property to its shareholders without recognition of gain to the corporation under the so-called General Utilities doctrine arising from interpretations of General Utilities & Operating Co. v. Helvering, 296 U.S. 200 (1935). See H.R. Rep. No. 99-841, at 198 (1986) (Conf. Rep.); H.R. Rep. No. 99-426, at 274-75 (1985).

    Beginning in 1969, a series of statutory limitations on the General Utilities doctrine were enacted into law. In the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, Public Law 97-248, 96 Stat. 324, current section 311(b) (originally designated as section 311(d)) was added to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) and required a corporation to recognize gain on appreciated property distributed to a shareholder in redemption of shares. Legislation enacted in 1984 required gain recognition for all non-liquidating distributions. Finally, what remained of the General Utilities doctrine was repealed (General Utilities repeal) by the enactment of subtitle D of title VI of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Public Law 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085 (the Act), which amended sections 336 and 337 of the Code to require corporations to recognize gain or loss on the distribution of property in connection with complete liquidations other than certain subsidiary liquidations. Section 337(d) was added to the Code by section 631(a) of the Act and subsequently amended by section 1006(e)(5)(A)(i) through (ii) of the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988, Public Law 100-647,102 Stat. 3342 (the Technical Amendment). This document contains amendments to 26 CFR part 1 under section 337(d).

    Section 337(d) directs the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations that are necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of General Utilities repeal, including “regulations to ensure that such purposes may not be circumvented through the use of any provision of law or regulations (including . . . part III of this subchapter) or through the use of a regulated investment company, real estate investment trust, or tax exempt entity. . . .” The legislative histories of the Act and the Technical Amendment underscore the broad grant of regulatory authority and Congress' expectation that the Treasury Department and the IRS would issue or amend regulations as necessary to further the purposes of General Utilities repeal, “includ[ing] rules to require the recognition of gain if appreciated property of a C corporation is transferred to a RIC or a REIT in a carryover basis transaction that would otherwise eliminate corporate level tax on the built-in appreciation.” H.R. Rep. No. 100-391, at 1199 (1987); see also H.R. Rep. No. 99-841, at 204 (1986) (Conf. Rep.). Section 337(d)(1) specifically refers to ensuring that the purposes of General Utilities repeal are not circumvented through the use of the corporate organization and reorganization provisions of part III, subchapter C, chapter 1 of the Code, which include section 355.

    2. Section 355 and the PATH Act

    Section 355 generally provides that, if certain requirements are satisfied, a corporation may distribute stock (or stock and securities) of one or more controlled corporations to its shareholders and security holders without the distributing corporation, its shareholders, or its security holders recognizing income, gain, or loss on the distribution (a section 355 distribution). In the course of enacting certain amendments to section 355 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Public Law 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388, Congress described section 355 as a “limited exception to the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine intended to permit historic shareholders to continue to carry on their historic corporate businesses in separate corporations” and stated that “[t]he present-law provisions granting tax-free treatment at the corporate level are particularly troublesome because they may offer taxpayers an opportunity to avoid the general rule that corporate-level tax is recognized when an asset (including stock of a subsidiary) is disposed of.” 136 Cong. Rec. S15704 (daily ed. Oct 18, 1990).1 Further, Congress noted that “[t]he bill is not intended to limit in any way the continuing Treasury Department authority to issue regulations to prevent the avoidance of the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine through any provision of law or regulations, including section 355.” Id. at S15705.

    1 The bill that resulted in Public Law 101-508, S.3209, was brought to the floor without printing a formal report, and language from the various committees to consider the bill was printed in the Congressional Record at the request of Senator Sasser to complete the legislative record.

    On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law the Protecting Americans Against Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), enacted as Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2422. Section 311(a) and (b) of the PATH Act added to the Code sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8), respectively. Section 355(h)(1) of the Code provides that section 355 shall not apply to a distribution if either the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is a REIT. Section 355(h)(2) provides exceptions permitting a REIT to distribute the stock of another REIT or of a taxable REIT subsidiary under certain conditions. Section 856(c)(8) provides that a corporation may not elect REIT status during the ten-year period following a section 355 distribution if such corporation was the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation in that distribution. Section 311(c) of the PATH Act provides that sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8) apply to distributions on or after December 7, 2015, but do not apply to any distribution pursuant to a transaction described in a ruling request initially submitted to the IRS on or before such date, which request has not been withdrawn and with respect to which a ruling has not been issued or denied in its entirety as of such date.

    3. Prior Regulations

    In certain cases, General Utilities repeal could be circumvented if property of a C corporation becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT (converted property) by a transfer of the converted property from a C corporation to a RIC or a REIT or by the qualification of the C corporation as a RIC or a REIT (either, a conversion transaction). A conversion transaction could result in elimination of the corporate level of gain in the converted property, including gain from the sale of the property, because RICs and REITs generally are not subject to tax on income that is distributed to their shareholders.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS issued Notice 88-19 (1988-1 C.B. 486) on February 4, 1988. Notice 88-19 announced the IRS's intention to promulgate regulations providing that a C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction would be treated, for all federal income tax purposes, as if it had sold all of its assets at their respective fair market values (deemed sale treatment) and immediately liquidated, unless the C corporation elected to be subject to tax under section 1374 with respect to the C corporation property (section 1374 treatment). If elected, section 1374 treatment would subject the RIC or REIT to corporate-level taxation on the built-in gain recognized during the ten-year period following the conversion transaction on the converted property. Temporary regulations under § 1.337(d)-5T (TD 8872) and a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations (REG-209135-88) were published in the Federal Register (65 FR 5775, 65 FR 5805) on February 7, 2000, and reflected the principles set forth in Notice 88-19.

    Additional temporary regulations under §§ 1.337(d)-6T and 1.337(d)-7T (TD 8975) and a notice of proposed rulemaking cross-referencing the temporary regulations (REG-142299-01 and REG-209135-88) were published in the Federal Register (67 FR 8, 67 FR 28) on January 2, 2002. The proposed regulations cross-referencing §§ 1.337(d)-5T through -7T, with modifications, were adopted on March 18, 2003 (TD 9047), and published as final regulations in the Federal Register (68 FR 12817).

    4. Current Regulations

    The final regulations in § 1.337(d)-6 apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after June 10, 1987, and before January 2, 2002, and provide that a C corporation engaging in such a conversion transaction is subject to deemed sale treatment unless the C corporation elects section 1374 treatment with respect to the converted property. The final regulations in § 1.337(d)-7 apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after January 2, 2002, and provide that the RIC or the REIT owning the property after the conversion transaction is subject to section 1374 treatment unless the C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction elects deemed sale treatment with respect to the converted property.

    In response to concerns expressed by commentators (described subsequently), the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (77 FR 22516) on April 16, 2012, a notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-139991-08) proposing amendments to § 1.337(d)-7. These amendments (the 2013 amendments) were adopted as final regulations (TD 9626) and were published in the Federal Register (78 FR 46805) on August 2, 2013.

    The 2013 amendments address two principal areas of concern. First, the 2013 amendments provide an exception from the general rule subjecting the RIC or the REIT to section 1374 treatment in the case of a transfer of property by a C corporation to a RIC or a REIT to the extent the transfer qualifies for nonrecognition treatment under section 1031 (relating to like-kind exchanges) or section 1033 (relating to involuntary conversions). The Treasury Department and the IRS did not extend this treatment to all exchanged basis transactions, such as exchanges that would otherwise qualify for nonrecognition treatment under section 351 of the Code, out of concern that such an exception could create opportunities to avoid corporate-level tax on built-in gains. Second, the 2013 amendments provide an exception for conversion transactions in which the C corporation that owned the converted property is a tax-exempt entity to the extent that gain would not be subject to tax if a deemed sale election were made. In such circumstances, the C corporation is not required to make a deemed sale election, and the RIC or the REIT is not subject to section 1374 treatment.

    5. Notice 2015-59 and Revenue Procedure 2015-43

    Congress, the Treasury Department, and the IRS are aware of transactions in which a C corporation that does not qualify as a REIT distributes the stock of a controlled corporation in a transaction intended to qualify under section 355 so that either the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation can qualify as a REIT. In many cases, a C corporation that owns both assets qualifying as real estate assets for purposes of part II, subchapter M, chapter 1 of the Code (REIT-qualifying assets) and assets that do not so qualify (non-qualifying assets) transfers either the REIT-qualifying assets or the non-qualifying assets to a controlled corporation in exchange for its stock and then distributes the controlled corporation stock to its shareholders. Before or after the distribution, the corporation holding the REIT-qualifying assets elects REIT status. If the transaction satisfies the requirements of sections 368(a)(1)(D), 355, and 361, no gain is recognized on either the transfer of assets by the distributing corporation to the controlled corporation or the distribution of the controlled corporation stock to the shareholders of the distributing corporation.

    Prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, the IRS issued Notice 2015-59 (2015-40 I.R.B. 467) and Revenue Procedure 2015-43 (2015-40 I.R.B. 495) on September 14, 2015, in part to respond to the transactions described in the preceding paragraph. Revenue Procedure 2015-43 provides that the IRS will not ordinarily issue a ruling relating to the qualification under section 355 and related provisions of a distribution in certain circumstances in which property owned by the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT. Notice 2015-59 states that such transactions “may circumvent the purposes of Code provisions intended to repeal the Supreme Court's decision” in General Utilities, such as section 337(d). The Notice also requested comments with respect to the facts and circumstances relevant to whether such transactions circumvent the purposes of General Utilities repeal. The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of informal commentary, but no formal comments have been received.

    Explanation of Provisions

    The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that section 1374 treatment imposes an appropriate regime for recognizing built-in gain for many conversion transactions. The Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned, however, that section 1374 treatment may not adequately implement the purposes of General Utilities repeal if a taxpayer effects a tax-free separation of REIT-qualifying assets from non-qualifying assets in a section 355 distribution (the related section 355 distribution) and the REIT-qualifying assets become the assets of a REIT. After such transactions, gain on the assets held by the REIT may not be taxed at the corporate level because such gain is unlikely to be recognized within the recognition period during which the REIT is subject to section 1374 treatment under the final regulations in § 1.337(d)-7. In contrast, without a section 355 distribution, a taxpayer generally could not separate REIT-qualifying assets from non-qualifying assets and cause one corporation to hold the REIT-qualifying assets and another corporation to hold the non-qualifying assets except by means of a sale or exchange to which section 1001 applies or a distribution to which section 311(b) applies.

    Moreover, the REIT and its shareholders may realize the benefit of appreciation on converted property without a transaction subject to section 1374 treatment or otherwise taxable at the corporate level. For example, a REIT that distributes rental income on appreciated converted property to its shareholders may be entitled to a dividends paid deduction under section 562 and, therefore, effectively does not pay income tax at the REIT level on that income, which in many cases will reflect the appreciation in the value of the property. Additionally, if the lessee is a C corporation (such as the other party to the section 355 distribution), the rental deductions reduce the C corporation's taxable income. In such circumstances, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that section 355 does not serve as a “limited exception to General Utilities repeal intended to enable historic shareholders to carry on their historic businesses in separate corporations” but rather creates an “opportunity to avoid the general rule that corporate-level tax is recognized when an asset . . . is disposed of.” 136 Cong. Rec. S15704.

    Section 311 of the PATH Act addresses some of the concerns just described. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that some variations of the transactions previously described may continue to be used to circumvent the purposes of section 311 of the PATH Act. In particular, there is concern that corporations affiliated with the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation could be used to circumvent the Congressional policy implemented through section 311 of the PATH Act. The Treasury Department and the IRS thus have determined that temporary regulations are necessary to prevent abuses of sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8) and to further the purposes of General Utilities repeal.

    Therefore, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing these temporary regulations providing that a C corporation engaging in a conversion transaction involving a REIT within the ten-year period following a related section 355 distribution is treated as making an election to recognize gain and loss as if it had sold all of the converted property to an unrelated party at fair market value on the deemed sale date (as defined in § 1.337(d)-7(c)(3)). Section 1374 treatment is accordingly not available in these cases as an alternative to recognizing any gain with respect to the converted property on the deemed sale date.

    The temporary regulations also provide that a REIT that is a party to a section 355 distribution occurring within the ten-year period following a conversion transaction for which a deemed sale election has not been made recognizes any remaining unrecognized built-in gains and losses resulting from the conversion transaction (after taking into account the impact of section 1374 in the interim period, as described subsequently).

    For the taxable year in which the related section 355 distribution occurs, the REIT's net recognized built-in gain is the amount of its net unrealized built-in gain limitation (as defined in § 1.1374-2(a)(3)) for such taxable year. For this purpose, the limitations in § 1.1374-2(a)(1) and (2) do not apply because the net unrealized built-in gain limitation generally achieves the effect of a deemed sale election, adjusted for prior recognized built-in gains and recognized built-in losses. As a result, the temporary regulations cause the REIT to recognize any built-in gains or losses attributable to time periods in which the REIT was a C corporation while ensuring that gains and losses recognized in previous taxable years during the recognition period on which taxes have been paid are accounted for appropriately. The temporary regulations provide an appropriate increase to the basis of the converted property held by the REIT.

    Consistent with section 311 of the PATH Act, the temporary regulations contain two exceptions. First, the temporary regulations do not apply if both the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation are REITs immediately after the date of the section 355 distribution and at all times during the two years thereafter. Second, the temporary regulations also do not apply to certain section 355 distributions in which the distributing corporation is a REIT and the controlled corporation is a taxable REIT subsidiary. In addition, and consistent with the effective date in section 311(c) of the PATH Act, the temporary regulations under § 1.337(d)-7T(f) do not apply to distributions pursuant to a transaction described in a ruling request initially submitted to the IRS on or before December 7, 2015, which request has not been withdrawn and with respect to which a ruling has not been issued or denied in its entirety as of December 7, 2015.

    To prevent avoidance, these temporary regulations apply to predecessors and successors of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation and to all members of the separate affiliated group, within the meaning of section 355(b)(3)(B), of which the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation are members. Predecessors and successors include corporations that succeed to and take into account items described in section 381(c) of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, and corporations having such items to which the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation succeed and take into account.

    The temporary regulations also make a clarifying amendment to the generally applicable rules of § 1.337(d)-7 in response to section 127 of the PATH Act, which amended Code section 1374(d)(7) to provide that the term “recognition period” means the 5-year period beginning with the first day of the first taxable year for which a corporation was an S corporation. The temporary regulations replace the term “10-year recognition period” with the new defined term “recognition period” and clarify that the recognition period is no longer determined by reference to section 1374(d)(7), but is the ten-year period beginning on the first day of the RIC or the REIT's first taxable year (in the case of a conversion transaction that is a qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or a REIT) or on the date the property is acquired by the RIC or the REIT. As a result, after August 8, 2016, § 1.337(d)-7 will no longer be affected by section 127 of the PATH Act, which amended section 1374(d)(7) of the Code to shorten the length of the recognition period from 10 years to 5 years with respect to C corporations that elect to be, or transfer property to, S corporations.

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    IRS Revenue Procedures, Revenue Rulings, notices, and other guidance cited in this document are published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations because good cause exists under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA to dispense with notice and public comment because doing so would be contrary to the public interest. These temporary regulations are necessary to prevent abuse of section 311 of the PATH Act through certain section 355 distributions that would contradict the intent of Congress. These temporary regulations are also necessary to update existing regulations under § 1.337(d)-7 to delink the determination of the recognition period from the rules of section 1374(d)(7) modified by the enactment of section 127 of the PATH Act. Accordingly, good cause exists for dispensing with notice and public comment pursuant to section 553(b) of the APA. In addition, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b)(3) and section 553(d)(3) of the APA, the requirements in section 553(d) of the APA for a delayed effective date are inapplicable to the temporary regulations necessary to prevent abuse of section 311 of the PATH Act. For the applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-reference notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, these temporary regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Austin M. Diamond-Jones, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by adding an entry in numerical order to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Section 1.337(d)-7T also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d) and 355(h).

    Par. 2. Section 1.337(d)-7 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (vii). 2. In paragraph (b)(1)(ii), removing the language “10-year recognition period” and adding “recognition period” in its place wherever it appears. 3. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii). 4. Redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as paragraph (b)(5) and adding a new paragraph (b)(4). 5. Revising paragraph (c)(1). 6. Redesignating paragraph (c)(6) as paragraph (c)(7) and adding a new paragraph (c)(6). 7. In paragraph (d)(2)(iii), removing the language “10-year recognition period” and adding “recognition period” in its place wherever it appears. 8. Redesignating paragraph (f) as paragraph (g) and adding a new paragraph (f). 9. In newly redesignated paragraph (g)(1), removing the language “(f)(2)” and adding “(g)(2)” in its place. 10. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(2).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.337(d)-7 Tax on property owned by a C corporation that becomes property of a RIC or REIT.

    (a) General rule. (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(1).

    (2) * * *

    (vi) through (vii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(2)(vi) through (vii).

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(2)(iii).

    (4) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(4).

    (c) Election of deemed sale treatment. (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(1).

    (6) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(6).

    (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(f).

    (g) * * *

    (2) Special rules—(i) Conversion transactions occurring on or after August 2, 2013 and certain prior conversion transactions. Paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v), (d)(1), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) of this section apply to conversion transactions that occur on or after August 2, 2013. However, taxpayers may apply paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (v), (d)(1), (d)(3), (d)(4), and (e) of this section to conversion transactions that occurred before August 2, 2013. For conversion transactions that occurred on or after January 2, 2002 and before August 2, 2013, see § 1.337(d)-7 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2013.

    (ii) through (iii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7T(g)(2)(ii) through (iii).

    Par. 3. Section 1.337(d)-7T is added to read as follows:
    § 1.337(d)-7T Tax on property owned by a C corporation that becomes property of a RIC or REIT.

    (a) General Rule—(1) Property owned by a C corporation that becomes property of a RIC or REIT. If property owned by a C corporation (as defined in § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(i)) becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT in a conversion transaction (as defined in § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(ii)), then section 1374 treatment will apply as described in § 1.337(d)-7(b) and paragraph (b) of this section, unless the C corporation elects, or is treated as electing, deemed sale treatment with respect to the conversion transaction as provided in § 1.337(d)-7(c) and paragraph (c) of this section. See § 1.337(d)-7(d) for exceptions to this paragraph (a).

    (2)(i) through (v) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(i) through (v).

    (vi) Section 355 distribution. The term section 355 distribution means any distribution to which section 355 (or so much of section 356 as relates to section 355) applies, including a distribution on which the distributing corporation recognizes gain pursuant to sections 355(d) or 355(e).

    (vii) Converted property. The term converted property means property owned by a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT.

    (b)(1) through (2)(ii) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(1) through (2)(ii).

    (iii) Recognition period. For purposes of applying the rules of section 1374 and the regulations thereunder, as modified by § 1.337(d)-7(b) and paragraph (b) of this section, the term recognition period means the 10-year period beginning—

    (A) In the case of a conversion transaction that is a qualification of a C corporation as a RIC or a REIT, on the first day of the RIC's or the REIT's first taxable year; and

    (B) In the case of other conversion transactions, on the day the property is acquired by the RIC or the REIT.

    (3) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(3).

    (4) Section 355 distribution following a conversion transaction—(i) In general. If a REIT is described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section and the related section 355 distribution (as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section) follows a conversion transaction, then for the taxable year in which the related section 355 distribution occurs, § 1.1374-2(a)(1) and (2) (as modified by § 1.337(d)-7(b)(2)(i)) do not apply, and the REIT's net recognized built-in gain for such taxable year is the amount of its net unrealized built-in gain limitation (as defined in § 1.1374-2(a)(3)) for such taxable year.

    (ii) Basis adjustment—(A) In general. If a REIT recognizes gain under paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section, the aggregate basis of the converted property held by the REIT at the end of the taxable year in which the related section 355 distribution occurs shall be increased by an amount equal to the amount of gain so recognized, increased by the amount of the REIT's recognized built-in loss for such taxable year, and reduced by the amount of the REIT's recognized built-in gain and recognized built-in gain carryover for such taxable year.

    (B) Allocation of basis increase. The aggregate increase in basis by reason of paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section shall be allocated among the converted property in proportion to their respective built-in gains on the date of the conversion transaction.

    (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(b)(5).

    (c) Election of deemed sale treatment—(1) In general. Section 1.337(d)-7(b) and paragraph (b) of this section do not apply if the C corporation that qualifies as a RIC or a REIT or transfers property to a RIC or a REIT makes the election described in § 1.337(d)-7(c)(5) or is treated as making such election under paragraph (c)(6) of this section. A C corporation that makes, or is treated as making, such an election recognizes gain and loss as if it sold the converted property to an unrelated party at fair market value on the deemed sale date (as defined in § 1.337(d)-7(c)(3)). See § 1.337(d)-7(c)(4) concerning limitations on the use of loss in computing gain. Section 1.337(d)-7(c) and this paragraph (c) do not apply if their application would result in the recognition of a net loss. For this purpose, net loss is the excess of aggregate losses over aggregate gains (including items of income), without regard to character.

    (2) through (5) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(c)(2) through (5).

    (6) Conversion transaction following a section 355 distribution. A C corporation described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section is treated as having made the election under § 1.337(d)-7(c)(5) with respect to a conversion transaction if the conversion transaction occurs following the related section 355 distribution (as defined in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section) and the C corporation has not made such election.

    (7) through (e) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(c)(7) through (e).

    (f) Conversion transaction preceding or following a section 355 distribution—(1) In general. A C corporation or a REIT is described in this paragraph (f)(1) if—

    (i) The C corporation or the REIT engages in a conversion transaction involving a REIT during the twenty-year period beginning on the date that is ten years before the date of a section 355 distribution (the related section 355 distribution); and

    (ii) The C corporation or the REIT engaging in the related section 355 distribution is either—

    (A) The distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, as those terms are defined in section 355(a)(1); or

    (B) A member of the separate affiliated group (as defined in section 355(b)(3)(B)) of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation.

    (2) Predecessors and successors. For purposes of this paragraph (f), any reference to a controlled corporation or a distributing corporation includes a reference to any predecessor or successor of such corporation. Predecessors and successors include corporations which succeed to and take into account items described in section 381(c) of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, and corporations having such items to which the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation succeeded and took into account.

    (3) Exclusion of certain conversion transactions. A C corporation or a REIT is not described in paragraph (f)(1) of this section if—

    (i) The distributing corporation and the controlled corporation are both REITs immediately after the related section 355 distribution (including by reason of elections under section 856(c)(1) made after the related section 355 distribution that are effective before the related section 355 distribution) and at all times during the two years thereafter;

    (ii) Section 355(h)(1) does not apply to the related section 355 distribution by reason of section 355(h)(2)(B); or

    (iii) The related section 355 distribution is described in a ruling request referred to in section 311(c) of Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2422.

    (g) Effective/Applicability date. (1) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(g)(1).

    (2) Special rules. (i) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.337(d)-7(g)(2)(i).

    (ii) Conversion transactions occurring on or after June 7, 2016. Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(vi) and (vii), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(6), and (f) of this section apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after June 7, 2016 and to conversion transactions and related section 355 distributions for which the conversion transaction occurs before, and the related section 355 distribution occurs on or after, June 7, 2016. For conversion transactions that occurred on or after January 2, 2002 and before June 7, 2016, see § 1.337(d)-7 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2016.

    (iii) Recognition period. Paragraphs (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), and (d)(2)(iii) of this section applies to conversion transactions that occur on or after August 8, 2016. For conversion transactions that occurred on or after January 2, 2002 and before August 8, 2016, see § 1.337(d)-7 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2016.

    (h) Expiration date. The applicability of this section expires on June 7, 2019.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: May 11, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2016-13443 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0940] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, FL. This rule implements restrictions that allow the bridge to remain closed during peak vehicle traffic times. Bridge openings during peak vehicle traffic times cause major traffic jams that may be avoided without negatively impacting vessel traffic on the Indian Creek. Modifying the bridge operating schedule will reduce major vehicle traffic issues during rush hour times.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-0940. In the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Rod Elkins with the Coast Guard; telephone 305-415-6989, 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

    On February, 18, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Indian Creek, Miami Beach, FL in the Federal Register (81 FR 8168). We received 508 comments on this rule.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.

    The 63rd Street Bridge across Indian Creek, mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, Florida is a single leaf bascule bridge. It has a vertical clearance of 11 feet at mean high water in the closed position and a horizontal clearance of 50 feet. Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the 63rd Street Bridge is required to open on signal for the passage of vessels. Traffic on the waterway includes both commercial and recreational vessels.

    The City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County determined through bridge studies, traffic logs, and public meetings that restricting bridge openings during peak traffic hours will significantly reduce vehicular traffic congestion. Based on this determination, the City of Miami Beach requested this action to alleviate additional traffic congestion created by bridge openings during peak hours.

    In addition to changing the schedule to allow for limited openings during the regular work week, the Coast Guard is making a regulatory change that will apply during the annual boat show. Every year in mid-February the City of Miami Beach hosts the Yacht and Brokerage Show which creates unusually high vehicle and vessel traffic during the weeks before and after the show. The Coast Guard typically issues temporary deviations to the 63rd Street Bridge operations that help balance vessel and vehicle needs during those times. The Coast Guard is adopting the annual temporary deviation as part of this bridge regulation. The bridge owner, Florida Department of Transportation concurs with this Final Rule change.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    There were 508 comments received concerning the proposed rule. Of these comments, 497 were in favor of the proposed rule. Eight comments recommended various additional closure times that place more restrictions on bridge openings and do meet the reasonable needs of navigation. Two comments recommended openings on the hour and half hour at all times of day. The Coast Guard did not adopt these proposals because they are less restrictive than necessary to balance the needs of vehicle traffic during peak travel hours of the day and more restrictive than necessary to accommodate the reasonable needs of maritime navigation outside times of increased vehicle traffic. One comment recommended placing a toll system for openings on the bridge. This rulemaking seeks to set an operating schedule that will balance the needs of vehicle traffic with the reasonable needs of navigation. Therefore, the Coast Guard did not accept this proposal because it is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

    The Coast Guard is adding § 117.293 as proposed without change.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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. E.O. 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 E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the waterway during scheduled openings. Additionally, vessels that are capable of transiting under the bridge in the closed position, may do so at any time.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels that require more than eleven feet vertical clearance that need to transit the bridge during daytime closure periods. Vessels will still be allowed to transit this waterway at all times if they can clear without an opening, or at the specified times if they need the bridge open. This change in operating schedule will still meet the reasonable needs of navigation while taking into account other modes of transportation.

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule simply promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. This action is categorically excluded from further review, under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.

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

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

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

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

    2. Add § 117.293 to read as follows:
    § 117.293 Indian Creek.

    The draw of the 63rd Street Bridge, Indian Creek mile 4.0, at Miami Beach, shall open on signal except as follows:

    (a) From 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need open only on the hour and half-hour.

    (b) From 7:10 a.m. to 9:55 a.m. and 4:05 p.m. to 6:59 p.m., Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels.

    (c) In February of each year during the period seven days prior to the City of Miami Beach Yacht and Brokerage Show and the four days following the show, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., the bridge need not open except for 10 minutes at the top of the hour. At all other times the bridge shall operate on its normal schedule.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. S.A. Buschman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13458 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0145] Safety Zone; Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks on the Ohio River, from mile marker 470.1 and ending at 470.4, extending 500 feet from the State of Ohio shoreline. This rule is effective during specific home games during the Major League Baseball season. Should the Cincinnati Reds make the playoffs and have additional home games; the Coast Guard will provide notification of enforcement periods via Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins as appropriate. This action is needed to protect vessels transiting the area and event spectators from the hazards associated with the Cincinnati Reds Barge-based fireworks. During the enforcement period, entry into or transiting in the safety zone is prohibited to all vessels not registered with the sponsor as participants or official patrol vessels.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.801, Table No. 1, Line no. 2 will be enforced from 9:00 p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on April 6, April 8, April 22, May 6, May 20, June 3, June 10, June 24, July 15, July 22, July 31, August 19, September 2, September 16, and September 30, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Caloeb Gandy, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard at telephone 502-779-5334, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone for the Cincinnati Reds Season Fireworks listed in 33 CFR 165.801, Table no. 1, Line no. 2. These regulations can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, under 33 CFR 165.801 or in the Federal Register (77 FR 12460). As specified in § 165.801, during the enforcement period no vessel may transit this safety zone without approval from the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP). If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR part 165 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advanced notification of this enforcement period via Local Notice to Mariners (LNM) and Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM). If the COTP Ohio Valley determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration, a BNM to grant general permission to enter the safety zone may be used.

    Dated: March 24, 2016. R.V. Timme, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13584 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION 36 CFR Part 1202 [FDMS No. NARA-16-0005; NARA-2016-021] RIN 3095-AB91 Privacy Act of 1974; Exemptions AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is revising its Privacy Act regulations to add a new insider threat system of records to the records exempt from release under the law enforcement exemption of the Privacy Act. This action is necessary to protect investigatory information from release that could compromise or damage the investigation, result in evidence tampering or destruction, undue influence of witnesses, danger to individuals, and similar harmful effects.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 18, 2016, without further action, unless NARA receives adverse comments warranting action by July 8, 2016. If NARA receives an adverse comment warranting further action, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3095-AB91, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include RIN 3095-AB91 in the subject line of the message.

    Fax: 301-837-0319. Include RIN 3095-AB91 in the subject line of the fax cover sheet.

    Mail (for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions. Include RIN 3095-AB91 on the submission): Regulations Comment Desk (External Policy Program, Strategy & Performance Division (SP)); Suite 4100; National Archives and Records Administration; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740-6001.

    Hand delivery or courier: Deliver comments to front desk at the address above.

    Instructions: All submissions must include NARA's name and the regulatory information number for this rulemaking (RIN 3095-AB91). We may publish any comments we receive without changes, including any personal information you include.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Keravuori, by email at [email protected], or by telephone at 301-837-3151.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is adding a system of records to its existing inventory of systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) (“Privacy Act”). The new system is NARA 45, Insider Threat Program records (we are publishing the NARA 45 SORN concurrently with this regulation), and it comprises records gathered for purposes of investigating threats to NARA facilities, personnel, or systems, or national security. The system contains investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative violations and law enforcement actions.

    The Privacy Act generally grants individuals the right to access agency records maintained about themselves, and the right to request that the agency amend those records if they are not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete. However, the Privacy Act also exempts, by means of ten specific exemptions, an agency from granting a person access to information about themselves that the agency compiles for certain types of law enforcement or investigatory actions. Specifically for the purposes of this rulemaking, the Privacy Act exempts an agency from granting access to “investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of this section: Provided, however, that if any individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit that he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such material, such material shall be provided to such individual, except to the extent that the disclosure of such material would reveal the identity of a source who furnished information to the Government under an express promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence, or, prior to the effective date of this section [September 27, 1975], under an implied promise that the identity of the source would be held in confidence.” 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

    NARA currently exempts Office of Inspector General investigative files under the (k)(2) exemption. See 36 CFR 1202.92. For similar reasons, we are now adding the insider threat program files to the same regulation section because the Insider Threat Program Records system of records contains investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged violations, compiled for law enforcement purposes. Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Privacy Act, to qualify for this exemption the agency must compile the material for some investigative “law enforcement” purpose, such as a civil or criminal investigation. Multiple court decisions have upheld the exemption for investigative records covering a range of purposes from discrimination complaints (see, e.g., Menchu v. HHS, 965 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1248 (D. Or. 2013)), fraud, waste, and abuse complaints (see, e.g., Gowan v. Air Force, 148 F.3d 1182, 1188-89 (10th Cir. 1998)), and taxpayer audits (see, e.g., Welsh v. IRS, No. 85-1024, slip op. at 2-3 (D.N.M. Oct. 21, 1986)), to civil trust fund recovery penalty investigations (see, e.g., Berger v. IRS, 487 F. Supp. 2d 482, 497-98 (D.N.J. 2007), aff'd 288 F. App'x 829 (3d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2789 (2009)) and deportation investigations (see, e.g., Shewchun v. INS, No. 95-1920, slip op. at 3, 8-9 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 1996), summary affirmance granted, No. 97-5044 (D.C. Cir. June 5, 1997)). In addition, courts have also determined that this exemption covers investigations into potential threats to national security (see, e.g., Strang v. U.S. Arms Control & Disarmament Agency, 864 F.2d 859, 862-63 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“this case involves not a job applicant undergoing a routine check of his background and his ability to perform the job, but an existing agency employee investigated for violating national security regulations.”)

    Routine background investigation files are generally not exempt under the (k)(2) exemption of the Privacy Act, but in some limited cases portions of them may be exempt under (k)(2) because they also include information that would be the subject of a law enforcement investigation under the scope of the exemption (see, e.g., Cohen v. FBI, No. 93-1701, slip op. at 4-6 (D.D.C. Oct. 3, 1995) (finding that particular information within a background investigation file qualified as “law enforcement” information “withheld out of a legitimate concern for national security,” and that “ `[s]o long as the investigation was “realistically based on a legitimate concern that federal laws have been or may be violated or that national security may be breached” the records may be considered law enforcement records' ” (quoting Vymetalik v. FBI, 785 F.2d 1090, 1098 (D.C. Cir. 1986), in turn quoting Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408, 421 (D.C. Cir. 1982))).

    NARA maintains a centralized hub for insider threat analysis to (1) manually and electronically gather, integrate, review, assess, and respond to information derived from internal and external sources, and (2) identify potential insider threat concerns and conduct an appropriate inquiry to resolve the concern. Section 811 of the Intelligence Authorization Act for FY 1995; executive orders 13587, 13526, 12333, and 10450; Presidential Memorandum, National Insider Threat Policy and Minimum Standards for Executive Branch Insider Threat Programs, November 21, 2012; Presidential Memorandum, Early Detection of Espionage and Other Intelligence Activities through Identification and Referral of Anomalies, August 23, 1996; and Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-12, Security Awareness and Reporting of Foreign Contacts, August 5, 1993, authorize these insider threat assessment and investigation activities. As a result, the records in this system of records qualify as investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes under the meaning of the Privacy Act's (k)(2) exemption. NARA is revising its regulations to exempt this information from disclosure under the Privacy Act so that it can prevent these investigations from being impeded or damaged by releasing the information.

    Regulatory Analysis Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (September 30, 1993), and Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulation Review, 76 FR 23821 (January 18, 2011), 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). This rule is not “significant” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 because will not create an economic or budgetary impact, create an inconsistency or interfere with other agencies, and does not raise novel issues; it exempts certain records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act in accord with established criteria. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation.

    Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.)

    This review requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis and publish it when the agency publishes the proposed rule. This requirement does not apply if the agency certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (5 U.S.C. 603). NARA certifies, after review and analysis, that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small entities because it does not create an economic impact and does not affect small entities; it exempts certain records from certain provisions of the Privacy Act.

    Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    Review Under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999)

    Review under Executive Order 13132 requires that agencies review regulations for federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local governments, and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, prepare a Federal assessment to assist senior policy makers. This rule will not have any direct effects on State and local governments within the meaning of the Executive Order. Therefore, the regulation requires no federalism assessment.

    List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 1202

    Privacy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, NARA proposes to amend 36 CFR part 1202 as follows:

    PART 1202—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 1. The authority citation for part 1202 remains as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552(a); 44 U.S.C. 2104(a).

    § 1202.92 [Amended]
    2. Revise § 1202.92 to read as follows:
    § 1202.92 What NARA systems of records are exempt from release under the Law Enforcement Exemption of the Privacy Act?

    (a) The Investigative Files of the Inspector General (NARA-23) and the Insider Threat Program Records (NARA-45) systems of records are eligible for exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) because these record systems contain investigatory material of actual, potential, or alleged criminal, civil, or administrative violations, compiled for law enforcement purposes other than within the scope of subsection (j)(2) of 5 U.S.C. 552a. If you are denied any right, privilege, or benefit to which you would otherwise be entitled by Federal law, or for which you would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the record, NARA will make the record available to you, except for any information in the record that would disclose the identity of a confidential source as described in 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

    (b) The systems described in paragraph (a) of this section are exempt from 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1) and (e)(4), (G) and (H), and (f). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:

    (1) From subsection (c)(3) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because releasing disclosure accounting could alert the subject of an investigation about the alleged violations, about the existence of the investigation, and about the fact that they are being investigated by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Insider Threat Office, or another agency. Releasing these records could provide significant information concerning the nature of the investigation and result in tampering with or destroying evidence, influencing witnesses, endangering individuals involved, and other activities that could impede or compromise the investigation.

    (2) From the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because access to the information contained in these systems of records could inform the subject of an investigation about an actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violation; about the existence of that investigation; about the nature and scope of the information and evidence obtained on the person's activities; about the identity of confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel; and about information that may enable the person to avoid being detected or apprehended. These factors present a serious impediment to effective law enforcement when they prevent investigators from successfully completing the investigation, endanger the physical safety of confidential sources, witnesses, and law enforcement personnel, or lead to improperly influencing witnesses, destroying evidence, or fabricating testimony. In addition, granting access to such records could disclose security-sensitive or confidential business information or information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties. Amending these records could allow the subject to avoid being detected or apprehended and interfere with ongoing investigations and law enforcement activities.

    (3) From subsection (e)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because applying this provision could impair investigations and interfere with the law enforcement responsibilities of the OIG, the Insider Threat Office, or another agency for the following reasons:

    (i) It is not possible to detect relevance or need for specific information in the early stages of an investigation, case, or matter. After the investigators evaluate the information, they may establish its relevance and need.

    (ii) During an investigation, the investigating office may obtain information about other actual or potential criminal, civil, or administrative violations, including those outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The office should retain this information, as it may help establish patterns of inappropriate activity, and can provide valuable leads for Federal and other law enforcement agencies.

    (iii) When interviewing individuals or obtaining other forms of evidence during an investigation, the investigator may receive information that relates to matters incidental to the primary purpose of the investigation but which may also relate to matters under the investigative jurisdiction of another office or agency. The investigator cannot readily segregate such information.

    (4) From subsection (e)(4)(G) and (H) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d), pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.

    (5) From subsection (f) of 5 U.S.C. 552a because these systems are exempt from the access and amendment provisions of subsection (d) of 5 U.S.C. 552a, pursuant to subsection (k)(2) of the Privacy Act.

    Dated: May 29, 2016. David S. Ferriero, Archivist of the United States.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13599 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0300; FRL-9947-35-Region 9] Completeness Findings for 110(a)(2)(C) State Implementation Plan Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS; California; El Dorado County Air Quality Management District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making a finding that the State of California has made a complete New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission for the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) to address the permitting of emissions of particulate matter 2.5 micrometers (μm) in diameter and smaller (PM2.5) from major sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as required by the Clean Air Act (CAA). In addition, the EPA is making a finding that the State of California has not made the necessary NSR SIP submission for the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) to address the permitting of PM2.5 emissions from major sources in areas designated nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, as required by the EPA no later than December 31, 2014. The EPA is making these findings in accordance with section 110 and part D of Title I of the CAA.

    DATES:

    The effective date of this rule is July 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, Air Division (Air-3), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone (415) 972-3534; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because no significant EPA judgment is involved in making a finding of failure to submit SIPs, or elements of SIPs, required by the CAA, where states have made no submissions to meet the requirement by the statutory date. No additional fact gathering is necessary. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary. The EPA finds this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).

    Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. Background and Overview A. Relevant PM2.5 NAAQS B. Revisions to the NSR Program To Implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS II. This Action A. Completeness Determination B. Finding of Failure To Submit III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Overview A. Relevant PM2.5 NAAQS

    On October 17, 2006, the EPA promulgated revisions to the NAAQS for PM2.5 with an effective date of December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61144). With these revisions, the EPA lowered the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5 from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3, and retained the existing annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. The EPA promulgated designations for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS that became effective on December 14, 2009, which designated certain areas within the jurisdiction of EDCAQMD and YSAQMD as nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688, Nov. 13, 2009).

    B. Revisions to the NSR Program To Implement the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    To implement the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR purposes, the EPA issued a final rule that established the NSR permitting requirements for PM2.5, entitled Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate Matter Less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM 2.5 ), on May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28321). Among other things, the final rule amended the NSR regulations to establish the minimum elements for state and local agencies implementing a nonattainment NSR program for major sources for the PM2.5 NAAQS. The final rule required states to submit SIP revisions to address these requirements to the EPA by July 15, 2011.

    In 2013, certain provisions of EPA's May 16, 2008 final rule were affected by a judicial decision, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit determined that the EPA must regulate PM2.5 in nonattainment areas under the particulate-matter-specific provisions of subpart 4 of part D of Title I of the CAA. As a partial response to this judicial decision, the EPA finalized a rulemaking on June 2, 2014 which, among other things, set a new date of December 31, 2014 for states to submit SIP revisions to address applicable nonattainment SIP requirements for PM2.5, pursuant to subpart 4 of part D of Title I of the CAA. 79 FR 31566. Accordingly, states are required to have submitted all elements of a nonattainment NSR SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS to the EPA by no later than December 31, 2014.

    II. This Action A. Completeness Determination

    The EPA is making a finding that the State of California submitted an NSR SIP revision for EDCAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS on March 21, 2016, which the EPA determined met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, on March 30, 2016. This completeness finding establishes a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon such SIP submission in accordance with section 110(k).

    B. Finding of Failure To Submit

    The EPA is making a finding that, as of the date of signature for this document, the State of California has failed to submit the required NSR program SIP revision for YSAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as required by December 31, 2014. This action will be effective on July 8, 2016.

    If the EPA finds that a state has failed to make a required SIP submission or that a submitted SIP submission is incomplete for elements of a part D, Title I plan for nonattainment areas as required under section 110(a)(2)(I), then CAA section 179(a) establishes specific consequences, including the imposition of mandatory sanctions for the affected area. Additionally, such a finding triggers an obligation under CAA section 110(c) for the EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2 years from the effective date of such finding of failure to submit, if the affected state has not submitted, and the EPA has not approved, the required SIP submission before that date.

    In this case, if the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the State of California has made the required complete NSR program SIP submission for YSAQMD to address NSR requirements for major sources in nonattainment areas for purposes of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS within 18 months of the effective date of this rulemaking, then, pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the affected nonattainment areas. In addition, if the EPA has not affirmatively determined that the State has made such a complete submission within 6 months after the offset sanction is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in the affected nonattainment areas, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1) and 40 CFR 52.31. The sanctions will not take effect, if, within 18 months after the effective date of this finding of failure to submit, the EPA finds that the State has made a complete SIP submission addressing the deficiency for which the finding was made. Additionally, if the State makes the required SIP submission and the EPA takes final action to approve the submission within 2 years of the effective date of this finding, the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP for the affected nonattainment areas per CAA section 110(c).

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the PRA. This final rule does not establish any new information collection requirement apart from what is already required by law. This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements of the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule addresses the requirement in the CAA for states to submit nonattainment NSR SIPs for major sources to satisfy certain NSR requirements under the CAA for the PM2.5 NAAQS. No tribe is subject to this requirement. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it provides EPA's finding that the State of California has failed to make a submission for YSAQMD that is required under the CAA to implement the PM2.5 NAAQS, and does not directly or disproportionately affect children.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. In finding that the State of California has failed to submit a SIP to address certain basic permitting requirements for the PM2.5 NAAQS, for YSAQMD, this action does not directly affect the level of protection provided for human health or the environment.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 8, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13491 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [GN Docket No. 12-268, WT Docket Nos. 14-70, 05-211, RM-11395; FCC 15-80] Updating Competitive Bidding Rules AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; announcement of effective date.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved on May 23, 2016, an information collection for FCC Form 611-T, FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Annual Report Related to Eligibility for Designated Entity Benefits and 47 CFR 1.2110(n) contained in the Report and Order, FCC 15-80. This document is consistent with the Report and Order, which stated that the Commission would publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and the effective date of the requirements.

    DATES:

    47 CFR 1.2110(n), published at 80 FR 56764 on September 18, 2015 and revised FCC Form 611-T, are effective on July 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information contact Cathy Williams, [email protected], (202) 418-2918.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This document announces that, on May 23, 2016, OMB approved the information collection requirements for FCC Form 611-T, FCC Wireless Telecommunication Bureau Annual Report Related to Eligibility for Designated Entity Benefits and 47 CFR 1.2110(n) contained in the Report and Order, FCC 15-80. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1092. If you have any comments on the burden estimates listed below, or how the Commission can improve the collections and reduce any burdens caused thereby, please contact Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Please include the OMB Control Number, 3060-1092, in your correspondence. The Commission will also accept your comments via the Internet if you send them to [email protected]

    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 and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

    Synopsis

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), the FCC is notifying the public that it received OMB approval on May 23, 2016, for the information collection requirements contained in the information collection 3060-1092. Under 5 CFR 1320, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a current, valid OMB Control Number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act that does not display a current, valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number is 3060-1092. The foregoing document is required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, October 1, 1995, and 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The total annual reporting burdens and costs for the respondents are as follows:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1092.

    OMB Approval Date: May 23, 2016.

    OMB Expiration Date: January 31, 2017.

    Title: Interim Procedures for Filing Applicants Seeking Approval for Designated Entity Reportable Eligibility Events and Annual Reports.

    Form Number: FCC Form 611-T and FCC Form 609-T (only Form 611-T was revised with this submission to OMB).

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for Profit Institutions; and State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 1,100 respondents and 2,750 responses.

    Estimated Hours per Response: 0.50 to 6 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting requirements.

    Total Annual Burden: 7,288 hours.

    Total Annual Costs: 2,223,375.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 4(i), 308(b), 309(j)(3) and 309(j)(4).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality required with this collection of information.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: On July 20, 2015, the Commission released the Part 1 R&O in which it updated many of its Part 1 competitive bidding rules (See Updating Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions; Petition of DIRECTV Group, Inc. and EchoStar LLC for Expedited Rulemaking to Amend Section 1.2105(a)(2)(xi) and 1.2106(a) of the Commission's Rules and/or for Interim Conditional Waiver; Implementation of the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act and Modernization of the Commission's Competitive Bidding Rules and Procedures, Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration of the First Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration of the Second Report and Order, and Third Report and Order, FCC 15-80, 30 FCC Rcd 7493 (2015), modified by Erratum, 30 FCC Rcd 8518 (2015) (Part 1 R&O)). Of relevance to the information collection at issue here, the Commission amended 47 CFR 1.2110(n), which requires designated entity licensees to file with the Commission an annual report for each license it holds that was acquired using designated entity benefits and that, as of August 31 of the year in which the report is due, remains subject to designated entity unjust enrichment requirements. Because the Commission amended 47 CFR 1.2110(n), the Commission is also amending FCC Form 611-T, which is the form that is used to collect this information.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13088 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 660 [Docket No. 160303183-6183-01] RIN 0648-BF58 Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fisheries Off West Coast States; Tribal Usual and Accustomed Fishing Areas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule implements the decision in United States v. Washington, 2:09-sp-00001-RSM, (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2015) (Amended Order Regarding Boundaries of Quinault & Quileute U&As), which set forth certain boundaries of the usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas in the Pacific Ocean of the Quileute Nation (Quileute) and Quinault Indian Nation (Quinault). This action also includes related changes to NMFS regulations to provide consistency for tribal U&A fishing area boundaries across all fisheries managed by NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson Act).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective June 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information relevant to this final rule are available from William W. Stelle, Jr., Regional Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-0070. Electronic copies of this final rule are also available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gretchen Hanshew, phone: 206-526-6147, fax: 206-526-6736, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Electronic Access

    This rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.

    Background

    The Magnuson Act requires that any fishery management plan approved by the Secretary of Commerce and any implementing regulations be consistent with all provisions of the Act and “any other applicable law.” 16 U.S.C. 1854(b)(1). “Other applicable law” includes treaties with northwest Indian tribes reserving “the right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations.” Washington State Charterboat Association v. Baldrige, 702 F.2d 820, 823 (9th Cir. 1983). For many years, NMFS has recognized that it must accommodate these treaty fishing rights regardless of whether the details of those rights have been judicially determined. In 1986, NMFS's regulations first described “treaty fishing areas” of the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes. 51 FR 16471 (May 2, 1986). For purposes of this rule, Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes means the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation. The boundary descriptions of treaty fishing areas first applied only to the Pacific halibut fishery, but in 1987 the same descriptions were adopted for the Pacific salmon fishery. 52 FR 17264 (May 6, 1987). NMFS has consistently stated that these boundaries were not intended to represent a formal determination of the boundaries of treaty fishing areas, and that they are subject to change as necessary to comport with future court orders.

    In 1996, NMFS issued a final rule amending its regulations managing West Coast groundfish fisheries and describing the physical boundaries of Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas. This rule described the same areas that had previously been set forth in NMFS regulations. In promulgating the rule, NMFS explained that:

    Under this rule, NMFS recognizes the same U&A areas that have been implemented in Federal salmon and halibut regulations for a number of years. The States and the Quileute tribe point out that the western boundary has only been adjudicated for the Makah tribe. NMFS agrees. NMFS, however, in establishing ocean management areas, has taken the adjudicated western boundary for the Makah tribe, and extended it south as the western boundary for the other three ocean tribes. NMFS believes this is a reasonable accommodation of the tribal fishing rights, absent more specific guidance from a court. NMFS regulations, including this regulation, contain the notation that the boundaries of the U&A may be revised by order of the court.

    61 FR 28786, 28789 (June 6, 1996)

    Subsequently, NMFS promulgated regulations to describe the same U&A fishing area boundaries in its regulations for coastal pelagic species and highly migratory species. 66 FR 44986 (August 27, 2001) (coastal pelagic species); 68 FR 68834 (December 10, 2003) (highly migratory species). The same boundaries are also codified in the regulations governing Pacific halibut fisheries. 50 CFR 300.64. Regulations governing Pacific salmon fisheries are not codified, but also use the same boundaries when issued on a yearly basis. See, e.g., 81 FR 26157 (May 2, 2016).

    Newly Adjudicated Boundaries of Pacific Coast Treaty Tribes' U&A Fishing Areas

    On August 27, 2015, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington set forth the boundaries of the U&A fishing areas for the Quileute and the Quinault. United States v. Washington, 2:09-sp-00001-RSM, (W.D. Wash. Aug. 27, 2015) (Order Regarding Boundaries of Quinault & Quileute U&As). That order was amended on September 3, 2015. United States v. Washington, 2:09-sp-00001-RSM, (W.D. Wash. Sept. 3, 2015) (Amended Order Regarding Boundaries of Quinault & Quileute U&As). This rulemaking implements the September 3 Amended Order. These newly adjudicated boundaries differed in some respects from the boundaries that NMFS adopted in the 1996 regulations. Specifically, the adjudicated northern boundary of the Quileute's U&A fishing area and the western boundary of the Quinault's U&A fishing area differ from the 1996 regulations. Accordingly, NMFS now revises the latitude and longitude coordinates describing the tribes' U&A fishing areas, consistent with the September 3, 2015, court order. Other boundaries, and their supporting rationale as described in the June 6, 1996, rule (61 FR 28789) are not affected by this rulemaking.

    Technical Revisions

    The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribal U&A fishing areas are referenced in several places within title 50, part 660. To reduce duplicative regulations and ensure consistency within title 50, part 660, regulations describing the Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas are consolidated and moved to § 660.4, subpart A. Cross-references to Pacific coast treaty tribes' U&A fishing areas throughout title 50, part 660 are updated. Minor changes to regulations are made to consistently refer to “U&A fishing areas” rather than “U&As.”

    Minor changes are also made to consistently refer to the tribes' U&A fishing areas “within the EEZ.” Regulations at § 660.50(c) previously described tribal U&A fishing areas as “within the fishery management area.” “Fishery management area” is defined slightly differently in the various parts and subparts within title 50, part 660, and include additional details that do not apply for the purpose of describing U&A fishing areas. The term “fishery management area” as it relates to Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas is therefore replaced with the term EEZ, which is defined at § 600.10.

    All of the minor regulatory changes described in “Technical Revisions” are non-substantive, and intended to reduce duplicative regulations and bring consistency among the parts and subparts in title 50, part 660, regarding Pacific coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas.

    Classification

    The Administrator, West Coast Region, NMFS, determined that the minor regulatory amendments associated with the Court-ordered changes to tribal U&A fishing areas, which this final rule implements, are necessary for conservation and management and are consistent with the Magnuson Act and other applicable laws.

    NMFS finds good cause to waive prior public notice and comment on the revisions to regulations in this final rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Affording the time necessary for notice and comment rulemaking for these changes to regulations is impracticable and contrary to the public interest because the district court has issued its final judgment and the boundaries adjudicated by the court are controlling. NMFS's regulations must be modified consistent with the court order as quickly as possible to bring them into compliance with the legal requirements. It is further necessary to act quickly to modify the tribal U&A fishing area boundaries and to make related, minor technical corrections in title 50, part 660, to prevent the confusion that arises out of conflicting boundaries, which adds complexity to the management regime and creates problems for state and Federal management and enforcement. Furthermore, NMFS is not exercising any discretion in issuing this rule, but only making the changes necessary to comply with the court order. For the same reasons, NMFS also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness.

    This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The regulations at § 660.50(d) state treaty rights “will be implemented by the Secretary” and regulations will be developed in consultation with the affected tribe(s). The minor regulatory amendments associated with the Court-ordered changes to tribal U&A fishing areas in this final rule have been developed following these procedures.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 660

    Fisheries, Fishing, and Indian Fisheries.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 660 is amended as follows:

    PART 660—FISHERIES OFF WEST COAST STATES 1. The authority citation for part 660 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 773 et seq., and 16 U.S.C. 7001 et seq.

    2. A new § 660.4 is added to subpart A to read as follows:
    § 660.4 Usual and accustomed fishing areas for Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes.

    (a) The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas within the EEZ are set out below in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section. Boundaries of a tribe's fishing area may be revised as ordered by a Federal court.

    (1) Makah. The area north of 48°02.25′ N. lat. (Norwegian Memorial) and east of 125°44′ W. long.

    (2) Quileute. The area between 48°10.00′ N. lat. (Cape Alava) and 47°31.70′ N. lat. (Queets River) and east of 125°44.00′ W. long.

    (3) Hoh. The area between 47°54.30′ N. lat. (Quillayute River) and 47°21.00′ N. lat. (Quinault River) and east of 125°44.00′ W. long.

    (4) Quinault. The area between 47°40.10′ N. lat. (Destruction Island) and 46°53.30′ N. lat. (Point Chehalis) and east of 125°08.50′ W. long.

    (b) [Reserved]

    3. In § 660.11, add a new definition for “Usual and accustomed fishing areas” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 660.11 General definitions.

    Usual and accustomed fishing areas or U&A fishing areas for Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes, occurring within the EEZ, are described at § 660.4, subpart A.

    4. In § 660.12, revise paragraph (a)(14) to read as follows:
    § 660.12 General groundfish prohibitions.

    (a) * * *

    (14) During times or in areas where at-sea processing is prohibited, take and retain or receive Pacific whiting, except as cargo or fish waste, on a vessel in the fishery management area that already has processed Pacific whiting on board. An exception to this prohibition is provided if the fish are received within the tribal U&A fishing area, described at § 660.4, subpart A, from a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe fishing under § 660.50, subpart C.

    5. In § 660.50, revise paragraphs (b), (c), (e)(4), and (g)(11) to read as follows:
    § 660.50 Pacific Coast treaty Indian fisheries.

    (b) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes. For the purposes of this part, Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes means the Hoh Indian Tribe, Makah Indian Tribe, Quileute Indian Tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation.

    (c) Usual and accustomed fishing areas or U&A fishing areas. The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas within the EEZ are set out in § 660.4.

    (e) * * *

    (4) Fishing outside the U&A fishing area or without a groundfish allocation. Fishing by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe outside the applicable Indian tribe's U&A fishing area, or for a species of groundfish not covered by an allocation, set-aside, or regulation under this section, is subject to the regulations in the other sections of subpart C through subpart G of this part. Treaty fisheries operating within tribal allocations are prohibited from operating outside the U&A fishing areas described at § 660.4, subpart A.

    (g) * * *

    (11) EFH. Measures implemented to minimize adverse impacts to groundfish EFH, as described in § 660.12 of this subpart, do not apply to tribal fisheries in their U&A fishing areas described at § 660.4, subpart A.

    6. In 660.112, revise paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 660.112 Trawl fishery—prohibitions.

    (c) * * *

    (2) During times or in areas where at-sea processing is prohibited, take and retain or receive Pacific whiting, except as cargo or fish waste, on a vessel in the fishery management area that already has processed Pacific whiting on board. An exception to this prohibition is provided if the fish are received within the tribal U&A fishing area, described at § 660.4, subpart A, from a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe fishing under § 660.50, subpart C.

    7. In § 660.518, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as follows:
    § 660.518 Pacific Coast Treaty Indian Rights.

    (a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to harvest CPS in their usual and accustomed fishing areas in the EEZ.

    (b) For the purposes of this section, Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes means the Hoh, Makah, and Quileute Indian Tribes and the Quinault Indian Nation, and their “usual and accustomed fishing areas” are described at § 660.4, subpart A.

    8. In § 660.706, revise paragraphs (a), (c), (d), (f) and (h) to read as follows:
    § 660.706 Pacific Coast Treaty Indian rights.

    (a) Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes have treaty rights to harvest HMS in their usual and accustomed (U&A) fishing areas in the EEZ.

    (c) The Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribes' U&A fishing areas within the EEZ are set forth in § 660.4 of this chapter.

    (d) Procedures. The rights referred to in paragraph (a) of this section will be implemented by the Secretary of Commerce, after consideration of the tribal request, the recommendation of the Council, and the comments of the public. The rights will be implemented either through an allocation of fish that will be managed by the tribes, or through regulations that will apply specifically to the tribal fisheries. An allocation or a regulation specific to the tribes shall be initiated by a written request from a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe to the NMFS West Coast Regional Administrator, at least 120 days prior to the time the allocation is desired to be effective, and will be subject to public review through the Council process. The Secretary of Commerce recognizes the sovereign status and co-manager role of Indian tribes over shared Federal and tribal fishery resources. Accordingly, the Secretary of Commerce will develop tribal allocations and regulations in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.

    (f) Fishing (on a tribal allocation or under a Federal regulation applicable to tribal fisheries) by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe within that tribe's U&A fishing area is not subject to provisions of the HMS regulations applicable to non-treaty fisheries.

    (h) Fishing by a member of a Pacific Coast treaty Indian tribe outside that tribe's U&A fishing area, or for a species of HMS not covered by a treaty allocation or applicable Federal regulation, is subject to the HMS regulations applicable to non-treaty fisheries.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13469 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150818742-6210-02] RIN 0648-XE667 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Other Hook-and-Line Fishery by Catcher Vessels in the Gulf of Alaska AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than demersal shelf rockfish or sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota Program, by catcher vessels (C/Vs) using hook-and-line gear in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA has been reached.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), June 10, 2016, until 2400 hours A.l.t., December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Obren Davis, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA is 129 metric tons as established by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

    In accordance with § 679.21(d)(6)(ii), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the Pacific halibut bycatch allowance specified for the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish, other than demersal shelf rockfish or sablefish managed under the Individual Fishing Quota Program, by C/Vs using hook-and-line gear in the GOA. After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay closure of the other hook-and-line fishery by C/Vs in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of June 1, 2016.

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

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

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Alan D. Risenhoover, Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13454 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 110 Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 205 [Doc. No. AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06] RIN 0581-AD44 National Organic Program (NOP); Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices Proposed Rule; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016 (71 FR 21956) on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. This document extends the comment period for the proposed rule for 30 days from June 13, 2016 to July 13, 2016. Multiple stakeholders requested that AMS extend the comment period due to the complexity and importance of the proposal. AMS is granting an extension.

    DATES:

    All comments must be received on or before July 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments on the Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices proposed rule using one of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Paul Lewis Ph.D., Director Standards Division, National Organic Program, USDA-AMS-NOP, Room 2646-So., Ag Stop 0268, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20250-0268.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the docket number AMS-NOP-15-0012; NOP-15-06PR, and/or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 0581-AD44 for this rulemaking. Commenters should identify the topic and section of the proposed rule to which their comment refers. All commenters should refer to the General Information section in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for more information on preparing your comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov.

    Docket: For access to the docket, including background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Comments submitted in response to this proposed rule will also be available for viewing in person at USDA-AMS, National Organic Program, Room 2646-South Building, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC, from 9 a.m. to 12 noon and from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday (except official Federal holidays). Persons wanting to visit the USDA South Building to view comments received in response to this proposed rule are requested to make an appointment in advance by calling (202) 720-3252.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Paul Lewis, Ph.D., Director, Standards Division. Telephone: (202) 720-3252; Fax: (202) 260-9151.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice extends the public comment period provided in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2016 (71 FR 21956) on Organic Livestock and Poultry Practices. In the proposed rule, AMS solicits public comments generally and requests comments on specific topics. AMS is extending the comment period, which was set to end on June 13, 2016, to July 13, 2016.

    AMS is proposing to amend the organic livestock and poultry production requirements by: Adding new provisions for livestock handling and transport for slaughter and avian living conditions; and expanding and clarifying existing requirements covering livestock health care practices and mammalian living conditions.

    To submit comments, or access the proposed rule docket, please follow the instructions provided under the ADDRESSES section. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 6501-6522.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13537 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7003; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-015-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes that would supersede AD 2014-22-01. This proposed AD results from 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 a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual). We are issuing this proposed AD to require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: (202) 493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 73 11; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com or email: [email protected] You may review copies of the 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.

    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-2016-7003; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7003; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-015-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On October 20, 2014, we issued AD 2014-22-01, Amendment 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014) (“AD 2014-22-01”). That AD required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country.

    Since we issued AD 2014-22-01, PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued revisions to the Limitations section of the airplane maintenance manual to include repetitive inspections of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD No. 2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations are currently defined and published in the Pilatus PC-12 Aircraft Maintenance Manual(s) (AMM) under Chapter 4, Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The limitations contained in these documents have been identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.

    Failure to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe condition.

    EASA issued AD 2014-0170 requiring the actions as specified in ALS, Chapter 4 of AMM report 02049 issue 28, for PC-12, PC-12/45 and PC-12/47 aeroplanes, and Chapter 4 of AMM report 02300 issue 11, for PC-12/47E aeroplanes.

    Since that AD was issued, Pilatus issued Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM report 02049 issue 31, and Chapter 4 of PC-12 AMM report 02300 issue 14 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the applicable ALS' in this AD), to incorporate new six-year and ten-year inspection intervals for several main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts, and an annual inspection interval for the MLG shock absorber attachment bolts, which was previously included in the AMM Chapter 5 annual inspection. After a further review of the in-service data, Pilatus issued Service Letter (SL) 186, extending the special compliance time applicable for the MLG bolts inspection.

    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2014-0170, which is superseded, and requires the accomplishment of the new maintenance tasks, as described in the applicable ALS.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7003.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. has issued Structural, Component and Miscellaneous—Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, and Structural and Component Limitations—Airworthiness Limitations, document 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015. 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 this NPRM.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 770 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $98,175, or $127.50 per product. This breaks down as follows:

    • Incorporating new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual): .5 work-hour for a fleet cost of $32,725, or $42.50 per product.

    • New inspections: MLG attachment bolts: 1 work-hour with no parts cost for fleet cost of $65,450 or $85 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary corrective actions (on-condition costs) that must be taken based on the proposed inspections, would take about 1 work-hour and require parts costing approximately $100 for a cost of $185 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need these necessary corrective actions. This breaks down as follows:

    The only costs that would be imposed by this proposed AD over that already required by AD 2014-22-01 is insertion of the revised Limitation section and the MLG attachment bolts inspection and replacement as necessary.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Amendment 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014), and adding the following new AD: PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.: Docket No. FAA-2016-7003; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-015-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. Models PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, and PC-12/47E airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers (MSNs), certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

    (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 a need to incorporate new revisions into the Limitations section, Chapter 4, of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual). The limitations were revised to include repetitive inspections of the main landing gear (MLG) attachment bolts. These actions are required to ensure the continued operational safety of the affected airplanes.

    (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(6) of this AD:

    (1) Before further flight after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), insert the following revisions into the Limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance program (e.g., maintenance manual):

    (i) STRUCTURAL, COMPONENT AND MISCELLANEOUS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-A-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12, PC-12/45, PC-12/47, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02049, 12-A-AM-00-00-00-I, revision 31, dated November 10, 2015; and

    (ii) STRUCTURAL AND COMPONENT LIMITATIONS—AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS, Data module code 12-B-04-00-00-00A-000A-A, dated September 28, 2015, of the Pilatus Model type—PC-12/47E MSN-1001-UP, Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM), Document No. 02300, 12-B-AM-00-00-00-I, revision 14, dated November 6, 2015.

    (2) The limitations section revisions listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD do the following:

    (i) Establish inspections of the MLG attachment bolts,

    (ii) Specify replacement of components before or upon reaching the applicable life limit, and

    (iii) Specify accomplishment of all applicable maintenance tasks within certain thresholds and intervals.

    (3) Only authorized Pilatus Service Centers can do the Supplemental Structural Inspection Document (SSID) as required by the documents in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD because deviations from the type design in critical locations could make the airplane ineligible for this life extension.

    (4) If no compliance time is specified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD when doing any corrective actions where discrepancies are found as required in paragraph (f)(2)(iii) of this AD, do these corrective actions before further flight after doing the applicable maintenance task.

    (5) During the accomplishment of the actions required in paragraph (f)(2) of this AD, including all subparagraphs, if a discrepancy is found that is not identified in the documents listed in paragraphs (f)(1)(i) and (f)(1)(ii) of this AD, before further flight after finding the discrepancy, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD. at the address specified in paragraph (h) of this AD for a repair scheme and incorporate that repair scheme.

    (6) Within the next 6 years time-in-service after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD) or within the next 3 months TIS after July 13, 2016 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs later, inspect the MLG attachment bolts for cracks and corrosion take all necessary corrective actions.

    (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: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; fax: (816) 329-4090; email: [email protected]

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-01, 39-18005 (79 FR 67343, November 13, 2014) are not approved as AMOCs for this AD.

    (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 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2016-0083, dated April 28, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7003. For service information related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Service Manager, CH-6371 STANS, Switzerland; telephone: +41 (0) 41 619 33 33; fax: +41 (0) 41 619 73 11; Internet: http://www.pilatus-aircraft.com or email: [email protected] You may review copies of the 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.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on May 27, 2016. Melvin Johnson, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13249 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6897; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-187-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-03-01, for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2015-03-01 currently requires installing additional attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. Since we issued AD 2015-03-01, there have been updates to the weight and balance data needed to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes. This proposed AD would require weight and balance data to be included in the Weight and Balance Manual and applicable logbooks for airplanes modified per Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision B, dated August 1, 2014. The proposed AD would also require the weight and balance data to be used in order to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes. We are proposing this AD to prevent damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces from dislodged engine fan cowl panels, and prevent incorrect weight and balance calculations. Incorrect weight and balance calculations may shift the center of gravity beyond approved design parameters and affect in-flight control, which could endanger passengers and crew.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2016-6897; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6897; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-187-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On January 30, 2015, we issued AD 2015-03-01, Amendment 39-18097 (80 FR 7298, February 10, 2015) (“AD 2015-03-01”). AD 2015-03-01 requires installing additional attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. Since we issued AD 2015-03-01, we have determined it is necessary to update the weight and balance data needed to calculate the center of gravity for affected airplanes.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-20R1, dated August 12, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes The MCAI states:

    There have been a number of engine fan cowl panel dislodgement incidents reported on the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 aeroplane fleet. The dislodged panels may cause damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces of the aeroplane. Also, the debris from a dislodged panel may result in runway contamination and has the potential of causing injury on the ground.

    Although the majority of the subject panel dislodgements were reported on the first or second flight after an engine maintenance task was performed that required removal and reinstallation of the subject panels, the frequency of the dislodgements indicates that the existing attachment design is prone to human (maintenance) error.

    In order to mitigate the potential safety hazard of the subject panel dislodgement, Bombardier had issued Service Bulletin (SB) 601R-71-034 to install additional fasteners for the attachment of the engine fan cowl panels to the nacelle's structure. Compliance of the above SB was mandated by the original issue of [Canadian] AD CF-2014-20 dated 9 July 2014 [which corresponded to FAA AD 2015-03-01].

    Bombardier has now revised the SB 601R-71-034 (to Revision C) requiring weight and balance data to be included in the Weight and Balance manual for aeroplanes modified per the subject SB. This revised [Canadian] AD is issued to mandate compliance with SB 601R-71-034, Rev C.

    Required actions also include the retained actions of modifying the engine fan cowl panel. 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-2016-6897. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin, 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015. The service information provides procedures for modifying the fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures. The service information also provides updated weight and balance data. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 497 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2015-03-01 and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $5,458 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2015-03-01 is $6,138 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $42,245, 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 proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2015-03-01, Amendment 39-18097 (80 FR 7298, 8February 10, 2015), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-6897; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-187-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 25, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2015-03-01, Amendment 39-18097 (80 FR 7298, February 10, 2015) (“AD 2015-03-01”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by dislodged engine fan cowl panels. We are issuing this AD to prevent damage to the fuselage and flight control surfaces from dislodged engine fan cowl panels, and prevent incorrect weight and balance calculations. Incorrect weight and balance calculations may shift the center of gravity beyond approved design parameters and affect in-flight control, which could endanger passengers and crew.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Fastener Installation, With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2015-03-01, with revised service information. Within 6,000 flight hours after March 17, 2015 (the effective date of AD 2015-03-01): Install attaching hardware on the left and right fan cowl access panels and the nacelle attaching structures, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision B, dated August 1, 2014; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015. As of the effective date of this AD, only Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015, may be used.

    (h) Inserting Weight and Balance Data

    Within 6,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, revise the applicable Weight and Balance Manual to include the weight and balance data specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision C, dated May 8, 2015.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, dated March 31, 2014; or Service Bulletin 601R-71-034, Revision A, dated April 28, 2014. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531.

    (i) 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.

    (ii) Global AMOC 15-36, dated August 28, 2015, is approved as an AMOC for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-20R1, dated August 12, 2015. 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-2016-6897.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 2016. Dionne Palermo, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-12887 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6115; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-14] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Lakota, ND AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Lakota, ND. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures developed at Lakota Municipal Airport, for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6115 Docket No.16-AGL-14, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA order 7400.9Z at NARA, call 202-741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6115/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-14.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Central Service Center, Operation Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport, Lakota, ND, to accommodate new standard instrument approach procedures. Controlled airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

    PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Section 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL ND E5 LAKOTA, ND [New] Lakota Municipal Airport, ND

    (Lat. 48°01′44″ N., long. 098°19′33″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Lakota Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on May 26, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13304 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-126452-15] RIN 1545-BN06 Certain Transfers of Property to Regulated Investment Companies [RICs] and Real Estate Investment Trusts [REITs] AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the IRS is issuing temporary regulations effecting the repeal of the General Utilities doctrine by the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The text of those regulations also serves as part of the text of these proposed regulations. These proposed regulations would impose corporate level tax on certain transactions in which property of a C corporation becomes the property of a REIT. The proposed regulations also make an amendment not addressed in the temporary regulations. The proposed regulations affect RICs, REITs, C corporations the property of which becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT, and their shareholders.

    DATES:

    Comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-126452-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov/ (IRS REG-126452-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Austin M. Diamond-Jones, (202) 317-5085; concerning the submission of comments or to request a public hearing, Regina Johnson, (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Explanation of Provisions

    Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 337(d). The temporary regulations impose corporate level tax on certain transactions in which property of a C corporation becomes the property of a REIT. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments.

    The proposed regulations also include a modification to the definition of converted property that is not addressed in the temporary regulations. This modification treats as converted property any property the basis of which is determined, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of property owned by a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that such property presents similar concerns with regard to the purposes of General Utilities repeal as other property of a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or REIT.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13653. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these proposed regulations would primarily affect large corporations with a substantial number of shareholders. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, this regulation has been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations. In particular, comments are requested regarding the scope of the terms predecessors and successors. In addition, although related section 355 distributions occurring before or after conversion transactions involving RICs do not present the same degree of concern regarding the purposes of General Utilities repeal, comments are requested as to whether the proposed regulations regarding related section 355 distributions should, like the rules of § 1.337(d)-7 generally, apply to both conversion transactions involving RICs and conversion transactions involving REITs. All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Austin M. Diamond-Jones of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 is amended by revising the entry for § 1.337(d)-7 to read in part as follows: Authority:

    26 U.S.C. 7805 . . .

    Section 1.337(d)-7 also issued under 26 U.S.C. 337(d) and 355(h).

    Par. 2. Section 1.337(d)-7 is amended by: 1. Revising paragraph (a)(1) and adding paragraphs (a)(2)(vi) and (vii). 2. Revising paragraph (b)(2)(iii). 3. Adding paragraph (b)(4). 4. Revising paragraph (c)(1). 5. Adding paragraph (c)(6). 6. Adding paragraph (f). 7. Revising paragraphs (g)(2)(ii) and (iii). 8. Adding paragraph (g)(2)(iv).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 1.337(d)-7 Tax on property owned by a C corporation that becomes property of a RIC or REIT.

    (a) General rule. (1) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(a)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (2) * * *

    (vi) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(a)(2)(vi) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(a)(2)(vi) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (vii) Converted property. The term converted property means property owned by a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT and any other property the basis of which is determined, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, by reference to the basis of the property owned by a C corporation that becomes the property of a RIC or a REIT.

    (b) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(b)(2)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(2)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (4) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(b)(4) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(b)(4) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (c) Election of deemed sale treatment. (1) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(c)(1) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(1) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (6) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(c)(6) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(c)(6) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (f) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(f) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(f) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (g) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) Conversion transactions occurring on or after June 7, 2016. Paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2)(vi), (b)(4), (c)(1), (c)(6), and (f) of this section will apply to conversion transactions occurring on or after June 7, 2016 and to conversion transactions and related section 355 distributions for which the conversion transaction occurs before, and the related section 355 distribution occurs on or after, June 7, 2016. For conversion transactions that occurred on or after January 2, 2002 and before June 7, 2016, see § 1.337(d)-7 as contained in 26 CFR part 1 in effect on April 1, 2016.

    (iii) [The text of the proposed amendment to § 1.337(d)-7(g)(2)(iii) is the same as the text of § 1.337(d)-7T(g)(2)(iii) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    (iv) Converted property. Paragraph (a)(2)(vii) of this section applies to conversion transactions that occur on or after the date these regulations are published in the Federal Register as final regulations.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13425 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030] RIN 1219-AB87 Examinations of Working Places in Metal and Nonmetal Mines AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; notice of public hearings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is proposing to amend the Agency's standards for the examination of working places in metal and nonmetal (MNM) mines. The purpose of this proposed rule is to ensure that mine operators identify and correct conditions that may adversely affect miners' safety or health. MSHA is proposing to require that an examination of the working place be conducted before miners begin work in an area and that the operator notifies miners in the working place of any conditions found that may adversely affect their safety or health. MSHA is also proposing that the competent person conducting the examination sign and date the examination record before the end of each shift, that the record includes information regarding adverse conditions found and corrective actions taken, and that operators make such records available to miners and their representatives. The proposal would enhance the quality of working place examinations in MNM mines and help assure that violations of mandatory health or safety standards are identified and corrected, thereby improving protections for miners.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Time on September 6, 2016.

    Hearing Dates: July 19, 2016, July 21, 2016, July 26, 2016, and August 4, 2016. The locations are listed in the Public Hearings section in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Post-hearing comments must be received by midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030, by one of the following methods:

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

    E-Mail: [email protected].

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Suite 4E401, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    Information Collection Requirements: Comments concerning the information collection requirements of this proposed rule must be clearly identified with RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030, and sent to both MSHA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments to MSHA may be sent by one of the methods in the ADDRESSES section above. Comments to OMB may be sent by mail addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attn: Desk Officer for MSHA.

    Instructions: All submissions must include RIN 1219-AB87 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0030. Do not include personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all comments without change, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk on the 4th floor East, Suite 4E401.

    E-Mail Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rules in the Federal Register, go to http://www.msha.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Introduction A. Public Hearings B. Statutory and Regulatory History II. Background Information III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review V. Feasibility VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations IX. References I. Introduction A. Public Hearings

    MSHA will hold four public hearings on the proposed rule to provide the public with an opportunity to present oral statements, written comments, and other information on this rulemaking. The public hearings will begin at 9 a.m. and end after the last presenter speaks, and in any event not later than 5 p.m., on the following dates at the locations indicated:

    Date Location Contact number July 19, 2016 Homewood Suites by Hilton, Salt Lake City-Downtown, 423 West 300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 (801) 363-6700 July 21, 2016 Hyatt Place Pittsburgh—North Shore, 260 North Shore Drive, Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 321-3000 July 26, 2016 Mine Safety and Health Administration Headquarters, 201 12th Street, South, Rooms 7W204 & 7W206, Arlington, VA 22202 (202) 693-9440 August 4, 2016 Sheraton Birmingham Hotel, 2101 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard North, Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 324-5000

    The hearings will begin with an opening statement from MSHA, followed by an opportunity for members of the public to make oral presentations. You do not have to make a written request to speak; however, persons and organizations wishing to speak are encouraged to notify MSHA in advance for scheduling purposes.

    Speakers and other attendees may present information to MSHA for inclusion in the rulemaking record. The hearings will be conducted in an informal manner. Formal rules of evidence or cross examination will not apply.

    A verbatim transcript of the proceedings will be prepared and made a part of the rulemaking record. Copies of the transcript will be available to the public. The transcript may also be viewed on MSHA's Web site at http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, under Comments on Public Rule Making. MSHA will accept post-hearing written comments and other appropriate information for the record from any interested party, including those not presenting oral statements.

    B. Statutory and Regulatory History

    On July 31, 1969, MSHA's predecessor, the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Mines, published a final rule (34 FR 12503) addressing health and safety standards for Metal and Nonmetallic Open Pit Mines; Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone Operations; and Metal and Nonmetallic Underground Mines. These standards were promulgated pursuant to the 1966 Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act (MNM Act). The final rule included some mandatory standards and some advisory standards. The final rule at §§ 55.18-8, 56.18-8, and 57.18-8 set forth an advisory standard stating that each working place “should be visited by a supervisor or a designated person at least once each shift and more frequently as necessary to insure that work is being done in a safe manner.”

    The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977 (Mine Act) amended the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 (Coal Act) to include MNM mines and repealed the MNM Act. The Mine Act retained the mandatory standards and regulations promulgated under the Coal Act and the MNM Act. In addition, section 301(b)(2) of the Mine Act required the Secretary of Labor to establish an advisory committee to review all advisory standards under the MNM Act and to either revoke them or make them mandatory (with or without revision). On August 17, 1979 (44 FR 48490), MSHA revised, renumbered, and made mandatory the Agency's advisory standards regarding working place examinations. This resulted in standards, set forth at §§ 55.18-2, 56.18-2, and 57.18-2, that mirrored the language that currently exists at §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002.

    On January 29, 1985 (50 FR 4048), MSHA combined and recodified the standards in 30 CFR parts 55 and 56 into a single part 56 that applies to all surface MNM mines. As a part of this effort, the MNM working place examination standards were redesignated as 30 CFR 56.18002 and 57.18002. No change was made to the language of the standards.

    II. Background Information

    Mining continues to be one of the nation's most hazardous occupations. Mining operations have dynamic work environments where working conditions can change rapidly and without warning. Under the Mine Act, mine operators with the assistance of the miners have the primary responsibility to prevent the existence of unsafe and unhealthful conditions and practices. Compliance with safety and health standards and adoption of safe work practices provide a substantial measure of protection against hazards that cause accidents, injuries, and fatalities. MSHA has determined that effective accident prevention strategies include an examination of working places.

    Under existing §§ 56.18002 and 57.18002, MSHA requires that a competent person designated by the operator examine each working place at least once each shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health, that the operator promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions, and that the operator keep records for one year that the examinations were conducted. These standards also require the operator to withdraw persons from an area where conditions may present an imminent danger, except those persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Mine Act, until the danger is abated.

    The proposal would require that operators promptly notify miners of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health. It would also require that the examination record include additional information that MSHA believes would help assure that adverse conditions are identified and corrected, and that the record be made available to miners and their representatives so that they can be made aware of these conditions. MSHA is proposing that the record include: (1) The locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that could adversely affect the safety or health of miners; and (2) a description of the corrective action and date the corrective action was taken. The proposal would also require that the competent person who conducted the examination sign and date the examination record before the end of each shift.

    MSHA believes that making and maintaining a record of adverse conditions found and corrective actions taken would help mine operators and miners and their representatives become more aware of potential dangers and more proactive in their approach to correcting these issues before they cause or contribute to an accident, injury, or fatality. Under this proposed rule, MSHA anticipates that improved communication at the mine site about adverse conditions and the best practices used to correct the conditions will encourage awareness and participation at all levels, fostering a culture of safety and health at the mine.

    In developing the proposed rule, MSHA reviewed accident investigation reports and the Agency's enforcement data from January 2010 through mid-December 2015. During this period, 122 miners were killed in 110 accidents at MNM mines. MSHA conducted investigations into each of these 110 fatal accidents and issued 252 citations and orders for violations of 95 different mandatory safety and health standards. MSHA's analysis of the accident investigations further revealed that in more than 60 percent of the fatal accidents (67 out of 110), the Agency had issued at least one citation or order for a violation of a mandatory safety or health standard identified in MSHA's Rules to Live By (RTLB) initiative, launched in February 2010. Violations of the 19 MNM RTLB standards represent the conditions or practices that have been most frequently cited as causing or contributing to fatal accidents.

    At this point, MSHA believes that most operators and miners should be familiar with the RTLB standards. Under the proposal, the additional communication that would be required by operators (1) notifying miners of conditions that violate RTLB standards and other adverse conditions and (2) recording additional information about these conditions in the examination record should further serve to educate miners, their representatives, and operators about adverse conditions and encourage prompt corrective action. In this way, MSHA believes the proposal will help prevent fatalities and other accidents.

    Over the years, MSHA has issued Program Policy Letters (PPL) regarding working place examinations, including PPL No. P94-IV-5 (1994); PPL No. P96-IV-2 (1996); PPL No. P10-IV-3 (2010); PPL No. P14-IV-01 (2014); and PPL P15-IV-01 (July 22, 2015). The PPLs are MSHA's guidance and best practices regarding compliance with the existing standards. MSHA inspectors, miners, mine operators, trainers, and the mining community use these PPLs as guidance in determining how best to comply with MSHA's standards on working place examinations.

    As discussed in PPL No. P15-IV-01 and other PPLs, MSHA believes that, for a record to provide meaningful information, it should contain the following: (1) The date of the examination; (2) the examiner's name; and (3) the working places examined. As reflected in the PPLs, MSHA also believes that, as a best practice, the record should include a description of the conditions found that adversely affect safety or health.

    Effective working place examinations are a fundamental accident prevention tool; they allow operators to find and fix adverse conditions and violations of health and safety standards before they cause injury or death to miners. MSHA believes that notifying miners of adverse conditions in their working place allows the miner to take appropriate precautions until the adverse condition is corrected. Records alert operators to take prompt corrective action. The following are recent examples of adverse conditions that existed for more than one shift prior to causing or contributing to a fatal accident.1 MSHA believes that, had the person making the examination noted these conditions prior to miners working in an area, had the conditions been recorded, and had the operator warned miners about these conditions, the accidents may have been prevented.

    1 Examples of accidents cited may be in litigation.

    In March 2011, a contract supervisor was fatally injured when he was struck by a section of pipe. He was supervising the operation of joining two ends of pipe using a pipe-fusion machine. The positioning cylinder was defective and had been removed from the pipe-fusion machine eight days prior to the accident. Since the positioning cylinder was removed, the machine could not hold the pipe in place. MSHA believes that, had a competent person identified and recorded the adverse condition before miners used the machine, the operator could have warned miners and removed the machine from service until the cylinder was repaired and replaced, thus preventing the fatal accident.

    In January 2015, a fatal accident occurred at a phosphate rock mine. A heavy equipment operator was operating an excavator near a water-filled ditch when the excavator tipped on its side, into the water, trapping the miner inside the nearly submerged cab. The equipment operator was rescued from the cab and hospitalized, but died later that day. Three days prior to the accident, several inches of rain fell in the area causing the ditch to fill with water and overflow, making the ditch invisible to persons working in the area. MSHA believes that had a competent person conducted a workplace examination before miners started working in the area the hazard would have been identified; notification to affected miners of the water-filled ditch would have made them aware of the hazardous condition; and a record of the hazardous condition would have prompted corrective action and prevented the fatality.

    Another fatal accident in March 2015 involved a haul truck driver at a sand and gravel mine. The driver was driving on an elevated roadway on an embankment next to the mine's dredge pond. The roadway, which was recently established, had no berm as a barrier to the drop-off as required by MSHA standards. The truck went off the roadway into the pond. The driver was hospitalized and died two days later. MSHA believes that the operator should have recognized during a workplace examination that a berm was not in place along the banks of the elevated haul road and warned miners before miners started work in that area. MSHA also believes that a record of this hazard likely would have prompted corrective action and that these actions would have prevented the accident that occurred.

    From 2013 through 2015, there were 68 fatalities at MNM mines, as compared with 54 fatalities in the preceding three years (2010-2012). To reduce fatalities at MNM mines, MSHA has engaged, and continues to share best practices and training materials with stakeholders in the MNM industry. The Agency has provided stakeholders with guidance and compliance assistance materials to help mine operators find and fix violations of mandatory safety and health standards. These efforts included stakeholder conferences, online training sessions, and a “walk and talk” safety initiative in which MSHA's inspectors and field staff provided operators and miners information about potentially hazardous tasks and conditions, as well as best mining practices to prevent accidents, injuries, and fatalities. These efforts, however, have not been sufficient to address the increase in fatalities that began in 2013.

    This proposed rule is intended to strengthen MSHA's requirements for MNM working place examinations to help prevent the kind of accidents discussed above. MSHA believes that the proposed requirements that operators examine working places before miners begin work in an area and notify miners of any adverse conditions that may adversely affect safety or health would assure that miners and operators are aware of hazards and take proactive actions to correct hazards. In addition, the record required under the proposed rule would help assure that adverse conditions are identified and corrected promptly.

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    This proposed rule would help reduce common causes of accidents, injuries, and fatalities at MNM mines by enhancing the effectiveness of working place examinations.

    A. Sections 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a)—Requirements for Conducting Working Place Examinations

    Proposed §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) would require an examination of each working place at least once each shift, before work begins in an area, for conditions that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.

    Existing §§ 56.2 and 57.2 define the phrase “working place” as: “any place in or about a mine where work is being performed.” In PPL No. P15-IV-01, MSHA clarifies that “working place” applies to all locations at a mine where miners work in the extraction or milling processes. The Agency further explains that this includes areas where work is performed on an infrequent basis, such as areas accessed primarily during periods of maintenance or clean-up, if miners will be performing work in these areas during the shift. As discussed in previous guidance, the “working place” would not include roads not directly involved in the mining process, administrative office buildings, parking lots, lunchrooms, toilet facilities, or inactive storage areas. Operators would be required to examine isolated, abandoned, or idle areas of mines or mills only when miners have to perform work in these areas during the shift.

    The existing standards for examinations of working places in MNM mines in §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) require that a competent person designated by the mine operator examine each working place at least once per shift for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions. While the existing standards permit the examination to be made at any time during the shift, MSHA is proposing that the examination start before work begins in an area. MSHA believes that the proposal is consistent with the remedial intent of the Mine Act and the existing standards. MSHA also believes that the proposed requirement that operators conduct an examination of working places before work begins in an area would provide better protection of miners. MSHA requests comments on whether the Agency should require that examinations be conducted within a specified time period, e.g., 2 hours, before miners start work in an area. Please provide specific rationale for your position, and include the merits for your argument.

    Like the existing rule, the proposed rule would require that the examination be made by a competent person designated by the mine operator. In PPL No. P15-IV-01, MSHA emphasized that the competent person designated by the operator to conduct working place examinations should be able to recognize hazards and adverse conditions that are expected or known to occur in a specific work area or that are predictable to someone familiar with the mining industry. MSHA states in various PPLs that, although a best practice is for a foreman or other supervisor to conduct the examination in most cases, an experienced non-supervisory person may also be “competent.” The PPLs emphasized that a competent person designated by the operator under §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) must already have the experience and training to be able to perform the examination and identify safety and health hazards.

    MSHA requests comment on whether the Agency should require that the competent person conducting a working place examination have a minimum level of experience or particular training or knowledge to identify workplace hazards. The Agency requests information on whether a competent person should have a certain ability, experience, knowledge, or training that would enable the person to recognize conditions that could adversely affect safety or health. Please provide the rationale, including supporting documentation.

    Proposed §§ 56.18002(a)(1) and 57.18002(a)(1) incorporate the existing requirements in §§ 56.18002(a) and 57.18002(a) that the mine operator promptly initiate action to correct conditions that may adversely affect safety or health that are found during the examination, and would add a new requirement that the operator promptly notify the miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found during the working place examination. MSHA believes that miners need to know about adverse conditions in their working place so that they can take precautions to avoid an accident or injury.

    Proposed §§ 56.18002(a)(2) and 57.18002(a)(2) are substantively the same as existing §§ 56.18002(c) and 57.18002(c). These provisions would require that, if the competent person finds conditions that may present an imminent danger, these conditions must be brought to the immediate attention of the operator. The operator must immediately withdraw all persons from the affected area until the danger is abated, except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Mine Act who are necessary to eliminate the imminent danger.

    Imminent danger is defined in section 3(j) of the Mine Act as the existence of any condition or practice which could reasonably be expected to cause death or serious physical harm before such condition or practice can be abated. From January 2010 through December 2015, MSHA has issued 1,819 imminent danger orders under section 107(a) of the Mine Act in MNM mines.

    B. Sections 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b)—Requirements for Records of Working Place Examinations

    MSHA believes that, to be effective, working place examinations must be timely, made by a competent person, and made in the areas where miners work. MSHA is proposing that working place examination records include additional information the Agency believes is necessary to accomplish the intent of the standards.

    The proposed rule would add new requirements addressing the contents of the examination record. The introductory text to proposed §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) would continue to require that a record of the working place examination be made. The proposed rule would add the requirement that the competent person who conducted the examination sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(1) and 57.18002(b)(1) would require the record to include the locations examined and a description of any adverse conditions found. MSHA believes that this proposed requirement for a description of the adverse conditions found would expedite the correction of these conditions. Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(2)(i) through (iii) and 57.18002(b)(2)(i) through (iii) are new provisions; they would require that, if any adverse condition is found, the record must include:

    • A description of the action taken to correct the adverse condition,

    • The date that the corrective action was taken, and

    • The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the corrective action was taken. (MSHA expects that the person taking the corrective action would make this record.)

    The proposed rule would redesignate the requirement for recordkeeping in existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) as proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(3) and 57.18002(b)(3). Existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) require that a record that such working place examinations were conducted shall be kept by the operator for a period of one year and shall be made available for review by the Secretary or his authorized representative. The proposed rule would add new requirements that the record also be made available to miners and their representatives and that a copy be provided to the Secretary or his authorized representative or a miners' representative when they request a copy. MSHA solicits comments on these proposed requirements.

    C. Request for Comments

    Please provide any other data or information that would be useful to MSHA as the Agency evaluates its proposal related to working place examinations in MNM mines. Please provide the rationale and sufficient detail in your comments to enable proper Agency review and consideration. Where possible, include specific examples to support the rationale and other relevant information, including past experience, studies and articles, and standard professional practices. Include any related cost and benefit data with your submission, and information on economic and technological feasibility.

    Based data reported on MSHA Form 7000-2, 90 percent of MNM mines employ fewer than 20 miners. In addition, almost all (98 percent) of MNM mines are surface operations. Over half of all MNM mines are surface sand and gravel or crushed stone operations that operate intermittently or seasonally and employ five or fewer miners. For this reason, MSHA is particularly interested in comments related to the impact of the proposed rule on small mines, particularly comments and suggestions on alternatives and best practices that small mines might use to implement more effective working place examinations.

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

    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.

    Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Agency must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action that is likely to result in a rule: (1) Having an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or communities (also referred to as “economically significant”); (2) creating serious inconsistency or otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raising novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.

    Based on its assessment of the costs and benefits, MSHA has determined that this proposed rule would not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy and, therefore, would not be an economically significant regulatory action pursuant to section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. MSHA requests comments on all cost and benefit estimates presented in this preamble and on the data and assumptions the Agency used to develop estimates.

    A. Population at Risk

    The proposed rule would apply to all MNM mines in the United States. In 2014, there were approximately 11,800 MNM mines employing 145,800 miners, excluding office workers, and 75,800 contractors working at MNM mines.

    Table 1 presents the number of MNM mines and employment by mine size.

    Table 1—MNM Mines and Employment in 2014 Mine size No. of mines Total
  • employment
  • at mines,
  • excluding
  • office workers
  • 1-19 Employees 10,599 52,328 20-500 Employees 1,162 73,253 501+ Employees 26 20,186 Contractors 75,762 Total 11,787 221,529 Source: MSHA MSIS Data (reported on MSHA Form 7000-2) August 26, 2015.

    The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) estimated the value of the U.S. mining industry's MNM output in 2014 to be $77.6 billion.2 Table 2 presents the hours worked and revenue produced at MNM mines by mine size.

    2 Production revenue estimates are from DOI, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, February 2015, page 8.

    Table 2—MNM Total Hours and Revenues in 2014 Mine size Total hours
  • reported
  • for year
  • Revenue
  • (in millions of dollars)
  • 1-19 Employees 86,704,486 $23,539 20-500 Employees 156,402,789 $42,461 501+ Employees 42,730,947 $11,600 Total 285,838,222 $77,600 Source: MSHA MSIS Data (total hours worked at MNM mines reported on MSHA Form 7000-2) and estimated DOI reported mine revenues for 2014 by mine size.
    B. Benefits

    The proposed rule would require additional recordkeeping provisions to assure that adverse conditions are recorded and corrected. The proposed rule would provide for more detailed examination records that include essential information that the operator can use to correct recognized hazards and protect miners. The proposed provisions to record the adverse conditions found during the examinations and the corrective actions taken to mitigate the hazards, and to notify miners of the adverse conditions that may adversely affect safety or health, would better achieve the protections intended under the existing requirements. The additional information recorded in the examination records would assist MSHA, mine operators, and miners in focusing efforts on correcting hazardous conditions.

    MSHA is unable to quantify the benefits from this proposed rulemaking, including the proposed provisions that an examination of the working place be conducted before miners begin work in an area; that the operator notify miners in the working place of any conditions found that may adversely affect their safety or health; and that the examination record include a description of the adverse conditions found and the corrective actions taken. MSHA anticipates, however, that there would be benefits from the proposed requirements, such as expedited correction of adverse conditions, which would be expected to result in fewer injuries and fatalities. MSHA requests information and data on the benefits from this proposed rulemaking. Please be specific to facilitate any benefits quantification that may be possible.

    Net benefits under MSHA's current analysis would be negative (zero quantified benefits minus quantified costs). MSHA also believes that there would be a financial benefit to MNM mine operators who conduct working place examinations to find and fix adverse conditions and violations of health and safety standards before these conditions cause injury or death. Mine operators who conduct effective working place examinations could achieve a financial benefit from reduced penalties. From January 2010 through December 2015, penalties for MNM mine operators were $152 million for violations of all mandatory safety and health standards.

    C. Compliance Costs

    The quantified cost associated with this proposed rule would be the additional cost for the expanded recordkeeping requirements. Some mine operators already conduct and record working place examinations that satisfy the proposed requirements and would have little or no additional cost. Many adverse conditions found during the working place examination are corrected immediately before miners have an opportunity to encounter the condition; therefore, MSHA also believes that the cost associated with examining areas before miners begin work in that area and with notifying miners of any adverse conditions would be de minimis. MSHA requests information and data on the costs of this proposed rulemaking.

    For the purpose of this analysis, MSHA estimates that the competent person making the record of the examination of working places would earn $31.14 (including benefits). The wage rate is from U.S. Metal and Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages, and Benefits—2012 Survey Results, InfoMine USA, Inc., 2012. MSHA updated rates from 2012 to 2014 for inflation using a percent change of 3.8 percent derived from the BLS Employment Cost Index (CIU2010000405000I), total compensation for private industry workers in construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations (Index available at http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CIU2010000405000I).

    MSHA also estimates that—

    • Mines with 1-19 employees operate one shift per day, 300 days per year; and

    • Mines with 20+ employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year.

    MSHA recognizes that there are many seasonal and intermittent mines that would be covered by this proposed rule. MSHA requests information and data on the Agency's estimates on the number of days per year a mine operates; the number of working place examinations made each shift; the number of competent persons required to conduct multiple examinations during a single shift; the amount of time required to record the examination and record corrective actions taken; and the number of shifts per day, by mine size.

    Records of Working Place Examinations

    The proposed rule would revise existing §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) by adding requirements that the record of the examination include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each adverse condition found, and that the competent person conducting the examination sign and date this record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Also, if an adverse condition is found, the record must include a description of the actions taken to correct the adverse condition, the date that corrective action was taken, and the name of the person updating the record as well as the date the record was updated. MSHA expects that the person taking the corrective action would update the record on completion of the corrective action. MSHA has no data on the number of corrective actions that would be recorded under this proposed rule. However, the Agency believes that the time to record the corrective actions would be minimal at best.

    MSHA estimates that it will take a competent person approximately 5 additional minutes to make the record after each examination. MSHA estimates that the annual cost of making this record for all MNM mines is approximately $10.1 million:

    • $8.3 million in mines with 1-19 employees (10,599 mines × 1 exam/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr);

    • $1.8 million in mines with 20-500 employees (1,162 mines × 2 exams/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr); and

    • $40,482 in mines with 501+ employees (26 mines × 2 exams/day × 300 days/yr × 5 mins × $31.14/hr).

    Discounting

    Discounting is a technique used to apply the economic concept that the preference for the value of money decreases over time. In this analysis, MSHA provides cost totals at zero, 3, and 7 percent discount rates. The zero percent discount rate is referred to as the undiscounted rate. MSHA used the Excel Net Present Value (NPV) function to determine the present value of costs and computed an annualized cost from the present value using the Excel PMT function.3 The negative value of the PMT function provides the annualized cost over 10 years at a 3 and 7 percent discount rate.

    3 Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions, February 7, 2011. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/OMB/circulars/a004/a-4_FAQ.pdf.]

    Summary of Costs

    MSHA estimates that the total undiscounted cost of the proposed rule over a 10-year period would be approximately $101.0 million, $86.2 million at a 3 percent rate, and $70.9 million at a 7 percent rate. The total undiscounted cost annualized over 10 years would be approximately $10.1 million per year, $9.8 million per year at a 3 percent rate, and $9.4 million per year at a 7 percent rate.

    V. Feasibility A. Technological Feasibility

    The proposed rule contains recordkeeping requirements; the proposed rule is not technology-forcing. MSHA concludes that the rule is technologically feasible.

    B. Economic Feasibility

    MSHA has traditionally used a revenue screening test—whether the yearly impacts of a regulation are less than one percent of revenues—to establish presumptively that the regulation is economically feasible for the mining community. The proposed rule is projected to cost approximately $10.1 million per year and the MNM industry has estimated annual revenues of $77.6 billion, which is less than one percent of revenues. MSHA concludes that the proposed rule would be economically feasible for the MNM mining industry.

    VI. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), MSHA has analyzed the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Based on that analysis, MSHA certifies that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Agency, therefore, is not required to develop an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The factual basis for this certification is presented below.

    A. Definition of a Small Mine

    Under the RFA, in analyzing the impact of a rule on small entities, MSHA must use the Small Business Administration's (SBA's) definition for a small entity, or after consultation with the SBA Office of Advocacy, establish an alternative definition for the mining industry by publishing that definition in the Federal Register for notice and comment. MSHA has not established an alternative definition and, therefore, must use SBA's definition. The SBA defines a small entity in the mining industry as an establishment with 500 or fewer employees.

    MSHA has also examined the impact of the proposed rule on mines with fewer than 20 employees, which MSHA and the mining community have traditionally referred to as “small mines.” These small mines differ from larger mines not only in the number of employees, but also in economies of scale in material produced, in the type and amount of production equipment, and in supply inventory. Therefore, the impact of MSHA's rules and the costs of complying with them will also tend to differ for these small mines. This analysis complies with the requirements of the RFA for an analysis of the impact on “small entities” using both SBA's definition for small entities in the mining industry and MSHA's traditional definition.

    B. Factual Basis for Certification

    MSHA initially evaluates the impacts on small entities by comparing the estimated compliance costs of a rule for small entities in the sector affected by the rule to the estimated revenues for the affected sector. When estimated compliance costs are less than one percent of the estimated revenues, the Agency believes it is generally appropriate to conclude that there is no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. When estimated compliance costs exceed one percent of revenues, MSHA investigates whether further analysis is required. MSHA projects that the proposed compliance costs of $10.1 million for MNM mines with 1 to 500 employees is less than one percent of the $66 billion revenue of these mines in 2014. Proposed compliance costs for MNM mines with 1 to 19 employees is $8.3 million, which is less than one percent of the $23.5 billion revenue of these mines in 2014.

    VII. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 A. Summary

    This proposed rule contains changes that affect the burden in an existing paperwork package with OMB Control Number 1219-0089. MSHA estimates that the proposed rule will result in 324,375 additional burden hours with an associated additional cost of approximately $10.1 million annually. MSHA requests information and data on the Agency's estimates used to calculate the additional burden hours in the information collection package for this proposed rule.

    Records of Working Place Examinations

    Proposed §§ 56.18002(b)(1) and (2) and 57.18002(b)(1) and (2) would revise the existing provisions in §§ 56.18002(b) and 57.18002(b) by requiring competent persons to include in the record of the examination: (1) The locations of all areas examined, (2) a description of any adverse condition found, (3) a description of the actions taken to correct the adverse condition, and (4) the date that corrective action was taken. The competent person must sign and date this record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made. Also, if the record is updated, it must include the date and name of the person updating the record.

    MSHA estimates that a MNM competent person who conducts working place examinations earns $31.14 an hour (includes benefits, see cost section above). MSHA estimates that—

    • Mines with 1-19 employees operate one shift per day, 300 days per year;

    • Mines with 20-500 employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year; and

    • Mines with 501+ employees operate two shifts per day, 300 days per year.

    MSHA's estimates of MNM mine operators' additional annual burden hours and burden hour costs for examination records are presented below.

    Additional Burden Hours

    • 10,599 mines (with 1-19 employees) × 1 exam × 300 days × 5 min = 264,975 hr

    • 1,162 mines (with 20-500 employees) × 2 exams × 300 days × 5 min = 58,100 hr

    • 26 mines (with >500 employees) × 2 exams × 300 days × 5 min = 1,300 hr

    • Total Burden Hours = 324,375 hr

    Additional Burden Hour Costs

    • Total Burden Hour Costs = 324,375 hr × $31.14/hr = $10,101,038

    There are no other associated burden hour costs because the proposed rule only adds documentation requirements to a record already required by existing standards.

    B. Procedural Details

    The information collection package for this proposed rule has been submitted to OMB for review under 44 U.S.C. 3504, paragraph (h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended. Comments on the information collection requirements should be sent to both OMB and MSHA. Addresses for both offices can be found in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

    VIII. Other Regulatory Considerations A. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.). MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not include any federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures by State, local, or tribal governments; nor will it increase private sector expenditures by more than $100 million (adjusted for inflation) in any one year or significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Accordingly, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    B. The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999: Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) requires agencies to assess the impact of Agency action on family well-being. MSHA has determined that this proposed rule will have no effect on family stability or safety, marital commitment, parental rights and authority, or income or poverty of families and children. Accordingly, MSHA certifies that this proposed rule would not impact family well-being.

    C. Executive Order 12630: Government Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights

    Section 5 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12630 requires Federal agencies to “identify the takings implications of proposed regulatory actions . . . .” MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not include a regulatory or policy action with takings implications. Accordingly, E.O. 12630 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    D. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    Section 3 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12988 contains requirements for Federal agencies promulgating new regulations or reviewing existing regulations to minimize litigation by eliminating drafting errors and ambiguity, providing a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, promoting simplification, and reducing burden. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule and has determined that it would meet the applicable standards provided in E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation and undue burden on the Federal court system.

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

    MSHA has determined that this proposed rule will have no adverse impact on children. Accordingly, E.O. 13045 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have federalism implications because 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. Accordingly, E.O. 13132 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

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

    MSHA has determined that this proposed rule does not have tribal implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175 requires no further Agency action or analysis.

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

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to publish a statement of energy effects when a rule has a significant energy action that adversely affects energy supply, distribution, or use. MSHA has reviewed this proposed rule for its energy effects because the proposed rule applies to the metal and nonmetal mining sector. Although this proposed rule will result in yearly costs of approximately $10.1 million to the metal and nonmetal mining industry, only the impact on uranium mines is applicable in this case. MSHA data show only three active uranium mines in 2014. The Energy Information Administration's annual uranium report for 2014 4 shows 4.7 million pounds at an average price of $39.17, for sales of approximately $185.9 million. Using average annual costs, the impact to all active uranium mine operators is less than $4,000. MSHA has concluded that it is not a significant energy action because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Accordingly, under this analysis, no further Agency action or analysis is required.

    4http://www.eia.gov/uranium/production/annual/pdf/dupr.pdf, page 6.

    I. Executive Order 13272: Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking

    MSHA has reviewed the proposed rule to assess and take appropriate account of its potential impact on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. MSHA has determined that the proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    IX. References

    Salzer, Krista Noyes, survey results compilation “2012 U.S. Coal Mines Salaries, Wages, and Benefits—2012, U.S. Metal and Industrial Mineral Mine Salaries, Wages, and Benefits”, InfoMine USA, Inc.

    U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries 2015, February 2015, page 8.

    U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index CIU2010000405000I, total compensation for private industry workers in construction, extraction, farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, Index.

    U.S. Energy Information Administration, Independent Statistics & Analysis: Domestic Uranium Production Report 2014, April 2015.

    U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Impact Analysis: Frequently Asked Questions, February 7, 2011.

    List of Subjects in 30 CFR Parts 56 and 57

    Explosives, Fire prevention, Hazardous substances, Metals, Mine safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, and under the authority of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended by the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006, MSHA is proposing to amend chapter I of title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 56—SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS—SURFACE METAL AND NONMETAL MINES 1. The authority citation for part 56 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811.

    2. Revise § 56.18002 to read as follows:
    § 56.18002 Examination of working places.

    (a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift, before miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.

    (1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.

    (2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.

    (b) A record of each examination shall be made and the person conducting the examination shall sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made.

    (1) The record shall include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.

    (2) The record also shall include:

    (i) A description of the corrective action taken,

    (ii) The date that the corrective action was taken, and

    (iii) The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the record of the corrective action was made.

    (3) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year; shall make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners; and shall provide these representatives a copy on request.

    PART 57—SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS—UNDERGROUND METAL AND NONMETAL MINES 3. The authority citation for part 57 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811.

    4. Revise § 57.18002 to read as follows:
    § 57.18002 Examination of working places.

    (a) A competent person designated by the operator shall examine each working place at least once each shift, before miners begin work in that place, for conditions that may adversely affect safety or health.

    (1) The operator shall promptly notify miners in any affected areas of any adverse conditions found that may adversely affect safety or health and promptly initiate appropriate action to correct such conditions.

    (2) Conditions noted by the person conducting the examination that may present an imminent danger shall be brought to the immediate attention of the operator who shall withdraw all persons from the area affected (except persons referred to in section 104(c) of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977) until the danger is abated.

    (b) A record of each examination shall be made and the person conducting the examination shall sign and date the record before the end of the shift for which the examination was made.

    (1) The record shall include the locations of all areas examined and a description of each condition found that may adversely affect the safety or health of miners.

    (2) The record also shall include:

    (i) A description of the corrective action taken,

    (ii) The date that the corrective action was taken, and

    (iii) The name of the person who made the record of the corrective action and the date the record of the corrective action was made.

    (3) The operator shall maintain the examination records for at least one year; shall make the records available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and the representatives of miners; and shall provide these representatives a copy on request.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13218 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Mine Safety and Health Administration 30 CFR Parts 57, 70, 72, and 75 RIN 1219-AB86 [Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031] Exposure of Underground Miners to Diesel Exhaust AGENCY:

    Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is requesting information and data on approaches to control and monitor miners' exposures to diesel exhaust. Epidemiological studies by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) have found that diesel exhaust exposure increases miners' risk of death due to lung cancer. In June 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen. Because of the carcinogenic health risk to miners from exposure to diesel exhaust and to prevent material impairment of miners' health, MSHA is reviewing the Agency's existing standards and policy guidance on controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust to evaluate the effectiveness of the protections now in place to preserve miners' health.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received or postmarked by midnight Eastern Standard Time on September 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments and informational materials, identified by RIN 1219-AB86 or Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031, by one of the following methods:

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

    Electronic Mail: [email protected]

    Mail: MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia 22202-5452.

    Hand Delivery or Courier: 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk in Suite 4E401.

    Fax: 202-693-9441.

    Instructions: All submissions must include “RIN 1219-AB86” or “Docket No. MSHA-2014-0031.” Do not include personal information that you do not want publicly disclosed; MSHA will post all comments without change to http://www.regulations.gov and http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or http://arlweb.msha.gov/currentcomments.asp. To read background documents, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Review the docket in person at MSHA, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, 201 12th Street South, Arlington, Virginia, between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. Sign in at the receptionist's desk in Suite 4E401.

    E-Mail Notification: To subscribe to receive an email notification when MSHA publishes rules in the Federal Register, go to http://www.msha.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sheila A. McConnell, Acting Director, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances, MSHA, at [email protected] (email), 202-693-9440 (voice); or 202-693-9441 (facsimile). These are not toll-free numbers.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Background A. Regulatory History B. Recent Research C. Health Hazard Alerts D. Recent State Actions II. Information Request A. Non-Permissible, Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines B. Maintenance of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines and Recordkeeping Requirements C. Exhaust After-Treatment Technology D. Monitoring MNM Miners' Exposures to DPM E. Other Information I. Background A. Regulatory History 1. DPM in Underground Coal Mines

    On October 25, 1996, MSHA published a final rule establishing revised requirements for the approval of diesel engines and related components used in underground coal mines; requirements for coal mine operators' monitoring of diesel exhaust emissions; and safety standards for the use of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines (61 FR 55412). The rule required clean-burning engines on diesel-powered equipment and training for persons maintaining the equipment. The rule also required sufficient ventilating air where diesel-powered equipment is operated.

    On January 19, 2001, MSHA published a final rule (66 FR 5526) limiting diesel particulate matter (DPM) exposure in underground coal mines. This standard is based on laboratory analysis of engine exhaust. It requires that the exhaust of certain pieces of equipment be restricted to the following prescribed levels:

    • Permissible equipment must not emit more than 2.5 grams per hour (g/hr) of DPM;

    • Non-permissible heavy-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(a) and operated in underground areas of underground coal mines, must not emit more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.501(c));

    • Non-permissible light-duty equipment, as defined by 30 CFR 75.1908(b), must not emit more than 5.0 g/hr of DPM (30 CFR 72.502(a)).

    These standards also require mine operators to use engineering controls to reduce DPM exposures of underground coal miners. Mine operators must provide annual training to all miners exposed to DPM and maintain an inventory of the mine's diesel-powered equipment.

    Under 30 CFR 72.502(b), non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment must be deemed in compliance with 30 CFR 72.502(a) if it uses an engine that meets or exceeds the applicable Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions requirements. In promulgating its DPM rule, which allows more particulate emissions for light-duty equipment than for heavy-duty equipment, MSHA assumed that diesel engine manufacturers would comply with EPA standards and that, when replacing vehicles in the mine's light-duty fleet, mine operators would purchase newer (new or used) vehicles that met EPA emissions standards, thus accelerating the turnover to a newer generation of technology. MSHA expected a significant reduction in the amount of DPM emitted by the underground fleet as these cleaner engines replaced or supplemented older engines in underground coal mines.

    MSHA had considered establishing stricter standards for certain types of equipment and covering more light-duty equipment, but concluded that such actions would either be technologically or economically infeasible for the coal mining industry as a whole at that time. MSHA concluded that the introduction of newer and cleaner engines underground that met EPA standards, and the continued development of after-treatment and other control technologies, would allow additional reductions in DPM levels to become feasible for the industry as a whole.

    For this reason, MSHA's January 2001 DPM standards incorporated EPA's then-applicable standards for light-duty diesel engine emissions. In 2004, EPA phased in even lower emissions standards for light-duty diesel engines.

    All MSHA diesel equipment is classified as “nonroad” under EPA rules. EPA nonroad diesel engine regulations were structured as a 4-tiered progression. Each tier involved a phased-in lowering of emissions standards over several years based on the size (power) of the engine.

    EPA published Tier 1 standards on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31306, 40 CFR part 89) for nonroad compression-ignition engines (which include diesel engines). Under these standards, for engines at and above 130 kilowatts (kW), emissions of particulate matter could not exceed .54 g/kW and carbon monoxide could not exceed 11.4 g/kW. These standards were phased in by engine size for model years 1996 to 2000. In addition, all engines greater than or equal to 37 kW were subject to an oxides of nitrogen (NOX, consisting of NO and NO2) emissions limit of 9.2 g/kW-hr, phased in by engine size over model years 1998 through 2000 (59 FR 31341). However, EPA explicitly excluded engines regulated by MSHA. Id. at 31340.

    On October 23, 1998, EPA published Tier 1 DPM standards for nonroad compression-ignition engines less than 37 kW (50 hp), setting a 1.2 g/kW-hr particulate matter limit phased in by engine size over model years 1999 and 2000. The rule also established a Tier 1 NOX limit of 14.6 g/kW-hr for engines 37 kW and above, phased in by engine size over model years 1996 through 2000.

    In addition, the rule required more stringent Tier 2 DPM standards for all nonroad diesel engines, ranging from 1.0 g/kW-hr for the smallest engines to .54 g/kW-hr for the largest engines, phased in by engine size over model years 2001 to 2006. Under the rule, Tier 3 DPM standards for engines 37 kW and above were the same as the Tier 2 standards, but for these engines Tier 3 introduced additional limits for other types of emissions (hydrocarbons plus NOX). The rule also introduced Tier 3 standards for engines 37-560 kW for these same other types of emissions, phased in by engine size over model years 2006 through 2008 (40 CFR 89.112). MSHA-regulated engines continued to be exempted from the EPA rule.

    On June 29, 2004, the EPA published a final rule introducing even lower Tier 4 emissions standards for new compression-ignition engines of all sizes. (69 FR 38958, 40 CFR 1039). This rule provided for “interim” Tier 4 standards applicable to engines for model years 2014 and earlier and final Tier 4 standards applicable to model years after the 2014 model year. Based on engine size, the final standards set particulate matter limits of .04 to .40 g/kW-hr, NOX limits of .40 to 3.5 g/kW-hr, and carbon monoxide limits of 3.5 to 6.6 g/kW-hr. The final standards also imposed lower hydrocarbon limits. 40 CFR 1039.101. Again, MSHA-regulated engines were explicitly excluded from these standards. 40 CFR 1039.5(c). Tier 4 engines were expected to have 90 percent lower DPM emissions than the same types of engines under Tier 3 standards (69 FR 38958, 40 CFR 1039).

    2. DPM in Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines

    In 2001, MSHA published a final rule establishing new health standards for underground metal and nonmetal mines that use equipment powered by diesel engines (30 CFR part 57). This rule established a concentration limit for DPM and required mine operators to use engineering and work practice controls to reduce DPM to that limit. Operators were required to comply in accordance with a phase-in period, with the final limit to be in effect by January 20, 2006. In the rule, MSHA provided operators with the opportunity to obtain a special extension if engineering and work practice controls that would reduce a miner's personal exposure to the final exposure limit could not be implemented by the deadline due to technological constraints. This extension opportunity did not apply to newer mines.

    MSHA published another final rule (70 FR 32868; June 6, 2005) that replaced the concentration limit for DPM exposures of MNM miners from a total carbon (TC) permissible exposure limit (PEL) to a comparable elemental carbon (EC) PEL. This was not intended to be a substantive change to the exposure limits; rather, MSHA believed that EC renders a more accurate measure of DPM exposure than does TC. The first phase of the PEL reduction would have required a PEL of 308 micrograms of EC per cubic meter of air (308EC μg/m3), effective on May 20, 2006.

    After publishing this 2005 rule, however, MSHA found that the engineering applications and related technological implementation issues were more complex and extensive than previously thought. In response, the Agency published a proposed rule (70 FR 53280; September 7, 2005) seeking specific comments and data on an appropriate conversion factor for the final DPM limit from TC to EC and related technological implementation issues.

    On May 18, 2006, MSHA published a final rule (71 FR 28924) that reverted back to using TC to measure DPM exposure. This rule phased-in a final DPM PEL of 160 micrograms of TC per cubic meter of air (160TC μg/m3) over a two-year period. MSHA believed that the industry as a whole was capable of attaining this DPM PEL within the timeframes established using existing DPM control methods and not requiring the development of new technologies.

    MSHA stated that the development of high temperature disposable diesel particulate filter (HTDPF) systems would fill a critical gap in available filter technology because they demonstrated high filtration efficiency for EC, and did not increase NO2 emissions. MSHA also anticipated that production of biodiesel fuel would increase dramatically, making it easier for mine operators to gain access to a reliable supply of this alternative fuel. In addition, MSHA anticipated that EPA-compliant engines along with other engineering and administrative controls would enable the underground MNM mining industry as a whole to resolve lingering implementation challenges relating to the 160TC μg/m3 DPM final exposure limit.

    In the May 18, 2006 final rule, MSHA also: (1) Finalized provisions addressing medical evaluation and transfer of miners who are unable to wear respirators for medical reasons; (2) committed the Agency to proposing a rule in the near future to convert the DPM limit from TC to EC; (3) deleted the provision that restricts newer mines from applying for an extension of time in which to meet the final concentration limit; and (4) addressed technological and economic feasibility issues and the costs and benefits of the rule. 30 CFR part 57. In accordance with the phase-in schedule, the DPM PEL was reduced to 350TC µg/m3 effective January 20, 2007. The final limit of 160TC µg/m3 became effective on May 20, 2008.

    On May 20, 2008 (73 FR 29058), MSHA published a Federal Register document announcing that it had decided not to engage in rulemaking to convert the TC limit to a comparable EC limit. This decision was based on MSHA's assessment that the latest available scientific evidence regarding the variability of the TC to EC ratio, at levels below 230 µg TC, was insufficient to suggest an appropriate conversion factor. Because the Agency could not support an appropriate EC limit, MSHA's existing DPM standard presently remains at 160TC µg/m3.

    The existing standards are based on a miner's personal exposure to DPM and specify that, in an underground MNM mine, such exposure must not exceed an average 8-hour equivalent, full-shift airborne concentration of 160 micrograms of total carbon (TC) per cubic meter of air (160TC µg/m3) when measured as an 8-hour, time-weighted average concentration (TWA8). 30 CFR 57.5060(b)(3). These standards require mine operators to use engineering and/or workplace controls to reduce miners' exposures to a level as low as feasible and, where controls do not reduce exposure to the PEL or below, to supplement controls with respiratory protection. 30 CFR 57.5060(d). These standards also provide that a physician or other licensed health care professional conduct a medical evaluation of miners to determine the miner's ability to wear respiratory protection. 30 CFR 57.5060(d)(3).

    B. Recent Research

    The National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Silverman et al.) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (Attfield et al.) completed the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study in March 2012. This epidemiological study included 12,315 workers from eight nonmetal mining facilities (three potash, three trona, one limestone, and one salt (halite) facility) located in Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The study was conducted to determine whether breathing diesel exhaust could lead to lung cancer and other health outcomes. Two evaluations of this study are published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, as follows:

    D. Silverman et al. (2012). “The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study: A Nested Case-Control Study of Lung Cancer and Diesel Exhaust.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104(11):855-68. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs034

    M. Attfield et al. (2012). “The Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study: A Cohort Mortality Study with Emphasis on Lung Cancer.” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 104(11):869-83. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs035

    Silverman et al. concluded that diesel exhaust exposure may cause lung cancer in humans and may represent a potential public health burden. Attfield et al. concluded that diesel exhaust increases the risk of death from lung cancer and has important public health implications.

    Both the case-control study (Silverman et al.) and the mortality study (Attfield et al.) showed a strong relationship between the levels of exposure to diesel exhaust and risk of death from lung cancer. In both studies, the relationship between lung cancer risk and diesel exhaust exposure remained after controlling for smoking and other lung cancer risk factors. The death rates were about three to five times greater for workers with the highest exposures to diesel exhaust than for workers who had the lowest exposures.

    On June 12, 2012, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 1 concluded that there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans from diesel exhaust exposure to upgrade its classification of diesel exhaust from “probably carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic to humans”.2

    1 International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Press Release No. 213, “IARC: Diesel Engine Exhaust Carcinogenic,” June 12, 2012.

    2 International Agency for Research on Cancer, “Carcinogenicity of Diesel-Engine and Gasoline-Engine Exhausts and Some Nitroarenes,” IARC Monographs, Volume 105, World Health Organization, 2013.

    In November 2015, the Health Effects Institute 3 completed its evaluation of recent epidemiological evidence for assessing the risk of lung cancer from exposure to diesel exhaust. The evaluation concluded that the Diesel Exhaust in Miners Study and the Trucking Industry Particle Study were “well designed and carefully conducted, embodying the attributes of epidemiological studies that are considered important for quantitative risk assessment.” 4

    3 The Health Effects Institute is an independent, non-profit research institute funded jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and industry to provide credible, high quality science on air pollution and health for air quality decisions. HEI sponsors do not participate in the selection, oversight, or review of HEI science, and HEI's reports do not necessarily represent their views.

    4 HEI Press Release, “New Report Examines Latest Studies of Lung Cancer Risk in Workers Exposed to Exhaust from Older Diesel Engines,” November 24, 2015.

    C. Health Hazard Alerts

    Following the IARC classification of diesel exhaust as a human carcinogen, MSHA issued two Health Hazard Alerts: one on diesel exhaust and DPM in underground coal and MNM mines, and one on nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions in underground coal mines. The first Health Hazard Alert was issued in partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on January 10, 2013. It provided information about diesel exhaust and DPM in underground coal and MNM mines, occupations with potential exposure, the health hazards of exposure, engineering and workplace controls, respiratory protection, and the standards in place to protect miners from exposure.

    MSHA issued a second Health Hazard Alert on August 6, 2013. The alert reinforced the dangers of platinum-based particulate filters as a source of increased concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in underground coal mines. MSHA had addressed these dangers before. On May 16, 2011, MSHA had published a Program Information Bulletin NO. P11-38, Re-Issue of P02-04—Potential Health Hazard Caused by Platinum-Based Catalyzed Diesel Particulate Matter Exhaust Filters, informing mine operators of a potential health hazard caused by then-available platinum-based catalyzed diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust filters for diesel-powered equipment. The PIB advised that the use of these filters may result in increased production of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) gas, as compared to NO2 emissions produced by engines operating without these filters, causing miners to be exposed to increased concentrations of NO2.

    D. State Actions

    West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio require diesel-powered equipment used in underground coal mines to include an exhaust emissions control and conditioning system that meets the following requirements:

    • DPM emissions that do not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams of DPM per cubic meter of air (mg/m3) when diluted by 100 percent (West Virginia and Ohio) or by 50 percent (Pennsylvania) of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine.

    • An oxidation catalyst or other gaseous emissions control device capable of reducing undiluted carbon monoxide (CO) emissions to 100 parts per million (ppm) or less under all conditions of operation within the normal engine operating temperature range.

    • A DPM filter capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent (West Virginia) or by an average of 95 percent (Pennsylvania) or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air when diluted by 100 percent of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine (Ohio).

    In addition, West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania limit ambient concentrations of exhaust gases to a ceiling of 35 parts per million (ppm) for carbon monoxide (CO) and 3 ppm for nitrogen dioxide (NO2). West Virginia and Pennsylvania also limit ambient concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) to 25 ppm. If the concentrations of these emissions exceed 75 percent of these limits, these states require mine operators to make changes to the use of diesel equipment, mine ventilation, or other modifications to the mining process.

    All three states require mine operators to keep written records of emissions tests, pre-operational examinations, and maintenance and repairs for all diesel equipment operated underground. These states also require specific information to be recorded that MSHA does not require, e.g., the results of testing the engine at full throttle against the brakes with loaded hydraulics (engine speed tests), operating hour meter hours, total intake restriction, total exhaust back pressure, cooled exhaust gas temperature, coolant temperature, engine oil pressure, and engine oil temperature.

    II. Information Request

    MSHA requests information and data on the effectiveness of the existing standards in controlling miners' exposures to diesel exhaust, including DPM. MSHA specifically requests input from industry, labor, and other interested parties on approaches that may enhance control of DPM and diesel exhaust exposures to improve protections for miners in underground coal and MNM mines. When responding—

    • Address your comments to the topic and question number. For example, the response to questions regarding underground coal mines, Question 1, would be identified as “A.1”.

    • Explain the rationale supporting your views and, where possible, include specific examples.

    • Provide sufficient detail in your responses to enable proper Agency review and consideration.

    • Identify the information on which you rely and include applicable experiences, data, models, calculations, studies and articles, standard professional practices, availability of technology, and costs.

    MSHA invites comment in response to the specific questions posed below and encourages commenters to include any related cost and benefit data, and any specific issues related to the impact on small mines.

    A. Non-Permissible, Light-Duty, Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines

    It has been 14 years since MSHA promulgated its DPM rule for underground coal mines. At that time, MSHA had estimated a service life of 10 years for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment. Based on this estimate, MSHA expects that all the non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment in use at that time has now been replaced with equipment having newer and cleaner diesel engines. MSHA's latest diesel inventory for underground coal mines indicates that this newer light-duty equipment makes up about 66 percent of the total existing diesel-powered fleet. MSHA believes that this newer equipment has resulted in a decrease in the overall levels of diesel emissions in underground coal mines. Diesel engine manufacturers have integrated a variety of advanced technologies into new engine designs to reduce engine emissions to meet EPA requirements.

    To assist MSHA in determining whether it is feasible to lower the emissions limits for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment to 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less, please respond to the following questions. For each response, please provide data, the specific type of equipment, manufacturer, engine type, filter type, level of DPM, and comments that support your response.

    1. Is there evidence that non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment currently being operated in underground mines emits 2.5 g/hr of DPM or less? If so, please provide this evidence.

    2. What administrative, engineering, and technological challenges would the coal mining industry face in meeting a 2.5 g/hr DPM emissions level for non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment?

    3. What costs would the coal mining industry incur to lower emissions of DPM to 2.5 g/hr or less on non-permissible, light-duty diesel-powered equipment? What are the advantages, disadvantages of requiring that light-duty diesel-powered equipment emit no more than 2.5 g/hr of DPM?

    4. What percentage of non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating underground does not meet the current EPA emissions standards?

    5. What modifications could be applied to non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment to meet current EPA emissions standards? What percentage of this equipment could not be modified to meet current EPA emissions standards? If these are specific types of equipment, please list the manufacturers and model numbers.

    6. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring all non-permissible, light-duty, diesel-powered equipment operating in underground coal mines to meet current EPA emissions standards? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.

    7. West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio limit diesel equipment in the outby areas of underground coal mines based on the air quantity approved on the highest ventilation plate. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of MSHA adopting such an approach?

    B. Maintenance of Diesel-Powered Equipment in Underground Coal Mines and Recordkeeping Requirements

    Performing routine preventive maintenance of diesel engines helps ensure that the engines are maintained in approved condition. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(f), all diesel-powered equipment must be examined and tested weekly in accordance with approved checklists and manufacturers' maintenance manuals. Under 30 CFR 75.1914(g), diesel-powered equipment approved under 30 CFR part 36 and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines are tested and evaluated on a weekly basis in accordance with mine operator-developed standard operating procedures. These procedures must provide for carbon monoxide sampling; carbon monoxide concentration must not exceed 2500 parts per million.

    8. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, safety and health benefits, and costs of testing non-permissible, light-duty, underground diesel-powered equipment on a weekly basis for carbon monoxide as required for permissible diesel-powered equipment and non-permissible, heavy-duty, diesel-powered equipment?

    9. Reducing the emissions of nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is one way that engine manufacturers can control particulate production indirectly. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of expanding exhaust emissions tests to include NO and NO2 to determine the effectiveness of emissions controls in underground coal mines? Please provide data and comments that support your response.

    10. Should MSHA require that diagnostics system tests include engine speed (testing the engine at full throttle against the brakes with loaded hydraulics), operating hour meter, total intake restriction, total exhaust back pressure, cooled exhaust gas temperature, coolant temperature, engine oil pressure, and engine oil temperature, as required by some states? Why or why not?

    11. What would be the advantages, disadvantages, and costs associated with requiring additional records to document the testing and maintenance of diesel-powered equipment in underground coal mines, such as the testing described above? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.

    12. If your mine is in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, or Ohio, what is your experience with the resources expended to keep testing records? How have these records been used, e.g., have you analyzed the records for trends? Have you made any changes in the use of the diesel-powered equipment, emissions controls, or mine ventilation based on the records of emissions testing? If so, please provide examples.

    13. Please provide information related to additional training requirements for persons who operate and maintain diesel equipment. Please be specific on the types of training required, time associated with training, and additional safety and health benefits provided.

    C. Exhaust After-Treatment and Engine Technologies

    Options for reducing diesel exhaust emissions that are available include integration of advanced technologies into new engine designs and exhaust after-treatment systems. Reduction of diesel exhaust emissions prior to their release into the mine environment is an effective strategy used to prevent or reduce exposure of underground miners to diesel exhaust. The underground coal and MNM mining industries use exhaust after-treatment technology to control and reduce DPM and gaseous emissions from the existing fleet of diesel-powered equipment. While existing DPM standards provide for flexibility of controls to reach the required limit (i.e., controls that reduce engine emissions), MSHA expected that most operators would use hot gas (ceramic) filters to comply.

    MSHA is requesting information on the types and effectiveness of exhaust after-treatment technologies used in underground mines. Please describe some best practices for selecting and using after-treatment devices.

    14. What exhaust after-treatment technologies are currently used on diesel-powered equipment? What are the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining these after-treatment technologies and by how much did they reduce DPM emissions? How durable and reliable are after-treatment technologies and how often should these technologies be replaced? Please be specific and include examples and the rationale for your response.

    15. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of using DPM filters capable of reducing DPM concentrations by at least 75 percent or by an average of 95 percent or to a level that does not exceed an average concentration of 0.12 milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3) of air when diluted by 100 percent of the MSHA Part 7 approved ventilation rate for that diesel engine? How often do the filters need to be replaced?

    16. What sensors (e.g. ammonia, nitrogen oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2)) are built into the after-treatment devices used on the diesel-powered equipment?

    17. Are integrated engine and exhaust after-treatment systems used to control DPM and gaseous emissions in the mining industry? If so, please describe the costs associated with acquiring and maintaining integrated systems, and the reduction in DPM emissions produced.

    18. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs of requiring that all light-duty diesel-powered equipment be equipped with high-efficiency DPM filters?

    As discussed above, on June 29, 2004, EPA adopted Tier 4 diesel engine standards. These standards are performance-based and technology-neutral in the sense that manufacturers are responsible for determining which emissions control technologies will be needed to meet the requirements. Engine manufacturers will produce new engines with advanced emissions control technologies to comply with Tier 4 emissions standards. Exhaust emissions from these engines are expected to decrease by more than 90 percent.

    19. In the mining industry, are operators replacing the engines on existing equipment with Tier 4i (interim) or Tier 4 engines? If so, please specify the type of equipment (make and model) and engine size and tier. Please indicate how much it costs to replace the engine (parts and labor).

    20. What types of diesel equipment purchased new for use in the mining industry is powered by Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines? What types of diesel-powered equipment, purchased used for use in the mining industry, are powered by Tier 3, Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines?

    21. Are Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines used in underground mines equipped with diesel particulate filter (DPF) systems (e.g., advanced diesel engines with integrated after-treatment systems)? Please provide specific examples.

    22. How long have Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines been in use in the mining industry and what additional cost is associated with maintaining equipment equipped with these engines?

    23. What percentage of underground coal mines' total diesel equipment inventory is equipped with Tier 4i or Tier 4 engines?

    D. Monitoring MNM Miners' Exposures to DPM

    Under the existing standards, MSHA uses total carbon (TC) measurements as a surrogate for DPM when determining MNM miners' DPM exposures.

    24. MSHA requests information on alternative surrogates, other than TC, to estimate a miner's DPM exposure. What is the surrogate's limit of detection and what are potential interferences in a mine environment?

    25. What are the advantages, disadvantages, and relative costs for using the alternative surrogate to determine a MNM miner's exposure to DPM? Please be specific and include the rationale for your response.

    26. MSHA requests information on advances in sampling and analytical technology and other methods for measuring a MNM miner's DPM exposure that may allow for a reduced exposure limit.

    E. MNM Miners' Personal Exposure Limit (PEL)

    MSHA analyzed its sampling data from 2006 (when the final PEL was published) to 2015, and found that the average exposures of MNM miners decreased by 57 percent from 253TC to 109TC μg/m3 in MNM mines. Further analysis of the data revealed that approximately 63 percent of the mines sampled had average exposures below 100TC μg/m3 in 2015 and 75 percent of the mines sampled have average exposures below 122TC μg/m3. Overall, 50 percent of the mines sampled have average exposures between 48TC and 122TC μg/m3. For operators who have had success in reducing exposures below the existing standard, please describe the best practices that you have used to reduce controls. MSHA intends to share this information with the underground metal and nonmetal mining community.

    27. What existing controls were most effective in reducing exposures since 2006? Are these controls available and applicable to all MNM mines?

    28. Based on MSHA's data, MNM miners' average exposures are well below the existing standard of 160TC μg/m3. What are the technological challenges and relative costs of reducing the DPM exposure limit?

    F. Other Information

    Please provide any other data or information that may be useful to MSHA in evaluating miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions, including the effectiveness of existing control mechanisms for reducing harmful diesel emissions and limiting miners' exposures to harmful diesel exhaust emissions.

    Authority:

    30 U.S.C. 811, 813(h).

    Joseph A. Main, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Mine Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13219 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4520-43-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0335] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile 42.5 to 43.0, Chester, West Virginia AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone for all water extending 300 feet from the left descending bank into the Ohio River from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0. This proposed rule would be needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a land based fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone would be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0335 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST1 Jennifer Haggins, Marine Safety Unit Pittsburgh, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 412-221-0807, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On April 6, 2016, the Chester Volunteer Fire Department notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The fireworks will be launched from land in the vicinity of Ohio River mile 42.5 to mile 43.0 along the left descending bank. Hazards from fireworks displays include accidental discharge of fireworks, dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels and the navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled event. 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 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2016. The safety zone would cover the waters extending 300 feet from the left descending bank into the Ohio River from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 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, and duration, of the safety zone and the low traffic nature of this area. The safety zone would close a small portion of the Ohio River for less than two hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow other waterway users to seek permission to enter the zone. Requests to transit the safety zone area would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting less than two hours that would prohibit entry into the safety zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T08-0335 to read as follows:
    § 165.T08-0335 Safety Zone; Ohio River Mile 42.5 to Mile 43.0, Chester, WV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters extending 300 feet from the left descending bank into the Ohio River from mile 42.5 to mile 43.0.

    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in § 165.23 of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative at 412-221-0807. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on July 4, 2016.

    (e) Informational Broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public through broadcast notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: May 12, 2016. P.C. Burkett, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13586 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter I [Docket ID ED-2016-OS-0002] RIN 1875-AA11 Secretary's Proposed Supplemental Priority for Discretionary Grant Programs AGENCY:

    Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Proposed priority.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary proposes an additional priority for use in any appropriate grant program for fiscal year (FY) 2016 and future years. The Secretary proposes to add this priority to the existing supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant programs that were published in 2014. This priority reflects our current policy objectives and emerging needs in education.

    DATES:

    We must receive your comments on or before July 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments by fax or by email, or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “How to use regulations.gov.”

    Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver your comments about the proposed priority, address them to Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202-5930.

    Privacy Note:

    The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ramin Taheri, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5E343, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-5961 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priority, we urge you to identify clearly the specific issues that each comment addresses.

    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from this proposed priority. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of our programs.

    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in Room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays.

    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Program Authority:

    20 U.S.C. 1221e-3.

    Proposed Priority: This notice contains one proposed priority.

    Background: Children living in concentrated poverty face significant barriers to learning that contribute to poor outcomes for such students in our public schools.1 In 2012, nearly one-quarter of our Nation's public school students attended schools where more than 75 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced price lunch; in cities, 40 percent of all public school students attend high-poverty schools.2 Furthermore, most high-poverty schools are located in high-poverty school districts. Students attending high-poverty schools continue to have unequal access to advanced coursework, the best teachers, and necessary funding and supports.3 Moreover, research shows that States with less socioeconomically diverse schools tend to have larger achievement gaps between low- and higher-income students.4 Some communities have begun to address these disparities by employing strategies to bring together students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds; for example, more than 90 school districts and charter-school operators currently use socioeconomic status as a consideration in student assignment.5

    1 See, e.g., Coleman, James S., Ernest Q. Campbell, Carol J. Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander M. Mood, Frederic D. Weinfeld, and Robert York. “Equality of educational opportunity.” Washington, DC (1966): 1066-5684; Rumberger, Russell, and Gregory Palardy. “Does segregation still matter? The impact of student composition on academic achievement in high school.” The Teachers College Record 107, no. 9 (2005): 1999-2045; Mulligan, G.M., S. Hastedt, and J.C. McCarroll (2012). First-Time Kindergartners in 2010-11: First Findings From the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K: 2011) (NCES 2012-049). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    2 National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). Digest of Education Statistics, Table 216.6. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.60.asp.

    3 See, e.g., Gray, Lucinda, et al. Educational Technology in U.S. Public Schools: Fall 2008 (Apr. 2010) (NCES 2010-034). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010034.pdf; Wells, John, and Laurie Lewis. Internet Access in U.S. Public Schools and Classrooms: 1994-2005 (November 2006). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf.

    4 Mantil, Ann, Anne G. Perkins, and Stephanie Aberger. “The Challenge of High-Poverty Schools: How Feasible Is Socioeconomic School Integration?” The Future of School Integration (2012): 155-222.

    5 Potter, Halley, and Kimberly Quick, with Elizabeth Davies. A New Wave of School Integration: Districts and Charters Pursuing Socioeconomic Diversity. The Century Foundation, 2016.

    In addition to the negative effects of concentrated poverty on education, many schools and communities continue to suffer the effects of racial segregation, and some of our Nation's largest school districts remain starkly segregated along both racial and economic lines. Accordingly, the Department believes that it is imperative for schools, school districts, States, and postsecondary institutions to take lawful steps to increase student-body diversity based on race and ethnicity. Using the Secretary's existing priority on Promoting Diversity, published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2014 (79 FR 73425), we intend to continue our efforts to reduce racial isolation in public schools and to increase racial and ethnic diversity in education. In addition, however, given the growing body of research showing that socioeconomically diverse schools and communities are associated with improved outcomes for disadvantaged children and families,6 the Department plans to use this proposed priority to continue to focus on increasing diversity, including socioeconomic diversity, in educational settings.7

    6 Schwartz, Heather. “Housing Policy is School Policy: Economically Integrative Housing Promotes Academic Success in Montgomery County, Maryland.” In The Future of School Integration: Socioeconomic Diversity as an Education Reform Strategy, edited by Richard D. Kahlenberg, 27-65. The Century Foundation, 2012; see also Chetty, Raj, Nathaniel Hendren, and Lawrence F. Katz. The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment. No. w21156. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2015.

    7 Increasing socioeconomic diversity, both independently and in pursuit of racial diversity, is consistent with guidance, issued in 2011 and reaffirmed in 2013 and 2014 by the Department, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Justice, regarding the use of race and ethnicity to promote diversity and reduce racial isolation. See Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools, available at: http://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201111.pdf; Guidance on Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, available at: http://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201309.pdf; and Guidance on Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, et al., available at: http://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-201405-schuette-guidance.pdf.

    Proposed Priority—Increasing Socioeconomic Diversity in Schools.

    Projects that are designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in educational settings by addressing one or more of the following:

    (a) Using established survey or data-collection methods to identify socioeconomic stratification and related barriers to socioeconomic diversity at the classroom, school, district, community, or regional level.

    (b) Developing, evaluating, or providing technical assistance on evidence-based policies or strategies designed to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools.

    (c) Designing or implementing, with community input, education funding strategies, such as the use of weighted per-pupil allocations of local, State, and eligible Federal funds, to provide incentives for schools and districts to increase socioeconomic diversity.

    (d) Developing or implementing policies or strategies to increase socioeconomic diversity in schools that—

    (i) Are evidence-based;

    (ii) May be carried out on an intra-district, inter-district, community, or regional basis;

    (iii) Demonstrate ongoing, robust family and community involvement, including a process for intensive public engagement and consultation;

    (iv) Reflect coordination with other relevant government entities, including housing or transportation authorities, to the extent practicable;

    (v) May be based on an existing, public diversity plan or diversity needs assessment; and

    (vi) May include, for example—

    (A) Establishing school assignment or admissions policies that are designed to give preference to low-income students, students from low-performing schools, or students residing in neighborhoods experiencing concentrated poverty to attend higher-performing schools;

    (B) Establishing or expanding schools that are designed to attract substantial numbers of students of different socioeconomic backgrounds, such as magnet or theme schools, charter schools, or other schools of choice.

    Types of Priorities: When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

    Final Priority: We will announce the final priority in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priority after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:

    This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

    This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

    We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

    We are issuing this proposed priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits would justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected the approach that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

    We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those resulting from regulatory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

    Discussion of Costs and Benefits: The proposed priority would not impose significant costs on entities that would receive assistance through the Department's discretionary grant programs. Additionally, the benefits of implementing the proposal contained in this notice outweigh any associated costs because it would result in the Department's discretionary grant programs selecting high-quality applications to implement activities that reflect the Administration's policy focus.

    Application submission and participation in a discretionary grant program are voluntary. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on applicants by the proposed priority would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an application for a discretionary grant program that is using the priority in its competition. Because the costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program funds, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any eligible applicants, including small entities.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification: For these reasons as well, the Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Intergovernmental Review: Some of the programs affected by this proposed priority are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for these programs.

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    John B. King, Jr., Secretary of Education.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13456 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service 36 CFR Part 242 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2015-0159; FXRS12610700000167-FF07J00000; FBMS# 4500088147] RIN 1018-BB22 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska—Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands AGENCY:

    Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. District Court for Alaska in its October 17, 2011, order in Peratrovich et al. v. United States and the State of Alaska, 3:92-cv-0734-HRH (D. Alaska), enjoined the United States “to promptly initiate regulatory proceedings for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) with respect to submerged public lands within Tongass National Forest” and directed entry of judgment. To comply with the order, the Federal Subsistence Board (Board) must initiate a regulatory proceeding to identify those submerged lands within the Tongass National Forest that did not pass to the State of Alaska at statehood and, therefore, remain Federal public lands subject to the subsistence provisions of ANILCA.

    Following the Court's decision, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA-Forest Service (USDA-FS) started a review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. In April and October of 2015, BLM submitted initial lists of submerged public lands to the Board. This proposed rule would add those submerged parcels to the subsistence regulations to ensure compliance with the Court order. Additional listings will be published as BLM and the USDA-FS continue their review of pre-statehood withdrawals.

    DATES:

    Public comments: Comments on this proposed rule must be received or postmarked by August 8, 2016.

    Public meetings: The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils (Councils) will hold public meetings to receive comments on this proposed rule on several dates between September 28 and November 2, 2016, and make recommendations to the Federal Subsistence Board. The Board will discuss and evaluate proposed regulatory changes during a public meeting in Anchorage, AK, in January 2017. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific information on dates and locations of the public meetings.

    ADDRESSES:

    Public meetings: The Federal Subsistence Board and the Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils' public meetings will be held at various locations in Alaska. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific information on dates and locations of the public meetings.

    Public comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov and search for FWS-R7-SM-2015-0159, which is the docket number for this rulemaking.

    By hard copy: U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, MS 121, Attn: Theo Matuskowitz, Anchorage, AK 99503-6199.

    We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Public Review Process section below for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Attention: Eugene R. Peltola, Jr., Office of Subsistence Management; (907) 786-3888 or [email protected] For questions specific to National Forest System lands, contact Thomas Whitford, Regional Subsistence Program Leader, USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region; (907) 743-9461 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under Title VIII of ANILCA (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program. This program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out this program in the Federal Register on June 29, 1990 (55 FR 27114), and published final regulations in the Federal Register on May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22940). The program regulations have subsequently been amended a number of times. Because this program is a joint effort between Interior and Agriculture, these regulations are located in two titles of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Title 36, “Parks, Forests, and Public Property,” and Title 50, “Wildlife and Fisheries,” at 36 CFR 242.1-242.28 and 50 CFR 100.1-100.28, respectively. The regulations contain subparts as follows: Subpart A, General Provisions; Subpart B, Program Structure; Subpart C, Board Determinations; and Subpart D, Subsistence Taking of Fish and Wildlife.

    Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board to administer the Federal Subsistence Management Program (Program). The Board comprises:

    • A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service;

    • The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;

    • The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service; and

    • Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.

    Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.

    In administering the program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Regional Advisory Council (Council). The Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.

    Public Review Process—Comments and Public Meetings

    The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils have a substantial role in reviewing this proposed rule and making recommendations for the final rule. The Federal Subsistence Board, through the Councils, will hold public meetings on this proposed rule at the following locations in Alaska, on the following dates:

    Region 1—Southeast Regional Council, Petersburg, October 4, 2016 Region 2—Southcentral Regional Council, Anchorage, October 18, 2016 Region 3—Kodiak/Aleutians Regional Council, Cold Bay, September 28, 2016 Region 4—Bristol Bay Regional Council, Dillingham, October 26, 2016 Region 5—Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Council, Bethel, October 12, 2016 Region 6—Western Interior Regional Council, McGrath, October 11, 2016 Region 7—Seward Peninsula Regional Council, Nome, November 1, 2016 Region 8—Northwest Arctic Regional Council, Selawik, October 5, 2016 Region 9—Eastern Interior Regional Council, Fort Yukon, October 25, 2016 Region 10—North Slope Regional Council, Barrow, November 1, 2016

    A public notice of specific dates, times, and meeting locations will be published in local and statewide newspapers prior to each meeting. Locations and dates may change based on weather or local circumstances. The Regional Advisory Council's agenda determines the length of each Council meeting based on workload.

    The Board will discuss and evaluate submitted comments and public testimony on this proposed rule during a public meeting scheduled for January 2017 in Anchorage, Alaska. The Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council Chairs, or their designated representatives, will present their respective Councils' recommendations at the Board meeting. Additional public testimony may be provided to the Board on this proposed rule at that time. At that public meeting, the Board will deliberate and make final recommendations to the Secretaries on this proposed rule.

    You may submit written comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire comment, including any personal identifying information, will be posted on the Web site. If you submit a hardcopy comment that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy comments on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, at: USFWS, Office of Subsistence Management, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, AK 99503.

    Reasonable Accommodations

    The Federal Subsistence Board is committed to providing access to these meetings for all participants. Please direct all requests for sign language interpreting services, closed captioning, or other accommodation needs to Deborah Coble, 907-786-3880, [email protected], or 800-877-8339 (TTY), seven business days prior to the meeting you would like to attend.

    Tribal Consultation and Comment

    As expressed in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Federal officials that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010). Consultation with Alaska Native corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”

    The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, because tribal members are affected by subsistence fishing, hunting, and trapping regulations, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this proposed rule.

    The Board will engage in outreach efforts for this proposed rule, including a notification letter, to ensure that Tribes and Alaska Native corporations are advised of the mechanisms by which they can participate. The Board provides a variety of opportunities for consultation: Proposing changes to the existing rule; commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Advisory Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process. The Board will commit to efficiently and adequately providing an opportunity to Tribes and Alaska Native corporations for consultation in regard to subsistence rulemaking.

    The Board will consider Tribes' and Alaska Native corporations' information, input, and recommendations, and address their concerns as much as practicable.

    Jurisdictional Background and Perspective

    The Peratrovich case dates back to 1992 and has a long and involved procedural history. The plaintiffs in that litigation raised the question of which marine waters in the Tongass National Forest, if any, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence Management Program. In its May 31, 2011, order, the U.S. District Court for Alaska (Court) stated that “it is the duty of the Secretaries [Agriculture & Interior] to identify any submerged lands (and the marine waters overlying them) within the Tongass National Forest to which the United States holds title.” It also stated that, if such title exists, it “creates an interest in [the overlying] waters sufficient to make those marine waters public lands for purposes of [the subsistence provisions] of ANILCA.”

    Most of the marine waters within the Tongass National Forest were not initially identified in the regulations as public lands subject to the subsistence priority based upon a determination that the submerged lands were State lands, and later through reliance upon a disclaimer of interest filed by the United States in Alaska v. United States, No. 128 Orig., 546 U.S. 413 (2006). In that case, the State of Alaska had sought to quiet title to all lands underlying marine waters in southeast Alaska, which includes most of the Tongass National Forest. Ultimately, the United States disclaimed ownership to most of the submerged lands in the Tongass National Forest. The Supreme Court accepted the disclaimer by the United States to title to the marine waters within the Tongass National Forest, excepting from that disclaimer several classes of submerged public lands that generally involve small tracts. Alaska v. United States, 546 U.S. at 415.

    When the United States took over the subsistence program in Alaska in 1990, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture stated in response to comments on the scope of the program during promulgation of the interim regulations that “the United States generally does not hold title to navigable waters and thus navigable waters generally are not included within the definition of public lands” (55 FR 27115; June 29, 1990). That position was changed in 1999 when the subsistence priority was extended to waters subject to a Federal reserved water right following the Katie John litigation. The Board identified certain submerged marine lands that did not pass to the State and, therefore, where the subsistence priority applied. However, the Board did not attempt to identify each and every small parcel of submerged public lands and thereby marine water possibly subject to the Federal Subsistence Management Program because of the potentially overwhelming administrative burden. Instead the Board invited the public to petition to have submerged marine lands included. Over the years, several small areas of submerged marine lands in the Tongass National Forest have been identified as public lands subject to the subsistence priority.

    In its May 31, 2011, order, the Court stated that the petition process was not sufficient and found that “concerns about costs and management problems simply cannot trump the congressional policy that the subsistence lifestyle of rural Alaskans be preserved as to public lands.” The Court acknowledged in its order that inventorying all these lands could be an expensive undertaking, but that it is a burden “necessitated by the `complicated regulatory scheme' which has resulted from the inability of the State of Alaska to implement Title VIII of ANILCA.” The Court then “enjoined” the United States “to promptly initiate regulatory proceedings for the purpose of implementing the subsistence provisions in Title VIII of ANILCA with respect to submerged public lands within Tongass National Forest” and directed entry of judgment.

    The BLM and USDA-FS started a time- and resource-consuming review of hundreds of potential pre-statehood (January 3, 1959) withdrawals in the marine waters of the Tongass National Forest. Both agencies are reviewing their records to identify dock sites, log transfer sites, and other areas that may not have passed to the State at statehood. The review process is ongoing and expected to take quite some time.

    Developing the Applicability and Scope; Tongass National Forest Submerged Lands Proposed Regulations

    In April and October of 2015, BLM submitted initial listings of parcels of submerged public lands to the Board. This proposed rule will add those listings to the subsistence regulations to ensure compliance with the Court's order. Additional listings will be published as BLM and USDA-FS continue their reviews of pre-statehood withdrawals. In addition, this proposed rule would make nonsubstantive changes to 36 CFR 242.3 and 50 CFR 100.3 to correct errors, such as misspellings and punctuation errors, which occur in the existing regulations.

    Because this proposed rule concerns public lands managed by an agency or agencies in both the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, identical text will be incorporated into 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100.

    Compliance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities National Environmental Policy Act

    A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The Record of Decision (ROD) on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (Alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.

    A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Secretary of the Interior, with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture, determined that expansion of Federal jurisdiction does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the human environment and, therefore, signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    Section 810 of ANILCA

    An ANILCA § 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management Program. The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes, unless restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife populations. The final § 810 analysis determination appeared in the April 6, 1992, ROD and concluded that the Federal Subsistence Management Program, under Alternative IV with an annual process for setting subsistence regulations, may have some local impacts on subsistence uses, but will not likely restrict subsistence uses significantly.

    During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of the subsistence program regulations was conducted in accordance with § 810. This evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the regulations will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA § 810(a).

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)

    This proposed rule does not contain any new collections of information that require Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) OMB has reviewed and approved the collections of information associated with the subsistence regulations at 36 CFR 242 and 50 CFR 100, and assigned OMB Control Number 1018-0075. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is not significant.

    Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of flexibility analyses for rules that will have a significant effect on a substantial number of small entities, which include small businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. In general, the resources to be harvested under this proposed rule are already being harvested and consumed by the local harvester and do not result in an additional dollar benefit to the economy. However, we estimate that two million pounds of meat are harvested by subsistence users annually and, if given an estimated dollar value of $3.00 per pound, this amount would equate to about $6 million in food value statewide. Based upon the amounts and values cited above, the Departments certify that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), this proposed rule is not a major rule. It will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    Executive Order 12630

    Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of this program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these proposed regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or State governments or private entities. The implementation of this rule is by Federal agencies and there is no cost imposed on any State or local entities or tribal governments.

    Executive Order 12988

    The Secretaries have determined that these proposed regulations meet the applicable standards provided in §§ 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.

    Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the proposed rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, Title VIII, does not provide specific rights to tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Secretaries, through the Board, will provide Federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native corporations an opportunity to consult on this proposed rule. Consultation with Alaska Native corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”

    The Secretaries, through the Board, will provide a variety of opportunities for consultation: commenting on proposed changes to the existing rule; engaging in dialogue at the Regional Council meetings; engaging in dialogue at the Board's meetings; and providing input in person, by mail, email, or phone at any time during the rulemaking process.

    Executive Order 13211

    This Executive Order requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

    Drafting Information

    Theo Matuskowitz drafted these proposed regulations under the guidance of Gene Peltola of the Office of Subsistence Management, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Additional assistance was provided by:

    • Daniel Sharp, Alaska State Office, Bureau of Land Management;

    • Mary McBurney, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service;

    • Dr. Glenn Chen, Alaska Regional Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs;

    • Trevor Fox, Alaska Regional Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and

    • Thomas Whitford, Alaska Regional Office, USDA—Forest Service.

    List of Subjects 36 CFR Part 242

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    50 CFR Part 100

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Secretaries propose to amend 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 as set forth below.

    PART—SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN ALASKA 1. The authority citation for both 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.

    Subpart A—General Provisions 2. In subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR part 100, amend § 3 as follows: a. In paragraph (a), remove the word “or” and in its place add the word “of” and remove the word “poortion” and in its place add the word “portion”; b. In paragraph (b)(1)(iii), remove the word “A” and in its place add the word “All”; c. In paragraph (b)(1)(v), remove the word “Latitute” and in its place add the word “Latitude”; d. In paragraph (b)(2), remove “70 10′ ” and in its place add “70°10′ ” and remove “145 51′ ” and in its place add “145°51′ ”; e. In paragraph (b)(3), remove the word “cape” and in its place add the word “Cape”, remove the word “Latitute” and in its place add the word “Latitude”, and remove “161 46′ ” and in its place add “161°46′ ”; and f. Revise paragraph (b)(5) to read as set forth below:
    § 3 Applicability and scope.

    (5) Southeastern Alaska, including the:

    (i) Makhnati Island Area: Land and waters beginning at the southern point of Fruit Island, 57°02′35″ north latitude, 135°21′07″ west longitude as shown on United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8244, May 21, 1941; from the point of beginning, by metes and bounds; S. 58° W., 2,500 feet, to the southern point of Nepovorotni Rocks; S. 83° W., 5,600 feet, on a line passing through the southern point of a small island lying about 150 feet south of Makhnati Island; N. 6° W., 4,200 feet, on a line passing through the western point of a small island lying about 150 feet west of Makhnati Island, to the northwestern point of Signal Island; N. 24° E., 3,000 feet, to a point, 57°03′15″ north latitude, 134°23′07″ west longitude; East, 2,900 feet, to a point in course No. 45 in meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496, on west side of Japonski Island; southeasterly, with the meanders of Japonski Island, U.S. Survey No. 1,496 to angle point No. 35, on the southwestern point of Japonski Island; S. 60° E., 3,300 feet, along the boundary line of Naval reservation described in Executive Order No. 8216, July 25, 1939, to the point of beginning, and that part of Sitka Bay lying south of Japonski Island and west of the main channel, but not including Aleutski Island as revoked in Public Land Order 925, October 27, 1953, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the southeast point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 7 of the meanders of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence east approximately 12.00 chains to the center of the main channel; thence S. 45° E. along the main channel approximately 20.00 chains; thence S. 45° W. approximately 9.00 chains to the southeastern point of Aleutski Island; thence S. 79° W. approximately 40.00 chains to the southern point of Fruit Island; thence N. 60° W. approximately 50.00 chains to the southwestern point of Japonski Island at angle point No. 35 of U.S. Survey No. 1496; thence easterly with the meanders of Japonski Island to the point of beginning including Charcoal, Harbor, Alice, Love, and Fruit islands and a number of smaller unnamed islands.

    (ii) Tongass National Forest:

    (A) Beacon Point, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 57 south, 79 east, CRM, SEC 8, U.S. Survey No. 1604. The point begins on the low-water line at N. 63° W., true and approximately 1,520 feet from Beacon Point beacon; thence due south true 1,520 feet; thence true East 1,800 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence following, is the low-water line round the point to point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°00′ W. Lat. 56°561/4′ N.).

    (B) Bushy Island and Snow Passage are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart, labeled No. 8160—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 80 east, CRM, SEC. 31/32 on the map labeled, USS 1607. The point begins on a low-water line about 1/4 nautical miles and southwesterly from the northwest point of the island, from which a left tangent to an island that is 300 yards in diameter and 100 yards offshore, bears the location—N. 60° W., true; thence S. 60° E., true and more or less 2,000 feet to an intersection with a low-water line on the easterly side of the island; thence forward along the winding of the low-water line northwesterly and southwesterly to the point of the beginning, including all adjacent rocks and reefs not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°58′ W. Lat. 56°161/2′ N.).

    (C) Cape Strait, Frederick Sound, and Kupreanof Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8210—Sheet No. 16. The reference location is marked as 56 south, 77478 east, CRM, on the map labeled as USS 1011. It begins at a point on a low-water line that is westerly from the lighthouse and distant 1,520 feet in a direct line from the center of the concrete pier upon which the light tower is erected; thence South 45° E., true by 1,520 feet; thence east true by 1,520 feet, more or less to an intersection with the low-water line; thence north-westerly and westerly, following the windings of the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 133°05′ W. Lat. 57°00′ N.).

    (D) Point Colpoys and Sumner Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Prince of Wales Island—Sheet No. 12. The reference location is marked as 64 south, 78 east, CRM, SECs. 10, 11, 12 on the map labeled as USS 1634. Location is north of a true east-and-west line running across the point to 1,520 feet true south from the high-water line at the northernmost extremity. Map includes all adjacent rocks and ledges not covered at low water and also includes two rocks awash about 11/4 nautical miles east and South and 75° East, respectively, from the aforementioned point (Approx. Long. 133°12′ W. Lat. 56°20′ N.).

    (E) Vank Island and Stikine Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. Located at 62 south, 82 east, CRM, SEC 34, on the map labeled as USS 1648. This part of the island is lying south of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the island from low water to low water. Island is 760 feet due North from the center of the concrete pier upon which the structure for the light is erected (Approx. Long. 132°35′ W. Lat. 56°27′ N.).

    (F) High Point, and Woronkofski Island, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 18. The location begins at a point on low water at the head of the first bight easterly of the point and about 1/8 nautical mile distant therefrom; thence south true 1,520 feet; thence west true 1,100 feet, more or less to an intersection with the low-water line; thence northerly and easterly, following the windings of the low-water line to point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°33′ W. Lat. 56°24′ N.).

    (G) Key Reef and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 11. The reef lies 13/4 miles S. 80° E., true, from Bluff Island and becomes awash at extreme high water. Chart includes all adjacent ledges and rocks not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°50′ W. Lat. 56°10′ N.).

    (H) Low Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 22. The location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 760 feet in a direct line, easterly, from the center of Low Point Beacon. The position is located on a point of shoreline about 1 mile easterly from Low Point; thence S. 35°, W true 760 feet; thence N. 800 feet and W. 760 feet, more or less, to an intersection with the low-water line to the point of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°551/2′ W. Lat. 56°271/2′ N.).

    (I) McNamara Point and Zarembo Island, Alaska, are shown on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8160—Sheet No. 25. Location begins at a point on a low-water line that is 1,520 feet in a direct line, northerly, from McNamara Point Beacon—a slatted tripod structure; thence true east 1,520 feet; thence true south, more or less, 2,500 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence northwesterly and northerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 133°04′ W. Lat. 56°20′ N.).

    (J) Mountain Point and Wrangell Narrows, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8170—Sheet No. 27. The location begins at a point on a low-water line southerly from the center of Mountain Point Beacon and distant there from 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true west 1,520 feet; thence true north, more or less, 3,480 feet to an intersection with the low-water line; thence southeasterly and southerly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°571/2′ W. Lat. 56°44′ N.).

    (K) Angle Point, Revillagigedo Channel, and Bold Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, USS 1603. The location begins at a point on a low-water line abreast of the lighthouse on Angle Point, the southwestern extremity of Bold Island; thence easterly along the low-water line to a point that is 3,040 feet in a straight line from the beginning point; thence N. 30° W. True 3,040 feet; thence true west to an intersection with the low-water line, 3,000 feet, more or less; thence southeasterly along the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 131°26′ W. Lat. 55°14′ N.).

    (L) Cape Chacon, Dixon Entrance, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8074—Sheet No. 29. The reference location is marked as 83 south, 89 and 90 east, CRM, USS 1608. The location begins at a point at the low-water mark on the shore line of Dixon Entrance from which the southern extremity of Cape Chacon bears south 64° true East and approximately 3/4 nautical miles; thence N. 45° true East and about 1 nautical mile, more or less, to an intersection with a low-water line on the shore of Clarence Strait; thence southerly, following the meanderings of the low-water line of the shore, to and around Cape Chacon, and continuing to the point of the beginning. Reference includes all adjacent islands, islets, rocks, and reefs that are not covered at the low-water line (Approx. Long. 132° W. Lat. 54°42′ N.).

    (M) Lewis Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 75 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 9. The area point begins at the reef off of Lewis Point and partly bare at low water. This part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies on the northeast side of a true northwest-and-southeast line that is located 300 feet true southwest from the center of the concrete pier of Lewis Reef Light (Approx. Long. 131°441/2′ W. Lat. 55°22′25″ N.).

    (N) Lyman Point and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S Coast and Geodetic Survey, Chart No. 8076—Sheet No. 8. The reference location is marked as 73 south, 86 east, CRM, SEC 13, on a map labeled as USS 2174 TRC. It begins at a point at the low-water mark. The aforementioned point is 300 feet in a direct line easterly from Lyman Point light; thence due south 300 feet; thence due west to a low-water mark 400 feet, more or less; thence following the winding of the low-water mark to place of beginning (Approx. Long. 132°18′ W. Lat. 35°35′ N.).

    (O) Narrow Point, Clarence Strait, and Prince of Wales Island are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as 70 south, 84 east, CRM, on a map labeled as USS 1628. The point begins at a point on a low-water line about 1 nautical mile southerly from Narrow Point Light, from which point a left tangent to a high-water line of an islet about 500 yards in diameter and about 300 yards off shore, bears south 30° true East; thence north 30° W., true 7,600 feet; thence N. 60° E., 3,200 feet, more or less to an intersection with a low-water line; thence southeasterly, southerly, and southwesterly, following the winding of the low-water line to the point of the beginning. The map includes all adjacent rocks not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°28′ W. Lat. 55°471/2′ N.).

    (P) Niblack Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6, which is the same sheet used for Caamano Point. The location begins at a point on a low-water line from which Niblack Point Beacon, a tripod anchored to three concrete piers, bears southeasterly and is 1,520 feet in a direct line; thence true northeast 1,520 feet; thence true southeast 3,040 feet; thence true southwest at 600 feet, more or less, to an intersection with a low-water line; thence northwesterly following the windings of the low-water line to the point of the beginning (Approx. Long. 132°07′ W. Lat. 55°33′ N.).

    (Q) Rosa Reef and Tongass Narrows are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8094—Sheet No. 71. The reference location is marked as 74 south, 90 east, CRM, SEC 31. That part of the reef is not covered at low water and lies east of a true north-and-south line, located 600 feet true west from the center of the concrete pier of Rosa Reef Light. The reef is covered at high water (Approx. Long. 131°48′ W. Lat. 55°24′15″ N.).

    (R) Ship Island and Clarence Strait are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8100—Sheet No. 9. The reference location is marked as south, 8 east, CRM, SEC 27. The point begins as a small island on the northwesterly side of the Clarence Strait, about 10 nautical miles northwesterly from Caamano Point and 1/4 mile off the shore of Cleveland Peninsula. The sheet includes all adjacent islets and rocks not connected to the main shore and not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°12′ W. Lat. 55°36′ N.).

    (S) Spire Island Reef and Revillagigedo Channel are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8075—Sheet No. 3. The reference location is marked as 76 south, 92 east, CRM, SEC 19.The detached reef, covered at high water and partly bare at low water, is located northeast of Spire Island. Spire Island Light is located on the reef and consists of small houses and lanterns surmounting a concrete pier. See chart for “Angle Pt.” (Approx. Long. 131°30′ W. Lat. 55°16′ N.).

    (T) Surprise Point and Nakat Inlet are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8051—Sheet No. 1. The reference location is marked as 80 south, 89 east, CRM. This point lies north of a true east-and-west line. The true east-and-west line lies 3,040 feet true south from the northernmost extremity of the point together with adjacent rocks and islets (Approx. Long. 130°44′ W. Lat. 54°49′ N.).

    (U) Caamano Point, Cleveland Peninsula, and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8102—Sheet No. 6. Location consists of everything apart of the extreme south end of the Cleveland Peninsula lying on a south side of a true east-and-west line that is drawn across the point at a distance of 800 feet true north from the southernmost point of the low-water line. This includes off-lying rocks and islets that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 131°59′ W. Lat. 55°30′ N.).

    (V) Meyers Chuck and Clarence Strait, Alaska, are shown on the U.S. and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8124—Sheet No. 26. The small island is about 150 yards in diameter and located about 200 yards northwest of Meyers Island (Approx. Long. 132°16′ W. Lat. 55°441/2′ N.).

    (W) Round Island and Cordova Bay, Alaska, are shown on the U.S coast and Geodetic Survey Chart No. 8145—Sheet No. 36. The Southwestern Island of the group is about 700 yards long, including off-lying rocks and reefs that are not covered at low water (Approx. Long. 132°301/2′ W. Lat. 54°461/2′ N.).

    (X) Mary Island begins at a point that is placed at a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southward 500 feet from a crosscut on the side of a large rock on the second point below Point Winslow and Mary Island; thence due west 3/4 mile, statute; thence due north to a low-water mark; thence following the winding of the low water to the place of the beginning (Approx. Long. 131°11′00″ W. Lat. 55°05′55″ N.).

    (Y) Tree Point starts a point of a low-water mark. The aforementioned point is southerly 1/2 mile from extreme westerly point of a low-water mark on Tree Point, on the Alaska Mainland; thence due true east, 3/4 mile; thence due north 1 mile; thence due west to a low-water mark; thence following the winding of the low-water mark to the place of the beginning (Approx. Long. 130°57′44″ W. Lat. 54°48′27″ N.).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Dated: February 17, 2016. Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior. Beth G. Pendleton, Regional Forester USDA—Forest Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13374 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-4333-15-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0247; FRL-9947-40-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; South Carolina; Prong 4—2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to conditionally approve the portions of revisions to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC), addressing the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) visibility transport (prong 4) infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 1-hour Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and 2012 annual Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, commonly referred to as an “infrastructure SIP.” Specifically, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2008, 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0247 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Lakeman of the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Lakeman can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9043 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the new or revised NAAQS. EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) require states to address basic SIP elements such as the requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the newly established or revised NAAQS. More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for infrastructure SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the infrastructure SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. The contents of an infrastructure SIP submission may vary depending upon the data and analytical tools available to the state, as well as the provisions already contained in the state's implementation plan at the time in which the state develops and submits the submission for a new or revised NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) includes four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1) and from interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (prong 3) or from interfering with measures to protect visibility in another state (prong 4). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement.

    Through this action, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone, 2010 1-hour NO2, 2010 1-hour SO2, and 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS as discussed in section IV of this document.1 All other applicable infrastructure SIP requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings. A brief background regarding the NAAQS relevant to this proposal is provided below. For comprehensive information on these NAAQS, please refer to the Federal Register notices cited in the following subsections.

    1 Under CAA section 110(k)(4), EPA may conditionally approve a SIP revision based on a commitment from a state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain, but not later than one year from the date of approval. If the state fails to meet the commitment within one year of the final conditional approval, the conditional approval automatically becomes a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval.

    a. 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS

    On March 12, 2008, EPA revised the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than March 12, 2011. South Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on July 17, 2012, for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

    b. 2010 1-Hour NO2 NAAQS

    On January 22, 2010, EPA established a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion, based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 6474 (February 9, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than January 22, 2013. South Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on April 30, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.

    c. 2010 1-Hour SO2 NAAQS

    On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS to an hourly standard of 75 parts per billion based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. See 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to EPA no later than June 2, 2013. South Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on May 8, 2014, for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

    d. 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS to 12 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). See 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013). States were required to submit infrastructure SIP submissions for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015. South Carolina submitted its infrastructure SIP submission on December 18, 2015, for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    II. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “each such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of Title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of section 169A of the CAA, and nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, Title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.2 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    2 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; Section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of Title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of Title I of the CAA, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.3 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.4 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    3See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    4 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within section 110(a)(1) and (2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.5 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.6

    5See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” 78 FR 4337 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    6 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within section 110(a)(1) and (2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants, because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.7

    7 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2); thus, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of Title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.8 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).9 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.10 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). EPA interprets section 110(a)(1) and (2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    8 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    9 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    10 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of Section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in section 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and NSR pollutants, including Greenhouse Gases. By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions; 11 (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (NSR Reform). Thus, EPA believes that it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.12 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    11 Subsequent to issuing the 2013 Guidance, EPA's interpretation of the CAA with respect to the approvability of affirmative defense provisions in SIPs has changed. See “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction,” 80 FR 33839 (June 12, 2015). As a result, EPA's 2013 Guidance (p. 21 & n.30) no longer represents the EPA's view concerning the validity of affirmative defense provisions, in light of the requirements of section 113 and section 304.

    12 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption or affirmative defense for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in section 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.13 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.14 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.15

    13 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    14 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under section 110(k)(6) of the CAA to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004 (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    15See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    III. What are the Prong 4 requirements?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) includes a requirement that a state's implementation plan contain provisions prohibiting sources in that state from emitting pollutants in amounts that interfere with any other state's efforts to protect visibility under part C of Title I of the CAA (which includes sections 169A and 169B). The 2013 Guidance states that these prong 4 requirements can be satisfied by approved SIP provisions that EPA has found to adequately address any contribution of that state's sources to impacts on visibility program requirements in other states. The 2013 Guidance also states that EPA interprets this prong to be pollutant-specific, such that the infrastructure SIP submission need only address the potential for interference with protection of visibility caused by the pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS applies.

    The 2013 Guidance delineates two ways in which a state's infrastructure SIP may satisfy prong 4. The first way is through an air agency's confirmation in its infrastructure SIP submission that it has an EPA-approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309. 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309 specifically require that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process. A fully approved regional haze SIP will ensure that emissions from sources under an air agency's jurisdiction are not interfering with measures required to be included in other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.

    Alternatively, in the absence of a fully approved regional haze SIP, a state may meet the requirements of prong 4 through a demonstration in its infrastructure SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility. Such an infrastructure SIP submission would need to include measures to limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions conform with any mutually agreed regional haze reasonable progress goals for mandatory Class I areas in other states.

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed Prong 4?

    South Carolina's July 17, 2012, 2008 8-hour Ozone submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 submission cite to the State's regional haze SIP as satisfying prong 4 requirements.16 However, as explained below, EPA has not yet fully approved South Carolina's regional haze SIP because the SIP relies on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to satisfy the nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for the CAIR-subject electric generating units (EGUs) in the State and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals.17

    16 The April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 submission; and December 18, 2015 also cite to the State's December 2012 regional haze progress report.

    17 CAIR, promulgated in 2005, required 27 states and the District of Columbia to reduce emissions of NOX and SO2 that significantly contribute to, or interfere with maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for fine particulates and/or ozone in any downwind state. CAIR imposed specified emissions reduction requirements on each affected State, and established several EPA-administered cap and trade programs for EGUs that States could join as a means to meet these requirements.

    EPA demonstrated that CAIR achieved greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than BART for NOX and SO2 at BART-eligible EGUs in CAIR affected states, and revised the regional haze rule to provide that states participating in CAIR's cap-and-trade programs need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). As a result, a number of states in the CAIR region designed their regional haze SIPs to rely on CAIR as an alternative to NOX and SO2 BART for CAIR-subject EGUs. These states also relied on CAIR as an element of a long-term strategy for achieving their reasonable progress goals.

    The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) initially vacated CAIR in 2008,18 but ultimately remanded the rule to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by CAIR.19 On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to replace CAIR and thus to address the interstate transport of emissions contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the two air quality standards covered by CAIR as well as the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

    18North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    19North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).

    Due to CAIR's status as a temporary measure following the D.C. Circuit's 2008 ruling, EPA could not fully approve regional haze SIP revisions to the extent that they relied on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement and the requirement for a long-term strategy sufficient to achieve the state-adopted reasonable progress goals. On these grounds, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), triggering the requirement for EPA to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) unless South Carolina submitted and EPA approved a SIP revision that corrected the deficiencies. EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional haze SIP on June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), as meeting the remaining applicable regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and the regional haze rule.

    Numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR in the D.C. Circuit, and on August 21, 2012, the court issued its ruling, vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Cir. 2012). The D.C. Circuit's vacatur of CSAPR was reversed by the United States Supreme Court on April 29, 2014, and the case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets as to a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget for South Carolina.20

    20 The D.C. Circuit also invalidated the Phase 2 ozone season NOX budget for South Carolina. EPA has proposed to address the court's remand of the Phase 2 ozone season NOX budgets in a notice of proposed rulemaking published on December 3, 2015 (80 FR 75706).

    Although South Carolina's infrastructure SIP revisions cite to the regional haze program as satisfying the requirements of Prong 4, the State may not currently rely on its regional haze SIP to satisfy these requirements because the regional haze SIP is not fully approved. In addition, these revisions do not otherwise demonstrate that emissions within the State's jurisdiction do not interfere with other states' plans to protect visibility. Therefore, on April 19, 2016, South Carolina submitted a commitment letter to EPA requesting conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the aforementioned infrastructure SIP revisions.21 In this letter, South Carolina commits to satisfy the prong 4 requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 2010 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by providing a SIP revision that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are at least as stringent as the budgets codified for South Carolina at 40 CFR 97.710(a) (SO2 Group 2 trading budgets) and 40 CFR 97.410(a) (NOX Annual trading budgets). South Carolina will rely on this SIP revision adopting such budgets to submit a concurrent SIP revision specifically addressing the visibility requirements of prong 4. In its commitment letter, South Carolina commits to providing these two concurrent SIP revisions within one year of EPA's final conditional approval of the prong 4 portions of the infrastructure SIP revisions and provides an anticipated schedule for these revisions. If the revised infrastructure SIP revision relies on a fully approvable regional haze SIP, South Carolina also commits to providing the necessary regional haze SIP revision to EPA within one year of EPA's final conditional approval.

    21 South Carolina's April 19, 2016, commitment letter is available in the docket for today's proposed action.

    If South Carolina meets its commitment within one year of final conditional approval, the prong 4 portions of the conditionally approved infrastructure SIP submissions will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or disapproving the new SIP revision(s). However, if the State fails to submit these revisions within the one-year timeframe, the conditional approval will automatically become a disapproval one year from EPA's final conditional approval and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final disapproval triggers the FIP requirement under CAA section 110(c).

    V. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the prong 4 portions of South Carolina's July 17, 2008 8-hour Ozone infrastructure SIP submission; April 30, 2014, 2010 1-hour NO2 infrastructure SIP submission; May 8, 2014, 2010 1-hour SO2 infrastructure SIP submission; and December 18, 2015, 2012 annual PM2.5 infrastructure SIP submission. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for these SIP submissions have been or will be addressed in separate rulemakings.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, South Carolina statute 27-16-120, “all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.” However, EPA has determined that because this proposed rule does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13606 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424; FRL-9947-41-Region 4] Air Plan Approval/Disapproval; MS; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove in part, portions of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission, submitted by the State of Mississippi, through the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), on December 11, 2015, to demonstrate that the State meets the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an “infrastructure” SIP. MDEQ certified that the Mississippi SIP contains provisions to ensure the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is implemented, enforced, and maintained in Mississippi. With the exception of the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, for which EPA is proposing to disapprove, EPA is proposing to determine that portions of Mississippi's infrastructure submission, submitted to EPA on December 11, 2015, satisfy certain required infrastructure elements for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before July 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 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. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-9088 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    I. Background and Overview

    On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086, January 15, 2013), EPA promulgated a revised primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The standard was strengthened from 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 12.0 μg/m3. Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS to EPA no later than December 14, 2015.1

    1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes, some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term “APC” indicates Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) regulations relevant to air quality control. The cited regulation has either been approved, or submitted for approval into Mississippi's federally-approved SIP.

    This action is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, with the exception of the visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). With respect to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) and visibility requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4), EPA will address these in a separate rulemaking action. With respect to Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission related to the majority requirements respecting significant portion of income of 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to disapprove this portion of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission because Mississippi does not preclude at least a majority of the members of its boards from receiving a significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such boards. For the aspects of Mississippi's submittal proposed for approval, EPA notes that the Agency is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that Mississippi's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.

    II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains.

    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements that states must meet for the “infrastructure” SIP requirements related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).” 2

    • 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures • 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System • 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources 3 • 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport • 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution • 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies • 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting • 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers • 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions • 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas 4

    2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1) Submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required in part D title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D, title I of the CAA. This proposed rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of 110(a)(2)(C).

    3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element as they relate to attainment areas.

    4 As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to this proposed rulemaking.

    • 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Visibility Protection • 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data • 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees • 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions?

    EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from Mississippi that addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The requirement for states to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP submissions “within 3 years (or such shorter period as the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),” and these SIP submissions are to provide for the “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of such NAAQS. The statute directly imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that “[e]ach such plan” submission must address.

    EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as “infrastructure SIP” submissions. Although the term “infrastructure SIP” does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such as “nonattainment SIP” or “attainment plan SIP” submissions to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of the CAA, “regional haze SIP” submissions required by EPA rule to address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program submissions to address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.

    Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and substantive program provisions.5 EPA therefore believes that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous, some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular, EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP submission.

    5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are triggered in the event of such emergencies.

    The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2) requires that “each” SIP submission must meet the list of requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b) requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense, EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.

    6See, e.g., “Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call; Final Rule,” 70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).

    7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of the new or revised NAAQS.

    Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit “a plan” to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined action.8 Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure SIP submission.9

    8See, e.g., “Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,” 78 FR 4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule), and “Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,” (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).

    9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA took separate proposed and final actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14, 2007 submittal.

    Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.10

    10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.

    EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions. For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D have to meet the “applicable requirements” of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA, because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.

    Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section 110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that particular NAAQS.

    Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.11 EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13, 2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submissions.13 The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.

    11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist states, as appropriate.

    12 “Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),” Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.

    13 EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C. Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations. On March 17, 2016, EPA released a memorandum titled, “Information on the Interstate Transport `Good Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)” to provide guidance to states for interstate transport requirements specific to the PM2.5 NAAQS.

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128, which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.

    As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR) pollutants, including greenhouse gases (GHGs). By contrast, structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.

    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the state's implementation plan meets basic structural requirements. For example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates whether the state has an EPA-approved minor NSR program and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.

    With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) Existing provisions related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (“SSM”); (ii) existing provisions related to “director's variance” or “director's discretion” that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's “Final NSR Improvement Rule,” 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (“NSR Reform”). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission even if it is aware of such existing provisions.14 It is important to note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.

    14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.

    EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section 110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the purposes of “implementation, maintenance, and enforcement” of a new or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.

    For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).

    Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a “SIP call” whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15 Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as past approvals of SIP submissions.16 Significantly, EPA's determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.17

    15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of excess emissions during SSM events. See “Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State Implementation Plan Revisions,” 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).

    16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See “Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,” 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3, 2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).

    17See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).

    IV. What is EPA's analysis of how Mississippi addressed the elements of the sections 110(a)(1) and (2) “infrastructure” provisions?

    Mississippi's December 11, 2015, infrastructure submission addresses the provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.

    1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that each implementation plan include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements. Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission provides an overview of the provisions of the Mississippi Air Pollution Control (APC) regulations relevant to air quality control. Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9),18 authorizes MDEQ to adopt, modify, or repeal ambient air quality standards and emissions standards for the control of air pollution, including those necessary to obtain EPA approval under section 110 of the CAA. Sections APC-S-1, Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, and APC-S-3, Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, establish enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures, means or techniques, for activities that contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the ambient air and provide authority for MDEQ to establish such limits and measures as well as schedules for compliance through SIP-approved permits to meet the applicable requirements of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these regulations, and Mississippi's statute are adequate for enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques, as well as schedules and timetables for compliance for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the State.

    18Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the State's infrastructure SIP submissions as “Appendix A-9.” As discussed above, unless otherwise indicated herein, portions of the Mississippi Code referenced in this proposal are not incorporated into the SIP.

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance, “State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown” (September 20, 1999), and the Agency is addressing such state regulations in a separate action.19

    19 On June 12, 2015, EPA published a final action entitled, “State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction.” See 80 FR 33840.

    Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

    2. 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to: (i) Monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator. Section APC-S-1, Air Emission Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, and Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(g), provides MDEQ with the authority to collect and disseminate information relating to air quality and pollution and the prevention, control, supervision, and abatement thereof. Annually, MDEQ develops and submits to EPA for approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary support equipment.20 On June 9, 2015, Mississippi submitted its monitoring network plan to EPA, which was approved by EPA on October 6, 2015. Mississippi's approved monitoring network plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air quality monitoring and data system requirements related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    20 On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance with 40 CFR part 58.

    3. 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources: This element consists of three sub-elements: Enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources, and preconstruction permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program). To meet the requirements for this element, Mississippi cited APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and APC-S-2, Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, Section V. These regulations enable MDEQ to regulate sources contributing to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS through enforceable permits.

    Enforcement: MDEQ's APC-S-2, Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, Section VI provides for the enforcement of PM2.5 emission limits and control measures through construction permitting for new or modified stationary sources. Also note that under Mississippi Code Title 49, Chapter 17, MDEQ has enforcement authority to seek penalties and injunctive relief for violations of emission limits and other control measures and violations of permits.

    PSD Permitting for Major Sources: EPA interprets the PSD sub-element to require that a state's infrastructure SIP submission for a particular NAAQS demonstrate that the state has a complete PSD permitting program in place covering the structural PSD requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants. A state's PSD permitting program is complete for this sub-element (and prong 3 of D(i) and J related to PSD) if EPA has already approved or is simultaneously approving the state's SIP with respect to all structural PSD requirements that are due under the EPA regulations or the CAA on or before the date of the EPA's proposed action on the infrastructure SIP submission.

    For the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Mississippi's authority to regulate new and modified sources to assist in the protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable areas in Mississippi is established in Regulations APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, and APC-S-2, Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment. These SIP-approved regulations pertain to the construction of any new major stationary source or any project at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable. Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission demonstrates that new major sources and major modifications in areas of the State designated attainment or unclassifiable for the specified NAAQS are subject to a federally-approved PSD permitting program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA to satisfy the infrastructure SIP PSD elements.21 As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate and comply with the PSD elements of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    21 For more information on the structural PSD program requirements that are relevant to EPA's review infrastructure SIP in connection with the current PSD-related infrastructure requirements, see the Technical Support Document in the docket for today's rulemaking.

    Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Mississippi has a SIP-approved minor NSR permitting program at APC-S-2, Section I. D—Permitting Requirements, that regulates the preconstruction permitting of minor modifications and construction of minor stationary sources.

    EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for enforcement of control measures, PSD permitting for major sources and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components: 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). Each of these components has two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as “prongs,” that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state (“prong 3”), or to protect visibility in another state (“prong 4”).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2: EPA is not proposing any action related to the provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 1”), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (“prong 2”) of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). EPA will consider these requirements in relation to Mississippi's 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 3: With regard to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), the PSD element, referred to as prong 3, this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to: a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA, or (if the state contains a nonattainment area for the relevant pollutant) a NNSR program that implements the NAAQS for a relevant pollutant. As discussed in more detail above under section 110(a)(2)(C), Mississippi's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflects the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of prong 3. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for interstate transport for PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3).

    110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—prong 4: EPA is not proposing any action in this rulemaking related to the interstate transport provisions pertaining to visibility protection in other states of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 4) and will consider these requirements in relation to Mississippi's 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure submission in a separate rulemaking.

    5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air Pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions ensuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. Section APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, provides how MDEQ will notify neighboring state and local agencies of potential impacts from new or modified sources consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166, which is adopted by reference into the Mississippi SIP. Additionally, Mississippi does not have any pending obligation under section 115 and 126 of the CAA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for ensuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    6. 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide: (i) Necessary assurances that the state will have adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation plan, (ii) that the state comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any plan provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's SIP as meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii). EPA is proposing to approve, in part, and disapprove, in part, Mississippi's SIP respecting section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). EPA's rationale for its proposal respecting each section of 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.

    To satisfy the requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), Mississippi provides that MDEQ is responsible for promulgating rules and regulations for the NAAQS, emissions standards, general policies, a system of permits, fee schedules for the review of plans, and other planning needs as found in Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(d) and Section 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9). As evidence of the adequacy of MDEQ's resources with respect to sub-elements (i) and (iii), EPA submitted a letter to Mississippi on April 19, 2016, outlining 105 grant commitments and the current status of these commitments for fiscal year 2015. The letter EPA submitted to Mississippi can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0424. Annually, states update these grant commitments based on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable requirements related to the NAAQS. There were no outstanding issues in relation to the SIP for fiscal year 2015, therefore, MDEQ's grants were finalized and closed out. In addition, the requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are met when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal. This determination ensures that each submittal provides evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under State law has been used to carry out the State's implementation plan and related issues. Mississippi's authority to implement provisions of the State's implementation plan is included in all prehearings and final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi has adequate resources for implementation of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    To meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), states must comply with the requirements respecting state boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act. Section 128 of the CAA requires that states include provisions in their SIP to address conflicts of interest for state boards or bodies that oversee CAA permits and enforcement orders and disclosure of conflict of interest requirements. Specifically, CAA section 128(a)(1) necessitates that each SIP shall require that at least a majority of any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders shall be subject to the described public interest service and income restrictions therein. Subsection 128(a)(2) requires that the members of any board or body, or the head of an executive agency with similar power to approve permits or enforcement orders under the CAA, shall also be subject to conflict of interest disclosure requirements.

    To meet its section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) obligations for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission cites Article 4, Section 109 of the Mississippi Constitution and portions of Mississippi Code sections 25-4-25, -27, -29, -103, -105, and -109. These provisions were incorporated into the Mississippi SIP to meet CAA section 128 requirements in EPA's final action for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs. See 78 FR 20793.22 In this same final action for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS infrastructure SIPs (78 FR 20793), EPA disapproved Mississippi's October 11, 2012, submission as not satisfying the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1).

    22 This final action pertained to Mississippi's October 11, 2012, infrastructure SIP submission and only addressed compliance with 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting CAA section 128 requirements.

    Based upon the review of the above cited laws and provisions, EPA is proposing to approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portions of the infrastructure SIP submission as it relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is proposing to disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) portion of the infrastructure SIP submission as it pertains to compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.23

    23 EPA took similar action with respect to Mississippi's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Lead, and 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.

    With respect to the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1), the provisions included in the infrastructure SIP submission do not preclude at least a majority of the members of the Mississippi Boards 24 from receiving a significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by such Boards. While the submitted laws and provisions preclude members of the Mississippi Boards from certain types of income (e.g., contracts with State or political subdivisions thereof, or income obtained through the use of his or her public office or obtained to influence a decision of the Mississippi Boards), they do not preclude a majority of members of the Mississippi Boards from deriving any significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders so long as that income is not derived from one of the proscribed methods described in the laws and provisions submitted by the State. To date, because a majority of board members may still derive a significant portion of income from persons subject to permits or enforcement orders issued by the Mississippi Boards, the Mississippi SIP does not meet the section 128(a)(1) majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, and as such, EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates only to this portion of section 128(a)(1).

    24 The Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality issues and supervises enforcement orders, and the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality Permit Board has the authority to issue, modify, revoke or deny permits.

    Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it relates to the public interest requirements of section 128(a)(1) and the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 128(a)(2) and proposing to disapprove Mississippi's section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) submission as it pertains to compliance with the significant portion of income requirement of section 128(a)(1) for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    7. 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting: Section 110(a)(2)(F) requires SIPs to meet applicable requirements addressing: (i) The installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and emissions related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this section, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for public inspection. Section APC-S-2, Permit Regulations for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, establishes requirements for emissions compliance testing utilizing emissions sampling and analysis. It further describes how the State ensures the quality of its data through observing emissions and monitoring operations. MDEQ uses these data to track progress towards maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies, identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. Mississippi Code 49, Section 49-17-21 (Appendix A-9) provides MDEQ with the authority to require the maintenance of records related to the operation of air contaminant sources and any authorized representative of the Commission may examine and copy any such records or memoranda pertaining to the operation of such contaminant source. Section APC-S-2 lists requirements for compliance testing and reporting that is required to be included in any MDEQ air pollution permit and requires that copies of records relating to the operation of air contamination sources be submitted to the Permit Board as required by the permit or upon request. Section APC-S-1, Air Emission Regulations For The Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants, authorizes source owners or operators to use any credible evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting compliance certifications. EPA is unaware of any provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the Mississippi SIP.

    Additionally, Mississippi is required to submit emissions data to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR 76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants and the precursors that form them—NOX, SO2, ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds. Many states also voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. Mississippi made its latest update to the 2012 NEI on January 9, 2014. EPA compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and releases it to the general public through the Web site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    8. 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers: This section of the CAA requires that states demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Mississippi Code Title 49 (Appendix A-9) and Section APC-S-3, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, identify air pollution emergency episodes and preplanned abatement strategies. Specifically, Section APC-S-3 authorizes the MDEQ Director, once it has been determined that an Air Pollution Emergency Episode condition exists at one or more monitoring sites solely because of emissions from a limited number of sources, to order source(s) to put into effect the emission control programs which are applicable for each episode stage. Section APC-S-3 also lists regulations to prevent the excessive buildup of air pollutants during air pollution episodes. Also, Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-27 (Appendix A-9), states that in the event an emergency is found to exist by the Mississippi Commission on Environmental Quality, it may issue an emergency order as circumstances may require. Emergency situations include those which create an imminent and substantial endangerment threatening the public health and safety or the lives and property of the people in Mississippi. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP is adequate for emergency powers related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).

    9. 110(a)(2)(H): SIP Revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H), in summary, requires each SIP to provide for revisions of such plan (i) as may be necessary to take account of revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods of attaining such standard, and (ii) whenever the Administrator finds that the plan is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS or to otherwise comply with any additional applicable requirements. MDEQ is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS in Mississippi. The State has the ability and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS. Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(h) (Appendix A-9), provides MDEQ with the statutory authority to adopt, modify or repeal and promulgate ambient air and water quality standards and emissions standards for the State. As such, the State has the authority to revise the SIP to accommodate changes to NAAQS and revise the SIP if the EPA Administrator finds the plan to be substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate a commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.

    10. 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, and PSD and Visibility Protection: EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public notification requirements of section 127, PSD, and visibility protection. EPA's rationale for each sub-element is described below.

    Consultation with government officials (121 consultation): Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA requires states to provide a process for consultation with local governments, designated organizations and Federal Land Managers carrying out NAAQS implementation requirements pursuant to section 121 relative to consultation. Section APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, and Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(c) (Appendix A-9), along with the State's various implementations plans, such as the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan, provide for consultation between appropriate state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the corresponding Federal Land Managers whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP development activities. Mississippi adopted state-wide consultation procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity. These consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs. Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the consultation procedures requires MDEQ to consult with Federal, state and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate that the State meets applicable requirements related to consultation with government officials for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government officials.

    Public notification (127 public notification): These requirements are met through regulation APC-S-3, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes, which requires that MDEQ notify the public of any air pollution alert, warning, or emergency. The MDEQ Web site also provides air quality summary data, air quality index reports and links to more information regarding public awareness of measures that can prevent such exceedances and of ways in which the public can participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide public notification related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.

    PSD: With regard to the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J), this requirement may be met by a state's confirmation in an infrastructure SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural requirements of part C of title I of the CAA. As discussed in more detail above under the section discussing 110(a)(2)(C), Mississippi's SIP contains provisions for the State's PSD program that reflect the relevant SIP revisions pertaining to the required structural PSD requirements to satisfy the requirement of the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices are adequate for the PSD element of section 110(a)(2)(J).

    Visibility protection: EPA's 2013 Guidance notes that it does not treat the visibility protection aspects of section 110(a)(2)(J) as applicable for purposes of the infrastructure SIP approval process. MDEQ referenced its regional haze program as germane to the visibility component of section 110(a)(2)(J). EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility protection and regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act (which includes sections 169A and 169B). However, there are no newly applicable visibility protection obligations after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Thus, EPA has determined that states do not need to address the visibility component of 110(a)(2)(J) in infrastructure SIP submittals so MDEQ does not need to rely on its regional haze program to fulfill its obligations under section 110(a)(2)(J). As such, EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS is approvable for the visibility protection element of section 110(a)(2)(J) and that Mississippi does not need to rely on its regional haze program to address this element.

    11. 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of Modeling Data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quality modeling so that effects on air quality of emissions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submission of such data to the EPA can be made. Sections APC-S-2, V. B.—Permit Regulation for the Construction and/or Operation of Air Emissions Equipment, and APC-S-5, Mississippi Regulations for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, specify that required air modeling be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W, Guideline on Air Quality Models, as incorporated into the Mississippi SIP. Also of note, Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-17(e) (Appendix A-9),25 authorizes MDEQ to “encourage, participate in, or conduct studies, investigations, research and demonstrations relating to air and water quality and pollution and causes, prevention, control and abatement as it may deem advisable and necessary for the discharge of its duties under [the Mississippi air and water pollution control law].” These standards demonstrate that Mississippi has the authority to perform air quality monitoring and provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, Mississippi supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for the southeastern states. Taken as a whole, Mississippi's air quality regulations and practices demonstrate that MDEQ has the authority to provide relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data, related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).

    25Mississippi Code Title 49 is referenced in the State's infrastructure SIP submissions as “Appendix A-9.” As discussed above, unless otherwise indicated herein, portions of the Mississippi Code referenced in this proposal are not incorporated into the SIP.

    12. 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval of a fee program under title V.

    Mississippi's Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-2-9(c) (Appendix A-9), authorizes MDEQ to apply for, receive, and expend Federal or State funds in order to operate its air programs. Mississippi SIP Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-30 (Appendix A-9), provides for the assessment of title V permit fees to cover the reasonable cost of reviewing and acting upon air permitting activities in the State including title V, PSD and NNSR permits. Mississippi Code Title 49, Section 49-17-14 (Appendix A-9), allows MDEQ to expend or utilize monies in the Mississippi Air Operating Permit Program Fee Trust Fund to pay all reasonable direct and indirect costs associated with the development and administration of the title V program and the PSD and NNSR permitting programs. The Mississippi Air Operating Permit Program Fee Trust Fund consists of State legislative appropriations, Federal grant funds and title V fees. Additionally, Mississippi has a federally-approved title V operating permit program at Section APC-S-6 26 that covers the implementation and enforcement of PSD and NNSR permits after they have been issued. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi adequately provides for permitting fees related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS when necessary.

    26 Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.

    13. 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected Local Entities: Section 110(a)(2)(M) of the Act requires states to provide for consultation and participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions affected by the SIP. Mississippi Code Title 49, Sections 49-17-17(c) 49-17-19(b) (Appendix A-9) requires that MDEQ notify the public (including local political subdivisions) of an application, preliminary determination, the activity or activities involved in the permit action, any emissions change associated with any permit modification, and the opportunity for comment prior to making a final permitting decision. Additionally, MDEQ works closely with local political subdivisions during the development of its transportation conformity SIP and regional haze SIP. EPA has made the preliminary determination that Mississippi's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities related to the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

    V. Proposed Action

    With the exception of interstate transport provisions pertaining to the contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in other states and visibility protection requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs 1, 2, and 4), and the state board majority requirements respecting the significant portion of income of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA is proposing to approve Mississippi's December 11, 2015, SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS for the above described infrastructure SIP requirements. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of Mississippi's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS because these aspects of the submission are consistent with section 110 of the CAA. With regard to the state board majority requirements respecting significant portion of income, EPA is proposing to disapprove Mississippi's December 11, 2015, infrastructure submission.

    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal that addresses a requirement of a CAA Part D Plan or is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as described in CAA section 110(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock. The portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provisions (the provisions being proposed for disapproval in this notice) were not submitted to meet requirements for Part D or a SIP call, and therefore, if EPA takes final action to disapprove this submittal, no sanctions will be triggered. However, if this disapproval action is finalized, that final action will trigger the requirement under section 110(c) that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than two years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the deficiency, and EPA approves the plan or plan revision before EPA promulgates such FIP.

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: May 26, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13601 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 15 [ET Docket No. 13-49; Report No. 3045] Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's Rulemaking proceeding by James Arden Barnett, Jr., Esq., on behalf of Global Automakers, Inc., Ari Q. Fitzgerald, on behalf of Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, and Stephen E. Coran, on behalf of The Wireless Internet Service Providers Association.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before June 23, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before July 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aole Wilkins, Policy and Rules Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418-2406, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3045, released May 20, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: In the Matter of Revision of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, published at 81 FR 19896, April 6, 2016, and FCC 16-24. This Notice is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 3.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer. Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13485 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 391 Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Parts 240 and 242 [Docket Numbers FMCSA-2015-0419 and FRA-2015-0111] RIN 2126-AB88 and 2130-AC52 Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM); extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA and FRA published an ANPRM on March 10, 2016, requesting certain information regarding the evaluation of safety sensitive personnel for moderate-to-severe obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The comment period for the ANPRM is extended from June 8, 2016, to July 8, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the ANPRM published in the Federal Register on March 10, 2016 (81 FR 12642) is extended. Comments on the ANPRM are due by July 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by either of the docket numbers listed at the beginning of this document using any one of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov.

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

    Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-366-9329. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions regarding submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FMCSA: Ms. Christine Hydock, Chief of the Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-366-4001, or by email at [email protected]

    FRA: Dr. Bernard Arseneau, Medical Director, Assurance and Compliance, FRA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at 202-493-6232, or by email at [email protected]

    If you have questions about viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Ms. Cheryl Collins, Dockets Manager, Docket Services, telephone 202-493-0402.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA and FRA encourage you to participate by submitting comments and related materials.

    Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (FMCSA-2015-0419 or FRA-2015-0111), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA and FRA recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter either docket number, “FMCSA-2015-0419” or “FRA-2015-0111” in the “Keyword” box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box in the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope.

    FMCSA and FRA will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change this document based on your comments.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, “FMCSA-2015-0419” or “FRA-2015-0111” in the “Keyword” box and click “Search.” Next, click “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document listed to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its potential 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.

    Background

    On May 18, 2016, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) requested an extension to the comment period (Docket ID: FMCSA-2015-0419-0348) in order to review the results from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) Commercial Driver Survey on Sleep Apnea Issues (http://atri-online.org/2016/04/14/atri-launches-commercial-driver-survey-on-sleep-apnea-issues/). In its request, OOIDA stated that the survey will provide a comprehensive look at the impact of OSA screening and treatment within the motor carrier community that is beyond the information which any one carrier can provide. Furthermore, with this data in hand, OOIDA will be able to present a better analysis of the information requested by the ANPRM. ATRI released its survey results on Thursday, May 26, 2016.

    FMCSA and FRA believe that other potential commenters to this rulemaking will benefit from an extension as well. Accordingly, FMCSA and FRA extend the comment period for all comments on the ANPRM and its related documents to July 8, 2016.

    Issued under the authority of delegations in 49 CFR 1.87(f) and (i) and 49 CFR 1.89(a), respectively: June 2, 2016. Larry W. Minor, Associate Administrator for Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Robert C. Lauby, Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety & Chief Safety Officer, Federal Railroad Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13564 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    81 110 Wednesday, June 8, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0036] Notice of Request for Revision to and Extension of Approval of an Information Collection; Importation of Mangoes From India Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection; comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's intention to request a revision to and extension of approval of an information collection associated with the regulations for the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0036.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0036, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0036 or in our reading room, which is located in Room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the importation of mangoes from India, contact Dr. Nicole Russo, Assistant Director, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PHP, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 156, Riverdale, MD 20737; (301) 851-2159. For copies of more detailed information on the information collection, contact Ms. Kimberly Hardy, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2727.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Importation of Mangoes From India Into the Continental United States.

    OMB Control Number: 0579-0312.

    Type of Request: Revision to and extension of approval of an information collection.

    Abstract: The Plant Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to restrict the importation, entry, or interstate movement of plants, plant products, and other articles to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or their dissemination within the United States. As authorized by the PPA, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world as provided in “Subpart—Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75).

    Under § 319.56-46 of the regulations, APHIS allows the importation of mangoes from India into the continental United States under certain conditions to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States. These conditions involve the use of information collection activities, one of which is a phytosanitary certificate. As a condition of entry, the mangoes must undergo irradiation treatment and be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate with additional declaration statements providing specific information regarding the treatment and inspection of the mangoes and the orchards in which they are grown. The additional information collection activities include a preclearance workplan, trust fund agreement, compliance agreement, monitoring of inspections, and recordkeeping.

    Since the last approval of this collection by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), we have added activities that were previously not accounted for, such as an orchard inspection agreement between APHIS and the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of India, package labeling identifying the treatment facility and date of treatment, treatment certification, and denial/withdrawal of facility certification. We have also revised the estimates of burden associated with this information collection.

    We are asking OMB to approve our use of these information collection activities, as described, for an additional 3 years.

    The purpose of this notice is to solicit comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our information collection. These comments will help us:

    (1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the 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, through use, as appropriate, of automated, electronic, mechanical, and other collection technologies; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Estimate of burden: The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.016 hours per response.

    Respondents: Importers of mangoes and the NPPO of India.

    Estimated annual number of respondents: 76.

    Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 1,233.

    Estimated annual number of responses: 93,713.

    Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 1,509 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.)

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of June 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13567 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Commodity Credit Corporation Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA); Cotton Ginning Cost-Share (CGCS) Program Payments to Cotton Producers AGENCY:

    Commodity Credit Corporation and Farm Service Agency, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This NOFA announces the availability of cost-share funds to certain cotton producers of the United States, specifically for the 2015 cotton crop. Eligible CGCS participants will receive a one-time payment, calculated based on a cost-share not to exceed 40 percent of calculated ginning costs by region, the number of cotton acres that were planted, including failed acreage, for the 2015 crop year, and the percentage of share the participant had in the cotton. Similar to other Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) programs, certain eligibility requirements apply, such as a $40,000 per individual or entity payment limit and a requirement that each participant's 3-year average adjusted gross income (AGI) be $900,000 or less. CGCS Program payments will be made to help the domestic cotton industry find new and improved ways to market cotton.

    DATES:

    Application period: June 20, 2016 through August 5, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kelly Hereth, (202) 720-0448.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    U.S. upland and extra-long staple (ELS) cotton producers are required to gin and bale cotton before either of the components of cotton (lint or seed) can be marketed, as there is no commerce in un-ginned bales. Approximately 13 million bales were ginned for the 2015 cotton crop year. There exists, however, 2014 cotton production carryover (ginned cotton inventory that has not yet been sold), as well as the 2015 cotton crop production some which has not been marketed. While the payments are based on ginning costs, the intended effect of the CGCS Program is to aid the broader marketing chain associated with cotton. For example, there is a direct cost to cotton producers associated with ginning for improved bale packing and storage to meet the ever increasing quality demands of the fiber industry, and there is a large domestic market for the cotton seed extracted during the ginning process.

    The state of the market has limited the ability of cotton producers to expand domestic markets, develop new and additional markets, maintain existing markets that would have otherwise shrunk and marketing facilities, and increase the uses for cotton. The Commodity Credit Corporation Charter Act (15 U.S.C. 714c(e)) includes authority for CCC to use its general powers to increase the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities (other than tobacco) by expanding or aiding in the expansion of domestic markets or by developing or aiding in the development of new and additional markets, marketing facilities, and uses for such commodities.

    The ginning of cotton is necessary prior to marketing the lint for fiber or the seed for oil or feed; therefore CCC is using its general authority to aid in the expansion and maintenance of domestic markets for cotton. Increased domestic consumption and uses for cotton as a result of the CGCS Program payments to cotton producers, based on cotton ginning costs, will aid more than just the farmers; as the cotton gins, cooperatives, marketers, cottonseed crushers, and other marketing facilities will indirectly benefit also.

    CGCS is being done as a NOFA, as opposed to a regulation, because it is a one-time payment to aid expansion and creation of new markets for cotton. Also, CGCS is based upon 2015 cotton crop acres which are already known to FSA through previously submitted acreage reports. Accordingly, there is no benefit for public comment on CGCS.

    The Farm Service Agency (FSA) will administer the CGCS Program on behalf of CCC, using CCC funds.

    CGCS Description

    CGCS is a one-time payment to cotton producers. CGCS will be available to producers of upland and extra-long staple (ELS) cotton. CGCS payments will be available to those cotton producers who had a share in the 2015 cotton acres that were planted, including failed cotton acreage, and reported to FSA, including landowners who had a share interest and risk in the cotton crop and incurred ginning costs for the 2015 cotton crop.

    FSA will make approximately $300 million in CGCS payments to cotton producers. The maximum aggregate payment amount a person or legal entity is eligible for under CGCS is $40,000. The funds announced in this NOFA are not subject to sequestration.

    Most 2015 cotton crop producers have already submitted the required form FSA-578, “Report of Acreage”, to FSA, as part of their participation in various FSA and CCC programs. The regulation in 7 CFR part 718 requires producers to report for various commodities, including the number of cotton acres that were planted, including failed acres, in the United States for their 2015 cotton crop and their percentage share of the reported 2015 cotton crop acreage. Accordingly, FSA has already acquired this information as previously reported to FSA on a FSA-578 or a crop acreage report to their crop insurance agent (both reports are referred to in this NOFA as the acreage report). If there were any errors in the previously submitted acreage report, the producer may go through the established FSA process to correct the reported information. Any such requests for correction are subject to review and require approval by FSA through the established process before they are accepted. Because FSA already possesses 2015 cotton acreage report data, we know who is potentially eligible to apply for the CGCS Program and will mail the application to such applicants. Applicants may also apply through an FSA county office.

    Payment Limits, Eligible Persons, and Legal Entities

    CGCS payments are limited to $40,000 per person or legal entity.

    A person or legal entity is ineligible for payments if the person's or legal entity's AGI for the applicable compliance program year is more than $900,000. If a person with an indirect interest in a legal entity has AGI of more than $900,000, the CGCS payments subject to AGI compliance provisions to the legal entity will be reduced as calculated based on the percent interest of the person in the legal entity receiving the payment. The relevant years used to calculate AGI for CGCS are the 2011, 2012, and 2013 tax years. As with other FSA and CCC programs, AGI will be calculated based on the average income for the 3 taxable years preceding the most immediately preceding complete taxable year for which benefits are requested.

    In addition to having a share in cotton planted in 2015, to be eligible for a CGCS Program payment, each applicant is required to be a person or legal entity who was actively engaged in farming in 2015 and otherwise eligible for payment, as specified in 7 CFR part 1400, and who complies with requirements including, but not limited to, those pertaining to highly erodible land conservation and wetland conservation provisions (commonly referred to as the conservation compliance provisions) specified in 7 CFR part 12.

    Foreign persons are not eligible for payments. Federal, State, and local governments are not eligible for CGCS payments.

    Appeal regulations specified in 7 CFR parts 11 and 780 apply. FSA program requirements and determinations that are not in response to, or result from, an individual disputable set of facts in an individual participant's application for assistance are not matters that can be appealed.

    Payment eligibility, payment limits, and AGI limits are the same for CGCS Program payments as they have been for other FSA and CCC programs, for example the Cotton Transition Assistance Program (see 7 CFR parts 1400 and 1412).

    Payment Calculation

    The CGCS payment will be calculated as follows:

    acres × share × CGCS payment rate

    Acres are the number of 2015 cotton crop acres (both upland and ELS) in which the applicant had an interest, as reported on their acreage report as planted (including failed acres, but not prevented planted acres).

    Share is the producer's or landowner's share of such acres.

    As shown in Table 1, the CGCS payment rate is 40 percent times the ginning cost. The ginning cost is the calculated average cost of ginning per acre in the production region. The applicable production region is the State in which the 2015 cotton crop (upland and ELS cotton) was planted (not where the farm operation is located).

    There are four production regions, consistent with the U.S. cotton industry's longstanding designation. The per-acre regional rates are defined in Table 1. Cotton acreage planted in 2015 in any state not listed in Table 1, will receive the regional rate based on where the 2015 cotton acres are located, as determined by the Deputy Administrator.

    Table 1—Cotton Production Regions Region States Costs of
  • ginning
  • per acre
  • CGCS
  • payment
  • rate 1
  • Southeast Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia $118.60 $47.44 Mid-South Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Tennessee 140.65 56.26 Southwest Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas 92.43 36.97 West Arizona, California, New Mexico 243.53 97.41 1 The CGCS Payment Rate is 40 percent times the regional rate.

    To develop the costs in Table 1, FSA used the USDA Economic Research Service's calculation of cotton ginning costs, which is based on the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). The data is based on a large survey of cotton producers in 2007 and was updated through 2014 using several indices that reflect annual changes in ginning costs. The per planted acre ginning costs were converted to regional averages weighted by each State's share of regional plantings during the most recent 5 years. In the ARMS data, no distinction is made between ginning costs for upland and ELS cotton, so the same rate will be applied to both varieties of cotton.

    For example, an applicant has 1,000 acres of upland cotton located in Texas and 500 acres of ELS cotton in New Mexico, and the applicant has 100 percent interest in all of the cotton reported for 2015 for the farm. Even though the farm operation is located in Texas, the applicable CGCS payment rate is based on where the cotton is planted. Therefore, for the acres located in Texas the CGCS payment rate is $36.97, and for the cotton acreage located in New Mexico, the CGCS payment rate is $97.41 (as shown in Table 1). Therefore, the result of the CGCS calculation would be $85,675 ((1,000 cotton acres in Texas × $36.97 per acre × 100 percent share) + (500 acres in New Mexico × $97.41 × 100 percent share)), but the CGCS payment to this applicant would be reduced to $40,000 because the CGCS payment limit is $40,000 per person or legal entity.

    Application and Eligible Applicants

    To apply for the CGCS Program, each applicant must submit a complete and valid CGCS application (CCC-882 form) to their recording FSA county office either in person, by mail, or by electronic means, including email and facsimile. The application period is from June 20, 2016, through August 5, 2016. CGCS applications must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016. Applicants may revise their application and re-submit it to FSA during the application period; the revised CGCS application must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016. Any application received by FSA after August 5, 2016, will not be considered and will be ineligible for any CGCS payment. The application must include, but is not limited to, the number of 2015 planted acres of cotton (upland and ELS cotton) on the farm, the farm serial number, and tract number of the farm where the cotton acreage was reported. The applicant will be required to submit evidence upon request, such as seed receipts, custom harvesting receipts, or bale gin lists, to substantiate either the claimed share interest in the cotton or the number of cotton acres reported for the 2015 crop year.

    In order to be eligible for CGCS, applicants are required to have reported their 2015 crop year planted cotton, including failed acreage, to FSA using the FSA-578 acreage report. Only the number of cotton acres reported on the FSA-578 acreage report, and the producer's share in the planted, including failed, cotton acreage for the 2015 crop year will be eligible for consideration for a CGCS payment. In the event that there are determined acres of planted, including failed, cotton (upland and ELS cotton) crop acreage for 2015, as verified by FSA in carrying out acreage reporting compliance activities, then determined acres will be used in place of the reported acres. (Standard FSA acreage report compliance activities include verifying the number of reported acres; the results are referred to as “determined acres.”)

    The applicant's share interest in cotton acres on a CGCS application cannot be greater than the share interest in cotton acres as reported on the acreage report. FSA will verify and confirm the applicant's share interest in cotton acres reported on the CGCS application by comparing it to the applicant's share interest in the cropland as reported on that farm's acreage report for the 2015 crop year. For example, if a farm has 50 acres of cotton and two producers report equal shares of the 50 acres of cotton, each must each have a 100 percent share interest in at least 25 cotton acres (or 50 percent share in the 50 reported cotton acres) reported on the farm acreage report for the 2015 crop year to support their reported share of cotton acres on that farm.

    If an eligible applicant has sold or leased a farm that produced cotton in 2015, the applicant may assign the CGCS payment by completing form CCC-36. However, under no circumstances will CCC pay both the 2015 producer and the 2016 producer of such cotton.

    As noted above, if there are any corrections required for acreage reports, they may be made, however corrections related to upland or ELS cotton acres or shares must be received by FSA by August 5, 2016, the CGCS Program application deadline in order to be used to calculate the CGCS payment. Any correction to 2015 cotton crop acres made to the acreage report after August 5, 2016, is not eligible to be considered for CGCS.

    Process for Evaluation of CGCS Applications and Approval of Payments

    FSA will review each CCC-882 application to determine eligibility by verifying that the application is complete and the number of cotton acres the applicant certified on the application for the 2015 crop year is the same as reported on the FSA-578 acreage report.

    When there are multiple eligible applicants for a farm, FSA will approve an application for the CGCS Program and approve the division of payment when all the following, as applicable, occur or have been determined to have occurred:

    (1) Each landlord, tenant, and sharecropper that apply sign their own CGCS Program application, and their combined payment shares recorded on the application when added together cannot exceed 100 percent of the shares recorded on the acreage report for the 2015 cotton crop for the farm, and neither the landlord, tenant, nor sharecropper can receive 100 percent of CGCS payment for the farm;

    (2) CCC determines that the interests of tenants and sharecroppers are being protected by confirming the shares are consistent with the acreage report;

    (3) The applicant, upon the FSA county office committee's request, if necessary, will provide a copy of the lease agreement; and

    (4) CCC determines that the payment shares do not circumvent either the provisions of this NOFA or the provisions of 7 CFR part 1400.

    The result of an approved application will be a one-time payment, consistent with the terms specified in this NOFA and the payment application. All applications are subject to the approval by FSA on behalf of CCC, and FSA will not approve ineligible applications.

    Provisions Requiring Refund to FSA

    In the event that any application for a CGCS payment resulted from erroneous information or a miscalculation, the payment will be recalculated and the participant must refund any excess to FSA with interest to be calculated from the date of the disbursement to the participant. If for whatever reason FSA determines that the applicant misrepresented either the acreage or share of cotton acreage or both, or if the CGCS payment would exceed the participant's payment based upon correct acreage and share, the application will be disapproved and the full CGCS payment for that crop and participant will be required to be refunded to FSA with interest from date of disbursement. If any corrections to the 2015 cotton crop acres or shares are made to the acreage report after August 5, 2016, and would have resulted in a lower CGCS payment, the applicant will be required to refund the difference with interest from date of disbursement.

    The liability of anyone for any penalty or sanction resulting from a CGCS application, or for any refund to FSA or related charge is in addition to any other liability of such person under any civil or criminal fraud statute or any other provision of law including, but not limited to: 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 651, 1001, and 1014; 15 U.S.C. 714; and 31 U.S.C. 3729.

    Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OMB approved an emergency information collection request on CGCS so FSA can begin the application period upon publication of this NOFA.

    Environmental Review

    Because this is a one-time payment, there are no impacts to the human environment as defined by NEPA and, as such, no Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared.

    Val Dolcini, Administrator, Farm Service Agency, and Executive Vice President, Commodity Credit Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13672 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Farm Service Agency Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request June 2, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are required regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments regarding this information collection received by July 8, 2016 will be considered. Written comments should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20502. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8958.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Farm Service Agency

    Title: 7 CFR 1437, Noninsured Disaster Assistance Program and Report of Acreage.

    OMB Control Number: 0560-0175.

    Summary Of Collection: The Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 7333 and implemented under regulations issued at 7 CFR part 1437. NAP is administered by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) and is carried out by FSA State and County committees. The purpose of NAP is to help manage and reduce production risks faced by producers of eligible commercial crops or other agricultural commodities during a coverage period. NAP reduces financial losses that occur when natural disasters (damaging weather or adverse natural occurrence that is an eligible cause of loss) cause a loss of expected production or actual value for value loss crops, or where producers are prevented from planting an eligible crop because of an eligible cause of loss in a coverage period. NAP provides assistance for losses of floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), industrial crops, and sea oats sea grass, biomass, sweet sorghum and biomass sorghum. FSA will collect information using several forms.

    Need and Use of the Information: The information collected is necessary to determine whether a producer and crop or commodity meet applicable conditions for assistance and to determine compliance with existing regulations. Producers must annually: (1) Request NAP coverage by completing an application for coverage and paying a service fee by the CCC-established application closing date; (2) file a current crop-year report of acreage for the covered crop or commodity; and (3) certify harvest production of each covered crop or commodity. The information collected allows CCC to provide assistance under NAP for losses of commercial crops or other agricultural commodities (except livestock) for which catastrophic risk protection under 7 U.S.C. Section 1508 is not available. Eligible crops including commercial crops and agricultural commodities (except livestock) that are produced for food or fiber or specifically included by statute, including floriculture, ornamental nursery, Christmas trees, turfgrass sod, seed crops, aquaculture (including ornamental fish), industrial crops, and sea grass sea oats, biomass, sweet sorghum and biomass sorghum.

    Description of Respondents: Farms; Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Number of Respondents: 72,294.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting: On occasion; Weekly; Monthly; Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 933,528.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13538 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-05-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Deschutes-Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Deschutes and Ochoco Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Bend, Oregon. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/deschutes/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held June 23, 2016, at 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council's Office, 334 Northeast Hawthorne Avenue, Bend, Oregon.

    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 Deschutes National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sean Ferrell, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 541-383-5576 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. Discuss the goals and objectives of the RAC;

    2. Review projects proposals; and

    3. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.

    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 13, 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 Sean Ferrell, RAC Coordinator, Deschutes National Forest Supervisor's Office, 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, Oregon 97701; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 541-383-5531.

    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: June 1, 2016. A. Shane Jeffries, Deschutes National Forest, Deputy Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13560 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Information Collection Activity; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended), the Rural Utilities Service, an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA), invites comments on this information collection for which the Agency intends to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492, FAX: (202) 720-4120. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that the Agency is submitting to OMB for revision.

    Comments are invited on (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumption used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques on other forms and information technology. Comments may be sent to Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-1078, FAX: (202) 690-4492. Email: [email protected].

    Title: Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Household Program (SEARCH).

    OMB Control Number: 0572-0146.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved package.

    Abstract: The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Public Law 110-246 (Farm Bill) amended section 306(a)(2) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (CONACT) (7 U.S.C. 1926 (a)(2)). The amendment created a grant program to make Special Evaluation Assistance for Rural Communities and Households (SEARCH) Program grants.

    Under the SEARCH program, the Secretary may make predevelopment and planning grants to public or quasi-public agencies, organizations operated on a not-for-profit basis or Indian tribes on Federal and State reservations and other federally recognized Indian tribes. The grant recipients shall use the grant funds for feasibility studies, design assistance, and development of an application for financial assistance to financially distressed communities in rural areas with populations of 2,500 or fewer inhabitants for water and waste disposal projects as authorized in sections 306(a)(1), 306(a)(2) and 306(a)(24) of the CONACT.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per responses.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 25.

    Estimated Number of Total Annual Responses per Respondents: 310.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 635.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from MaryPat Daskal, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Ave. SW., STOP 1522, Room 5162 South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 720-7853, FAX: (202) 720-4120. Email: [email protected].

    All responses to this information collection and recordkeeping notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service .
    [FR Doc. 2016-13543 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Advisory Committees Expiration AGENCY:

    United States Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation of applications.

    SUMMARY:

    Because the terms of the members of the North Carolina Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the North Carolina Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of North Carolina to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Southern Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    Because the terms of the members of the Missouri Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Missouri Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of Missouri to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Central Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    Because the terms of the members of the Arizona Advisory Committee are expiring on July 24, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Arizona Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of the Arizona to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Western Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than June 24, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    Because the terms of the members of the Oklahoma Advisory Committee are expiring on August 14, 2016, the United States Commission on Civil Rights hereby invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed to apply. The memberships are exclusively for the Oklahoma Advisory Committee, and applicants must be residents of the Oklahoma to be considered. Letters of interest must be received by the Central Regional Office of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights no later than July 14, 2016. Letters of interest must be sent to the address listed below.

    DATES:

    Letters of interest for membership on the North Carolina Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.

    Letters of interest for membership on the Missouri Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.

    Letters of interest for membership on the Arizona Advisory Committee should be received no later than June 24, 2016.

    Letters of interest for membership on the Oklahoma Advisory Committee should be received no later than July 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send letters of interest for the North Carolina Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Southern Regional Office, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Suite 1840T, Atlanta, GA 30303. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Send letters of interest for the Missouri Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Central Regional Office, 400 State Avenue, Suite 908, Missouri City, KS 66101. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Send letters of interest for the Arizona Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    Send letters of interest for the Oklahoma Advisory Committee to: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Western Regional Office, 300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Letter can also be sent via email to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60603, (312) 353-8311. Questions can also be directed via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, and Oklahoma Advisory Committees are statutorily mandated federal advisory committees of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1975a. Under the charter for the advisory committees, the purpose is to provide advice and recommendations to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) on a broad range of civil rights matters in its respective state that pertain to alleged deprivations of voting rights or discrimination or denials of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or the administration of justice. Advisory committees also provide assistance to the Commission in its statutory obligation to serve as a national clearinghouse for civil rights information.

    Each advisory committee consists of not more than 19 members, each of whom will serve a four-year term. Members serve as unpaid Special Government Employees who are reimbursed for travel and expenses. To be eligible to be on an advisory committee, applicants must be residents of the respective state or district, and have demonstrated expertise or interest in civil rights issues.

    The Commission is an independent, bipartisan agency established by Congress in 1957 to focus on matters of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Its mandate is to:

    • Investigate complaints from citizens that their voting rights are being deprived,

    • study and collect information about discrimination or denials of equal protection under the law,

    • appraise federal civil rights laws and policies,

    • serve as a national clearinghouse on discrimination laws,

    • submit reports and findings and recommendations to the President and the Congress, and

    • issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination.

    The Commission invites any individual who is eligible to be appointed a member of the North Carolina, Missouri, Arizona, or Oklahoma Advisory Committee covered by this notice to send a letter of interest and a resume to the respective address above.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. David Mussatt Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13507 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of the New Mexico Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 10:00 a.m. (MDT) on Friday, June 24, 2016, at the Main Library, 501 Copper Avenue NW., Albuquerque, NM 87102. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to explore the topic of Elder Abuse. The Briefing topics will include elder care services, non or limited access to care that may be impacted by finances, legal services, and structure of services. The New Mexico Advisory Committee will hear from individuals, advocacy groups, community organizations, and representatives of local, state, and Federal agencies. A planning meeting will convene at 6:00 p.m. (MDT) on Thursday, June 23, 2016, at a location that is TBD. The purpose of the planning meeting is for the committee to review the agenda and procedures of the next day briefing meeting. .

    If other persons who plan to attend the meeting require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, July 24. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=264 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    AGENDA:

    Welcome and Introductions Sandra Rodriguez, Chair, New Mexico Advisory Commitee Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, RMRO-USCCR, Denver, CO Briefing New Mexico Advisory Committee Government Officials, Advocates, Experts DATES:

    Friday, June 24, 2016 (MDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Main Library, 501 Copper Avenue NW., Albuquerque, NM 87102.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malee Craft at [email protected], or 303-866-1040

    Dated: Thursday, June 2, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13508 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Missouri Advisory Committee To Discuss Approval of a Report to the Commission Regarding Civil Rights and Police/Community Relations in the State AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Missouri Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. CDT for the purpose of discussing approval of a report to the Commission regarding civil rights and police/community interactions in Missouri.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-539-3612, conference ID: 2570459. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines according to their wireless plan, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public may comment in advance of the meeting, or at the designated public comment period during the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Corrine Sanders at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=258. Click on “meeting details” and “documents” to download. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda
    Welcome and Introductions Committee Discussion: Draft report resulting from Committee hearings on Civil Rights and Police/Community Relations in Missouri. (February 23, 2015 St. Louis; August 20, 2015 Kansas City) Open Comment Recommendations and Next Steps DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. CDT.

    Public Call Information Dial: 888-539-3612 Conference ID: 2570459 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected]

    Dated: June 2, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13506 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-535-903] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From Pakistan: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (circular welded pipe) from Pakistan is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective: June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3870.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less Than Fair Value Investigations, 80 FR 73708 (November 25, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, From Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan: Affirmative Preliminary Less Than Fair Value Determination Decision Memorandum,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is circular welded pipe from Pakistan. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.3 For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I to this notice.

    3See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Pakistan; Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” April 1, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Pursuant to section 776(a)-(b) of the Act, the Department has preliminarily relied upon facts otherwise available, with adverse inferences, to assign an estimated weighted-average dumping margin to the sole mandatory respondent International Industries Limited (IIL). For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary determination, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We cannot apply the methodology described in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act to calculate the “all-others” rate, as the only margin in this preliminary determination was calculated under section 776 of the Act. In cases where no weighted-average dumping margins besides zero, de minimis, or those determined entirely under section 776 of the Act have been established for individually examined entities, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department averages the margins calculated in the petition and applies the result to “all-other” entities not individually examined. In this case, however, only one margin was calculated in the petition. Therefore, we assigned as the “all-others” rate the only margin in the Petition, which is 11.80 percent.4

    4See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From Thailand: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Postponement of Final Determination, 79 FR 10487, 10488 (February 25, 2014), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum, unchanged in Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 79 FR 41978, 41979 (July 18, 2014).

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/
  • producer
  • Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • International Industries Limited 11.80 All-Others 11.80
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Pakistan, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average margin, as indicated in the chart above.5 These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs may be submitted no later than 30 days from the publication of this preliminary determination in the Federal Register.6 Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline for case briefs.7 Parties submitting case briefs and/or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit the following in regard to each argument: (1) A statement of the issue, (2) a brief (i.e., no longer than five pages) summary of the argument, and (3) a table of authorities.8

    6See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i); see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    7See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1)-(2).

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    The Department also invites parties to comment on the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum. Written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted no later than 30 days from the publication of this preliminary determination and should be submitted separately from the briefs. Scope-related comments must be filed on the record of this investigation, as well as the companion antidumping duty investigations of circular welded pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and the countervailing duty investigation of circular welded pipe from Pakistan.9

    9See Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request within 30 days of the publication of the preliminary determination in the Federal Register.10 Such requests should include the party's name, address, and telephone number, as well as the number of participants and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date, time, and location to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time, and location of any hearing.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Parties must file their case briefs and rebuttal briefs, as well as any requests for a hearing, electronically, using ACCESS.11 Electronically-filed documents must be successfully received in their entirety via ACCESS no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time by the abovementioned deadlines.12

    11See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(2)(i).

    12See 19 CFR 351.303(b)(1).

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    IIL, the mandatory respondent, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination) and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.13

    13See Letter from IIL, “CWP from Pakistan—Request to Postpone the Final Determination,” May 28, 2016.

    In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative, (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, (3) the requesting exporter has requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months, and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.14

    14See 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) and (e).

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (the ITC) of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine whether or not imports of the subject merchandise are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry within 120 days of publication of this preliminary determination or 45 days of publication of our final determination, whichever is later.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;

    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;

    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;

    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;

    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;

    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;

    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;

    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;

    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in
  • inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall
  • thickness
  • in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;

    (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242;

    (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding;

    (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

    (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;

    (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and

    (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures V. Scope Comments VI. Use of Facts Available With Adverse Inferences A. Application of Facts Available B. Use of Adverse Inference C. Selection of the Adverse Facts Available Rate D. Corroboration of Secondary Information VII. All-Others Rate VIII. Adjustments to Cash Deposit Rates for Export Subsidies in Companion Countervailing Duty Investigation IX. Verification X. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-13481 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-506] Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On February 2, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) initiated the fourth five-year (“sunset”) review of the antidumping duty order on porcelain-on-steel cooking ware (“POS cookware”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”).1 On the basis of a notice of intent to participate and an adequate substantive response filed on behalf of the domestic interested parties, as well as a lack of response from respondent interested parties, the Department conducted an expedited sunset review of the antidumping duty order, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). As a result of this sunset review, the Department finds that revocation of the Order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    1See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 45945 (August 3, 2015) (“Initiation Notice”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Devine, Enforcement and Compliance, Office V, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0238.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 2, 2016, the Department initiated the fourth sunset review of the Order pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”).2 On February 16, 2016, the Department received a timely notice of intent to participate in the sunset review on behalf of Columbian Home Products LLC (formerly General Housewares Corporation) (“Columbian”), pursuant to 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(i).3 In accordance with 19 CFR 351.218(d)(1)(ii)(A), Columbian is an interested party under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a producer of the domestic like product. On March 3, 2016, Columbian filed a substantive response in the sunset review within the 30-day deadline, as specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).4 The Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party in the sunset review. On April 4, 2016, the Department made its adequacy determination in the sunset review finding that the Department did not receive a substantive response from any respondent interested party.5

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 80 FR 45945 (August 3, 2015) (“Sunset Initiation”).

    3See Letter to the Secretary from Columbian, “Five-Year Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Intent to Participate in Sunset Review,” (February 16, 2016).

    4See Letter to the Secretary from Columbian, “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review Of Antidumping Duty Order On Porcelain-On-Steel Cooking Ware From The People's Republic Of China: Columbian's Response To Notice Of Initiation,” (March 3, 2016) (“Substantive Response”).

    5See Letter to the ITC from the Department, “Sunset Reviews Initiated on February 2, 2016,” (April 4, 2016); specifically, based on the lack of an adequate response in the sunset review from any respondent party, the Department is conducting an expedited (120-day) sunset review consistent with section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2). See also Procedures for Conducting Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders, 63 FR 13516, 13519 (March 20, 1998) (the Department normally will conduct an expedited sunset review where respondent interested parties provide an inadequate response).

    Scope of the Order

    The subject merchandise is porcelain-on-steel cooking ware, including tea kettles, which do not have self-contained electric heating elements. All of the foregoing are constructed of steel and are enameled or glazed with vitreous glasses. The merchandise is currently classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (“HTSUS”) subheading 7323.94.00.6

    6See Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 76 FR 7534 (February 10, 2011).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in this review are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order on Porcelain-on-Steel Cooking Ware from the People's Republic of China” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”) from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice. The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins likely to prevail if the Order were revoked. Parties may find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the review and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum which is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Services System (“ACCESS”). Access to ACCESS is available in the Central Records Unit room B8024 of the main Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Results of Review

    Pursuant to sections 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, we determine that revocation of the antidumping duty order on POS cookware from the PRC would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at weighted-average margins up to 66.65 percent.

    Notice Regarding Administrative Protective Order (“APO”)

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This sunset review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13578 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-523-812] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the Sultanate of Oman (Oman) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Johnson or Terre Keaton Stefanova, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929 or (202) 482-1280, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 There is one mandatory respondent participating in this investigation, Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73708 (November 25, 2015).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is CWP from Oman. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.3 For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe form Pakistan; Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated April 1, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price is calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act and normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    In this investigation, we preliminarily calculated an above de minimis margin for Al Jazeera, the sole respondent in this investigation. Therefore, the rate calculated for Al Jazeera is also assigned as the all-others rate.

    Preliminary Determination  4

    4 On March 14, 2016, the Department postponed the preliminary determination in this investigation until May 31, 2016, see Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 15039 (March 21, 2016).

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/
  • manufacturer
  • Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG 7.86 All Others 7.86
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from Oman, as described in Appendix I of this notice, for all companies, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits 5 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondent listed above will be the respondent-specific rate we determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified above, but the producer is, the rate will be the specific rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be the all-others rate. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations. Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    Al Jazeera requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.7

    7See Letter from Al Jazeera entitled, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Oman; request to extend final determination,” dated April 28, 2016.

    In accordance with sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporter has requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.8

    8See 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) and (e).

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;

    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;

    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;

    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;

    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;

    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;

    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;

    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;

    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in
  • inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall
  • thickness
  • in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;

    (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242;

    (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding;

    (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

    (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;

    (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and

    (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum

    1. Summary

    2. Background

    3. Period of Investigation

    4. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    5. Scope Comments

    6. Discussion of the Methodology

    a. Determination of the Comparison Method

    b. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis

    7. Date of Sale

    8. Product Comparisons

    9. Export Price

    10. Normal Value

    a. Home Market Viability

    b. Level of Trade

    c. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis

    1. Calculation of COP

    2. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices

    3. Results of the COP Test

    d. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison Market Prices

    11. Currency Conversion

    12. Conclusion

    [FR Doc. 2016-13480 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-835] Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 11, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on furfuryl alcohol from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) covering the period of review (“POR”) June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015.1 This review covers one company, Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd.2 The Department conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results, but we received no comments. Hence, these final results are unchanged from the Preliminary Results.

    1See Furfuryl Alcohol From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 12876 (March 11, 2016) (“Preliminary Results”).

    2Id.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mandy Mallott, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6430.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 11, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the instant review, preliminarily finding Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd. to be a part of the PRC-wide entity.3 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. 4 We received no comments from interested parties.

    3See Preliminary Results, at 12877.

    4Id.

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is furfuryl alcohol (C4H3OCH2OH). Furfuryl alcohol is a primary alcohol, and is colorless or pale yellow in appearance. It is used in the manufacture of resins and as a wetting agent and solvent for coating resins, nitrocellulose, cellulose acetate, and other soluble dyes. The product subject to this order is classifiable under subheading 2932.13.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Final Results of Review

    As a result of our review, we determine that the following dumping margin on furfuryl alcohol from the PRC exists for Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd., determined to be a part of the PRC-wide entity,5 for the period June 1, 2014, through May 31, 2015:

    5Id.

    Exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • PRC-Wide Entity 45.27
    Assessment Rates

    We will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 45.27 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of these final results of review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for Qingdao WenKem Co., Ltd., as part of the PRC-wide entity, will be the PRC-wide rate of 45.27 percent; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters who are not under review in this segment of the proceeding but who have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 45.27 percent; and (4) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter(s) that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement off antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13576 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-896] Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Expedited Second Sunset Review of Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    As a result of this sunset review, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the dumping margins identified in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shanah Lee, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6386, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 1, 2016, the Department published the notice of initiation of the second sunset review of the AD Order1 on magnesium metal from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).2 On February 16, 2016, US Magnesium LLC (“Petitioner”) notified the Department of its intent to participate within the 15-day period specified in section 351.218(d)(1)(i) of the Department's regulations. The domestic interested party claimed interested-party status under section 771(9)(C) of the Act as a manufacturer of a domestic like product in the United States.

    1See Notice of Antidumping Duty Order: Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 19928 (April 15, 2005) (“Order”).

    2See Initiation of Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review, 82 FR 5418 (February 2, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    On March 3, 2016, the Department received a complete substantive response to the Initiation Notice, with respect to the Order, from Petitioner within the 30-day period specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3)(i).3 The Department received no substantive responses from respondent interested parties. As a result, pursuant to section 751(c)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2), the Department has conducted an expedited (120-day) sunset review of the antidumping duty order on certain magnesium metal from the PRC.

    3See Submissions from Petitioner to the Department, “Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review Of The Antidumping Duty Order On Magnesium Metal From The People's Republic of China: US Magnesium's Substantive Response To The Notice Of Initiation,” (“Substantive Response”) dated March 3, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is magnesium metal from the PRC, which includes primary and secondary alloy magnesium metal, regardless of chemistry, raw material source, form, shape, or size. Magnesium is a metal or alloy containing by weight primarily the element magnesium. Primary magnesium is produced by decomposing raw materials into magnesium metal. Secondary magnesium is produced by recycling magnesium-backed scrap into magnesium metal. The magnesium covered by this investigation includes blends of primary and secondary magnesium.

    The subject merchandise includes the following alloy magnesium metal products made from primary and/or secondary magnesium including, without limitation, magnesium cast into ingots, slabs, rounds, billets, and other shapes, magnesium ground, chipped, crushed, or machined into raspings, granules, turnings, chips, powder, briquettes, and other shapes; and products that contain 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, magnesium, by weight, and that have been entered into the United States as conforming to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 4 and are thus outside the scope of the existing antidumping orders on magnesium from the PRC (generally referred to as “alloy” magnesium).

    4 The meaning of this term is the same as that used by the American Society for Testing and Materials in its Annual Book for ASTM Standards: Volume 01.02 Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.

    The scope of this order excludes: (1) All forms of pure magnesium, including chemical combinations of magnesium and other material(s) in which the pure magnesium content is 50 percent or greater, but less than 99.8 percent, by weight, that do not conform to an “ASTM Specification for Magnesium Alloy” 5 ; (2) magnesium that is in liquid or molten form; and (3) mixtures containing 90 percent or less magnesium in granular or powder form by weight and one or more of certain non-magnesium granular materials to make magnesium-based reagent mixtures, including lime, calcium metal, calcium including lime, calcium metal, calcium silicon, calcium carbide, calcium carbonate, carbon, slag coagulants, fluorspar, nephaline syenite, feldspar, alumina (Al203), calcium aluminate, soda ash, hydrocarbons, graphite, coke, silicon, rare earth metals/mischmetal, cryolite, silica/fly ash, magnesium oxide, periclase, ferroalloys, dolomite lime, and colemanite.6

    5 The material is already covered by existing antidumping orders. See Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Pure Magnesium From the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine; Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Antidumping Duty Investigation of Pure Magnesium from the Russian Federation, 60 FR 25691 (May 12, 1995); and Antidumping Duty Order: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form from the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 57936 (November 19, 2001).

    6 This third exclusion for magnesium-based reagent mixtures is based on the exclusion for reagent mixtures in the 2000-2001 investigations of magnesium from China, Israel, and Russia. See Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium in Granular Form From the People's Republic of China, 66 FR 49345 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From Israel, 66 FR 49349 (September 27, 2001); Final Determination of Sales at Not Less Than Fair Value: Pure Magnesium From the Russian Federation, 66 FR 49347 (September 27, 2001). These mixtures are not magnesium alloys, because they are not combined in liquid form and cast into the same ingot.

    The merchandise subject to this order is classifiable under items 8104.19.00, and 8104.30.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS items are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise is dispositive.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    A complete discussion of all issues raised in this sunset review is provided in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.7 The issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum include the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and the magnitude of the margins of dumping likely to prevail if the order were revoked. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    7See the Department's memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Result of Expedited Second Sunset Reviews of the Antidumping Duty Orders on Certain Magnesium Metal From the People's Republic of China,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Final Results of the Sunset Review

    Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, the Department determines that revocation of the antidumping duty order on magnesium metal from the PRC would likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping, and that the magnitude of the dumping margin likely to prevail would be weighted-average margins up to 141.49 percent.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    We are issuing and publishing the results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13574 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-816] Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of the Less Than Fair Value Investigation and Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 10, 2016, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) sustained the Final Remand Redetermination1 pertaining to the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of certain oil country tubular goods from the Republic of Turkey (OCTG from Turkey).2 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 CIT's final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Final Determination, and that the Department is amending the Final Determination with respect to Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Yücel Boru Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.Ş. (collectively, Yücel). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013.

    1See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand (Final Remand Redetermination) in Maverick Tube Corporation et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00244, Slip Op. 15-107 (Ct. Int'l Trade September 24, 2015) (Remand Order), aff'd Maverick Tube Corporation et al v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00244, Slip Op. 16-46, (Ct. Int'l Trade May 10, 2016). The Final Remand Redetermination is accessible at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/15-107.pdf.

    2See Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods From the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 79 FR 41971 (July 18, 2014) (Final Determination).

    DATES:

    Effective May 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bryan Hansen or Minoo Hatten, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3683 or (202) 482-1690, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 24, 2015, the CIT issued the Remand Order, directing the Department to reconsider the constructed value (CV) profit rate calculation used in the dumping margin analysis for Yücel, and granting the Department a voluntary remand to reconsider the duty drawback adjustment for Yücel.3 On remand, the Department: (1) Recalculated Yücel's CV profit rate by replacing Yücel's CV profit and CV selling expenses with an aggregate figure representing the calculated CV profit and selling expenses of Borusan Manesmann Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret A.S., the other mandatory respondent in this investigation, pursuant to section 773(e)(2)(B)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act); and (2) denied a duty drawback adjustment in its entirety for Yücel in its margin calculation.4 As a result, the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for Yücel changed. On May 10, 2016, the Court upheld the Final Remand Redetermination in full.5

    3See Remand Order, Slip Op. 15-107 at 25-26, 30-38.

    4See Final Remand Redetermination at 7-9, 24-28.

    5See Maverick, Slip Op. 16-46 at 11-22.

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the CAFC held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of 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 CIT's May 10, 2016, final judgment affirming the Final Remand Redetermination constitutes a final decision of that court which is not in harmony with the Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

    Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision, the Department is amending the Final Determination with respect to Yücel's weighted-average dumping margin for the period July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2013, effective May 20, 2016. The revised weighted-average dumping margin for Çayirova Boru Sanayi ve Ticaret A.Ş. and Yücel Boru Ithalat-Ihracat ve Pazarlama A.Ş. (collectively, Yücel) is 13.59 percent.

    Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation pending the expiration of the period of appeal or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Since the Final Determination, the Department has not established a new cash deposit rate for Yücel. As a result, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to collect a cash deposit of 13.59 percent, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies,6 for entries of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by Yücel, effective May 20, 2016.

    6See Final Determination, 79 FR at 41972-73 (“In the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation on OCTG from Turkey, the Department determined that the all other companies benefitted from export subsidies. Pursuant to sections 735(c)(1) and 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the weighted-average dumping margins indicated below, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies”); see also Final Results of Remand Redetermination pursuant to the CIT orders in Borusan Mannesmann Boru Sanayi Ve Ticaret A.S. and Borusan Istikbal Ticaret v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (April 22, 2015) and Maverick Tube Corporation v. United States, Consol. Court No. 14-00229, Slip Op. 15-59 (June 15, 2015) (accessible at http://enforcement.trade.gov/remands/15-59.pdf), and Oil Country Tubular Goods from Turkey: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination of the Countervailing Duty Investigation; 81 FR 12691, (March 10, 2016) (in which the Department calculated the “All Others” subsidy rate of 2.39 percent, including the countervailable subsidy rate for export subsidies in the amount of 0.22 percent). Yücel's cash-deposit rate will be calculated by subtracting the countervailable subsidy rate for export subsidies calculated in the countervailing duty final results of redetermination, 0.22 percent, from the weighted-average dumping margin rate of 13.59 percent, i.e., 13.37 percent.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13536 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-032] Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (“IMTDC”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015. The estimated margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Krisha Hill or Jonathan Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037 or (202) 482-3518, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on November 25, 2015.1 On December 18, 2015, in accordance with section 777A(c)(2)(B) of the Act, the Department selected the two exporters accounting for the largest volume of IMTDC from the PRC during the POI (i.e., NOK (Wuxi) Vibration Control China Co. Ltd. (“NVCC”) and Powermach Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Sichuan) (“Powermach”) as mandatory respondents. Nine other companies filed separate rate applications. On April 19, 2016, NVCC withdrew from participation as a mandatory respondent in the investigation.2 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until May 31, 2016.3 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.4

    1See Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73716 (November 25, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Letter from NVCC to the Secretary of Commerce “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal from Investigations,” dated April 19, 2016 (“NVCC Non-Participation Letter”).

    3See Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 12687 (March 10, 2016).

    4See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical.

    Tolling and Postponement of Deadline for Preliminary Determination

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the partial closure of the Federal Government due from Snowstorm “Jonas” from January 22, through January 27, 2016. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days.5 If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.6 In this case, the deadline is May 31, 2016.

    5See Memorandum for the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm `Jonas',” dated January 27, 2016.

    6See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is iron mechanical transfer drive components. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,7 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., “scope”).8 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record, and an accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Department's Scope Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.9

    7See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    8See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 73716.

    9See Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Scope Memorandum”).

    On March 30, 2016, Petitioner filed an amendment to the scope of the investigation to exclude certain finished torsional vibration dampers (“TVD”).10 On April 8, 2016, the Department preliminarily excluded TVDs from the scope of the investigation.11 On May 16, 2016, Petitioner filed an additional amendment to the scope to exclude certain light-duty, fixed- and variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves and certain bushings.12 As discussed in the Scope Memorandum, the Department has preliminarily excluded certain light-duty, fixed- and variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves and certain bushings. For a complete description of the scope exclusion language, see the full scope at Appendix II to this notice as well as the Department's Scope Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.

    10See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Amendment to the Scope,” dated March 30, 2016.

    11See Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Regarding Exclusion of Certain Finished Torsional Vibration Dampers,” dated April 8, 2016.

    12See Letter from TB Woods to the Department, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Additional Amendment to the Scope,” dated May 16, 2016.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. We calculated export prices in accordance with section 772 of the Act. Because the PRC is a non-market economy, within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. Further, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, we preliminarily determined to apply facts otherwise available with an adverse inference in determining the weighted-average dumping margin for the PRC-wide entity and normal value, in part, for Powermach. For a full discussion of the Department's methodology, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Separate Rates

    The Department received separate rate applications from nine companies, in addition to the two mandatory respondents. The Department has preliminarily granted separate-rate status to all of the companies which provided separate rates information, except NVCC, which withdrew from participation as a mandatory respondent in this investigation, Baldor Electric Canada (“Baldor”), and Yueqing Bethel Shaft Collar Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (“Yueqing Bethel”), which did not respond to the Department's request for supplemental information. The Department has treated these three companies as part of the PRC-wide entity. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, 13 the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.14

    13See Initiation Notice at 73720-21.

    14See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist during the period April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Powermach Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Sichuan)/Sichuan Dawn Precision Technology Co., Ltd./Sichuan Dawn Foundry Co., Ltd./Powermach Co., Ltd Powermach Import & Export Co., Ltd. (Sichuan)/Sichuan Dawn Precision Technology Co., Ltd./Sichuan Dawn Foundry Co., Ltd./Powermach Co., Ltd 2.17 Fuqing Jiacheng Trading Corporation Limited Fuzhou Min Yue Mechanical & Electrical Co., Ltd 2.17 Haiyang Jingweida Gearing Co., Ltd Haiyang Jingweida Gearing Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Shijiazhuang CAPT Power Transmission Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Shanghai CPT Machinery Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Yueqing Bethel Shaft Collar Manufacturing Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Kezheng (Fuzhou) Mechanical & Electrical Manufacture Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Handan Hengfa Transmission Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Shijiazhuang Lihua Mechanical Manufacturing Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Xingtai Shengjia Machinery and Equipment Factory 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Shanghai Keli Machinery Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Jiangsu Zhengya Technology Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Taizhou Feiyang Metal Spinning Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Taizhou Pengxun Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Guangde Ronghua Machinery Manufacturing Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Qiuxian Hengxin Machinery Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Reach Machinery Enterprise 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Chengdu Novo Machinery Co., Ltd 2.17 Hangzhou Powertrans Co., Ltd Chengdu Leno Machinery Co., Ltd 2.17 Shijiazhuang CAPT Power Transmission Co., Ltd Shijiazhuang CAPT Power Transmission Co., Ltd 2.17 Xinguang Technology Co. Ltd of Sichuan Province Sichuan Dawn Precision Technology Co., Ltd 2.17 Zhejiang Damon Industrial Equipment Co., Ltd Zhejiang Damon Industrial Equipment Co., Ltd 2.17 Zhejiang Dongxing Auto Parts Co., Ltd Zhejiang Dongxing Auto Parts Co., Ltd 2.17 PRC-Wide Entity 401.68
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of IMTDC from the PRC, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 15 equal to the weighted-average amount by which NV exceeds U.S. price, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies and estimated domestic subsidy pass-through,16 as follows: (1) The cash deposit rate for the exporter/producer combinations listed in the table above will be the rate identified in the table; (2) for all combinations of PRC exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate established for the PRC-wide entity; and (3) for all non-PRC exporters of merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    15See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    16See sections 772(c)(1)(C) and 777A(f) of the Act, respectively. Unlike in administrative reviews, the Department calculates the adjustment for export subsidies in investigations not in the margin calculation program, but in the cash deposit instructions issued to CBP. See, e.g., Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, and Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, 71 FR 45012 (August 8, 2006), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1.

    In LTFV investigations with a companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation, we normally adjust antidumping duty cash deposit rates by the amount of export subsidies, where appropriate. In the companion CVD investigation, we preliminarily found that Powermach did not receive export subsidies. The rate for all-others companies in the CVD case was based on Powermach's rate, and thus the all-others companies did not receive an export subsidy rate. Therefore, no offset to Powermach's or the separate rate entities' cash deposit rates for export subsidies is necessary. Additionally, we likewise are not adjusting the cash deposit rate applicable to the PRC-wide entity for export subsidies.

    Pursuant to 777A(f) of the Act, we are not adjusting preliminary cash deposit rates for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through. Based on the data on the record of this investigation, the Department does not find a general decrease in the U.S. average import price during the relevant period. Thus, the Department preliminarily finds that the requirement under section 777A(f)(1)(B) of the Act has not been met, and the Department did not make an adjustment under Section 777A(f) of the Act.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after public announcement of the preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.17 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    17See 19 CFR 351.309; see also 19 CFR 351.303 (for general filing requirements).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.18 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues parties intend to present at the hearing. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and location to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise, or in the event of a negative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by the petitioner. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On May 5, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Powermach requested that the Department postpone its final determination, and requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.19 On May 16, 2016, Petitioner requested that the Department postpone the final determination in the event that the Department makes a negative preliminary determination.20 Further, on May 17, 2016, NVCC also requested that the Department postpone its final determination and requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.21

    19See Letter from Powermach to the Secretary of Commerce “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Request for Extension of Final Determination,” dated May 5, 2016 (“Powermach Extension Request”).

    20See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Request to Extend the Final Determinations,” dated May 16, 2016.

    21See Letter from NVCC to the Secretary of Commerce “Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from the People's Republic of China: Request to Postpone Final Determination,” dated May 17, 2016.

    In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.22

    22See 19 CFR 351.210(e).

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. Because the preliminary determination in this investigation is affirmative, section 735(b)(2) of the Act requires that the ITC make its final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of IMTDC from the PRC before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination. Because we are postponing the deadline for our final determination to 135 days from the date of publication of this preliminary determination, as discussed above, the ITC will make its final determination no later than 45 days after our final determination.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: Summary Background Selection of Respondents Period of Investigation Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures Scope Comments Scope of the Investigation Product Characteristics Discussion of the Methodology Non-Market Economy Country Surrogate Country and Surrogate Value Comments Separate Rates Dumping Margin for the Separate Rate Companies Combination Rates The PRC-wide Entity Application of Facts Available and Adverse Inferences Application of Partial AFA Single Entity Treatment Date of Sale Fair Value Comparisons U.S. Price Normal Value Factor Valuation Methodology Verification Export Subsidy Adjustment International Trade Commission Notification Conclusion Appendix I: Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (i.e., blanks or castings). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are in the form of wheels or cylinders with a center bore hole that may have one or more grooves or teeth in their outer circumference that guide or mesh with a flat or ribbed belt or like device and are often referred to as sheaves, pulleys, flywheels, flat pulleys, idlers, conveyer pulleys, synchronous sheaves, and timing pulleys. The products covered by this investigation also include bushings, which are iron mechanical transfer drive components in the form of a cylinder and which fit into the bore holes of other mechanical transfer drive components to lock them into drive shafts by means of elements such as teeth, bolts, or screws.

    Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.

    Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (i.e., blanks or castings) possess the approximate shape of the finished iron mechanical transfer drive component and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial casting, forging or like operations. These machining processes may include cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering.

    Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.

    Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (e.g., gray, white, or ductile iron). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether they have non-iron attachments or parts and regardless of whether they are entered with other mechanical transfer drive components or as part of a mechanical transfer drive assembly (which typically includes one or more of the iron mechanical transfer drive components identified above, and which may also include other parts such as a belt, coupling and/or shaft). When entered as a mechanical transfer drive assembly, only the iron components that meet the physical description of covered merchandise are covered merchandise, not the other components in the mechanical transfer drive assembly (e.g., belt, coupling, shaft).

    For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.

    Excluded from the scope are finished torsional vibration dampers (TVDs). A finished TVD is an engine component composed of three separate components: an inner ring, a rubber ring and an outer ring. The inner ring is an iron wheel or cylinder with a bore hole to fit a crank shaft which forms a seal to prevent leakage of oil from the engine. The rubber ring is a dampening medium between the inner and outer rings that effectively reduces the torsional vibration. The outer ring, which may be made of materials other than iron, may or may not have grooves in its outer circumference. To constitute a finished excluded TVD, the product must be composed of each of the three parts identified above and the three parts must be permanently affixed to one another such that both the inner ring and the outer ring are permanently affixed to the rubber ring. A finished TVD is excluded only if it meets the physical description provided above; merchandise that otherwise meets the description of the scope and does not satisfy the physical description of excluded finished TVDs above is still covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of end use or identification as a TVD.

    The scope also excludes light-duty, fixed-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves (“excludable LDFPN sheaves”) with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than two grooves; having a maximum face width of no more than 1.75 inches, where the face width is the width of the part at its outside diameter; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 18.75 inches; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter. Excludable LDFPN sheaves must also either have a maximum straight bore size of 1.6875 inches with a maximum hub diameter of 2.875 inches; or else have a tapered bore measuring 1.625 inches at the large end, a maximum hub diameter of 3.50 inches, a length through tapered bore of 1.0 inches, exactly two tapped holes that are 180 degrees apart, and a 2.0-inch bolt circle on the face of the hub. Excludable LDFPN sheaves more than 6.75 inches in outside diameter must also have an arm or spoke construction.23 Further, excludable LDFPN sheaves must have a groove profile as indicated in the table below:

    23 An arm or spoke construction is where arms or spokes (typically 3 to 6) connect the outside diameter of the sheave with the hub of the sheave. This is in contrast to a block construction (in which the material between the hub and the outside diameter is solid with a uniform thickness that is the same thickness as the hub of the sheave) or a web construction (in which the material between the hub and the outside diameter is solid but is thinner than at the hub of the sheave).

    Size (belt profile) Outside diameter
  • (inches)
  • Top width
  • range of
  • each groove
  • (inches)
  • Maximum
  • height
  • (inches)
  • Angle
    MA/AK (A, 3L, 4L) ≤5.45 0.484-0.499 0.531 34° MA/AK (A, 3L, 4L) >5.45 but ≤18.75 0.499-0.509 0.531 38° MB/BK (A, B, 4L, 5L) ≤7.40 0.607-0.618 0.632 34° MB/BK (A, B, 4L, 5L) >7.40 but ≤18.75 0.620-0.631 0.635 38°

    In addition to the above characteristics, excludable LDFPN sheaves must also have a maximum weight (pounds-per-piece) as follows: For excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 4.7 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 15.0 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 13.3 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 17.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 16.5 pounds; and for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 26.5 pounds.

    The scope also excludes light-duty, variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than 2 grooves; having a maximum overall width of less than 2.25 inches with a single groove, or of 3.25 inches or less with two grooves; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 7.5 inches; having a maximum bore size of 1.625 inches; having either one or two identical, internally-threaded (i.e., with threads on the inside diameter), adjustable (rotating) flange(s) on an externally-threaded hub (i.e., with threads on the outside diameter) that enable(s) the width (opening) of the groove to be changed; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter.

    The scope also excludes certain IMTDC bushings. An IMTDC bushing is excluded only if it has a tapered angle of greater than or equal to 10 degrees, where the angle is measured between one outside tapered surface and the directly opposing outside tapered surface.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13533 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-520-807] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Whitley Herndon or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6274 or (202) 482-5973, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 There are two mandatory respondents participating in this investigation, Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. L.L.C. (Ajmal Steel) and Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, LLC—Jebel Ali Branch, Universal Tube and Pipe Industries, and KHK Scaffolding and Framework LLC (collectively, Universal). The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73708 (November 25, 2015).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the United Arab Emirates” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is CWP from the UAE. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.3 For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe form Pakistan; Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” April 1, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export price and, where appropriate, constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act and normal value (NV) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    All-Others Rate

    Consistent with sections 733(d)(1)(A)(ii) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

    In this investigation, we based our calculation of the all-others rate on the weighted-average of the margins calculated for Ajmal and Universal using publicly ranged data. We cannot calculate a weighted-average margin based on the actual data reported by the respondents because doing so may potentially reveal their business proprietary information. Accordingly, we find this rate, which is based on publicly ranged data that respondents reported to be the best proxy of the weighted-average margin based on these respondents' actual data. For further discussion of this calculation, see the memorandum entitled “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates: Calculation of the Preliminary Margin for All Other Companies,” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Preliminary Determination  4

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    4 On March 14, 2016, the Department postponed the preliminary determination in this investigation until May 31, 2016; see Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 15039 (March 21, 2016).

    Exporter/
  • manufacturer
  • Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Ajmal Steel Tubes & Pipes Ind. L.L.C 6.10 Universal Tube and Plastic Industries, LLC—Jebel Ali Branch, Universal Tube and Pipe Industries, and KHK Scaffolding and Framework LLC 9.25 All Others 7.86
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise from the UAE, as described in Appendix I of this notice, for all companies, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits 5 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondents listed above will be the respondent-specific rates we determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified above, but the producer is, the rate will be the specific rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be the all-others rate. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations. Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    Ajmal and Universal, the respondents, requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.7 8

    7See Letter from Ajmal entitled, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates: Request to Postpone the Final Determination,” Amendment to Request to Postpone Final Determination,” dated May 5, 2016.

    8See Letters from Universal entitled, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates, Case No. A-520-807: Request to Postpone Final Determination” and “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the United Arab Emirates, Case No. A-520-807: Amendment to Request to Postpone Final Determination,” dated May 5, 2016.

    In accordance with sections 735(a)(2)(A) and 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporters have requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.9

    9See 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) and (e).

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;

    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;

    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;

    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;

    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;

    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;

    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;

    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;

    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall
  • thickness
  • in inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;

    (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242;

    (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding;

    (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

    (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;

    (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and

    (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum: 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures 5. Scope Comments 6. Discussion of the Methodology a. Determination of the Comparison Method b. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis 7. Date of Sale 8. Product Comparisons 9. Export Price/Constructed Export Price 10. Normal Value a. Home Market Viability b. Affiliated Party Transactionsand Arm's Length Test c. Level of Trade d. Cost of Production (COP) Analysis 1. Cost Averaging Methodology i. Significance of Cost Changes ii. Linkage Between Sales and Cost Information 2. Calculation of COP 3. Test of Comparison Market Sales Prices 4. Results of the COP Test e. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison-Market Prices 11. Currency Conversion 12. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-13528 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-820] Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) preliminarily determines that circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). The period of investigation (POI) is April 1, 2015, through September 30, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov, and to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73708 (November 25, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is CWP from Vietnam. Interested parties filed comments regarding the scope of the investigation, which resulted in one clarification to the scope language and are addressed, in detail, in the Department's Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum.3 For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    3See Department Memorandum, “Antidumping Duty Investigations of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Sultanate of Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe form Pakistan; Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(b) of the Act. Because Vietnam is a non-market economy within the meaning of section 771(18) of the Act, we calculated normal value (NV) in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Combination Rates

    In the Initiation Notice, the Department stated that it would calculate combination rates for the respondents that are eligible for a separate rate in this investigation. Policy Bulletin 05.1 describes this practice.4

    4See Enforcement and Compliance's Policy Bulletin No. 05.1, regarding, “Separate-Rates Practice and Application of Combination Rates in Antidumping Investigations involving Non-Market Economy Countries,” (April 5, 2005) (Policy Bulletin 05.1), available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/policy/bull05-1.pdf.

    Preliminary Determination

    The Department preliminarily determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • SeAH Steel VINA Corporation SeAH Steel VINA Corporation 0.00 Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd * 1.19 Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co * 0.38 Vietnam-Wide Entity 113.18 * de minimis.
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of CWP from Vietnam, as described in the scope of the investigation section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register except for those produced and exported by Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. (Hoa Phat), SeAH Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH), and Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Hongyuan). Because the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Hoa Phat, SeAH, and Hongyuan are zero or de minimis, we are not directing CBP to suspend liquidation of entries of the merchandise they produced and exported.

    Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit 5 equal to the weighted-average amount by which the NV exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) The cash-deposit rate for the exporter/producer combination listed in the table above will be the rate identified for that combination in the table; (2) for all combinations of Vietnam exporters/producers of merchandise under consideration that have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash-deposit rate established for the Vietnam-wide entity, 113.18 percent; and (3) for all non-Vietnam exporters of the merchandise under consideration which have not received their own separate rate above, the cash-deposit rate will be the cash-deposit rate applicable to the Vietnam exporter/producer combination that supplied that non-Vietnam exporter. These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    5See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    Disclosure

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the announcement of this preliminary determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify the information relied upon prior to making our final determination.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments concerning scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than 30 days from the publication of this notice, and rebuttal briefs, limited to scope issue raised in the case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for scope case briefs. Scope-related briefs/comments must be filed on the record of this investigation and the concurrent antidumping and countervailing duty CWP investigations.

    Case briefs or other written comments on non-scope issues may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to non-scope issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    6See 19 CFR 351.309.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    Respondents Hongyuan and SeAH, both requested that, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination in this investigation, the Department postpone its final determination by 60 days (i.e., to 135 days after publication of the preliminary determination), and agreed to extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.7

    7See Letter from Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd, “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Vietnam; Request for Extension of Time for the Final Determination,” dated April 28, 2016 and letter from SeAH Steel VINA Corporation “Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from Vietnam; Request for Extension of Deadline for the Department's Final Determination,” dated May 2, 2016.

    In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporters account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; (3) the requesting exporters have requested extension of provisional measures to a period not more than six months; and (4) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination until no later than 135 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will issue our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.8

    8See 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2) and (e).

    International Trade Commission (ITC) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures 5. Scope Comments 6. Discussion of the Methodology a. Non-Market Economy Country b. Surrogate Country and Surrogate Values Comments c. Separate Rates d. The Vietnam-Wide Entity e. Date of Sale f. Comparisons to Fair Value 7. Currency Conversion 8. Disclosure and Public Comment 9. Verification 10. Conclusion Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    This investigation covers welded carbon-quality steel pipes and tube, of circular cross-section, with an outside diameter (O.D.) not more than nominal 16 inches (406.4 mm), regardless of wall thickness, surface finish (e.g., black, galvanized, or painted), end finish (plain end, beveled end, grooved, threaded, or threaded and coupled), or industry specification (e.g., American Society for Testing and Materials International (ASTM), proprietary, or other), generally known as standard pipe, fence pipe and tube, sprinkler pipe, and structural pipe (although subject product may also be referred to as mechanical tubing). Specifically, the term “carbon quality” includes products in which:

    (a) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements;

    (b) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and

    (c) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, as indicated:

    (i) 1.80 percent of manganese;

    (ii) 2.25 percent of silicon;

    (iii) 1.00 percent of copper;

    (iv) 0.50 percent of aluminum;

    (v) 1.25 percent of chromium;

    (vi) 0.30 percent of cobalt;

    (vii) 0.40 percent of lead;

    (viii) 1.25 percent of nickel;

    (ix) 0.30 percent of tungsten;

    (x) 0.15 percent of molybdenum;

    (xi) 0.10 percent of niobium;

    (xii) 0.41 percent of titanium;

    (xiii) 0.15 percent of vanadium; or

    (xiv) 0.15 percent of zirconium.

    Covered products are generally made to standard O.D. and wall thickness combinations. Pipe multi-stenciled to a standard and/or structural specification and to other specifications, such as American Petroleum Institute (API) API-5L specification, may also be covered by the scope of these investigations. In particular, such multi-stenciled merchandise is covered when it meets the physical description set forth above, and also has one or more of the following characteristics: Is 32 feet in length or less; is less than 2.0 inches (50 mm) in outside diameter; has a galvanized and/or painted (e.g., polyester coated) surface finish; or has a threaded and/or coupled end finish.

    Standard pipe is ordinarily made to ASTM specifications A53, A135, and A795, but can also be made to other specifications. Structural pipe is made primarily to ASTM specifications A252 and A500. Standard and structural pipe may also be produced to proprietary specifications rather than to industry specifications.

    Sprinkler pipe is designed for sprinkler fire suppression systems and may be made to industry specifications such as ASTM A53 or to proprietary specifications.

    Fence tubing is included in the scope regardless of certification to a specification listed in the exclusions below, and can also be made to the ASTM A513 specification. Products that meet the physical description set forth above but are made to the following nominal outside diameter and wall thickness combinations, which are recognized by the industry as typical for fence tubing, are included despite being certified to ASTM mechanical tubing specifications:

    O.D. in
  • inches
  • (nominal)
  • Wall
  • thickness in
  • inches
  • (nominal)
  • Gage
    1.315 0.035 20 1.315 0.047 18 1.315 0.055 17 1.315 0.065 16 1.315 0.072 15 1.315 0.083 14 1.315 0.095 13 1.660 0.055 17 1.660 0.065 16 1.660 0.083 14 1.660 0.095 13 1.660 0.109 12 1.900 0.047 18 1.900 0.055 17 1.900 0.065 16 1.900 0.072 15 1.900 0.095 13 1.900 0.109 12 2.375 0.047 18 2.375 0.055 17 2.375 0.065 16 2.375 0.072 15 2.375 0.095 13 2.375 0.109 12 2.375 0.120 11 2.875 0.109 12 2.875 0.165 8 3.500 0.109 12 3.500 0.165 8 4.000 0.148 9 4.000 0.165 8 4.500 0.203 7

    The scope of this investigation does not include:

    (a) Pipe suitable for use in boilers, superheaters, heat exchangers, refining furnaces and feedwater heaters, whether or not cold drawn, which are defined by standards such as ASTM A178 or ASTM A192;

    (b) finished electrical conduit, i.e., Electrical Rigid Steel Conduit (also known as Electrical Rigid Metal Conduit and Electrical Rigid Metal Steel Conduit), Finished Electrical Metallic Tubing, and Electrical Intermediate Metal Conduit, which are defined by specifications such as American National Standard (ANSI) C80.1-2005, ANSI C80.3-2005, or ANSI C80.6-2005, and Underwriters Laboratories Inc. (UL) UL-6, UL-797, or UL-1242;

    (c) finished scaffolding, i.e., component parts of final, finished scaffolding that enter the United States unassembled as a “kit.” A kit is understood to mean a packaged combination of component parts that contains, at the time of importation, all of the necessary component parts to fully assemble final, finished scaffolding;

    (d) tube and pipe hollows for redrawing;

    (e) oil country tubular goods produced to API specifications;

    (f) line pipe produced to only API specifications, such as API 5L, and not multi-stenciled; and

    (g) mechanical tubing, whether or not cold-drawn, other than what is included in the above paragraphs.

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classifiable in Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) statistical reporting numbers 7306.19.1010, 7306.19.1050, 7306.19.5110, 7306.19.5150, 7306.30.1000, 7306.30.5015, 7306.30.5020, 7306.30.5025, 7306.30.5032, 7306.30.5040, 7306.30.5055, 7306.30.5085, 7306.30.5090, 7306.50.1000, 7306.50.5030, 7306.50.5050, and 7306.50.5070. The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13484 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-122-856] Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components From Canada: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the “Department”) preliminarily determines that certain iron mechanical transfer drive components (“iron transfer drive components”) from Canada are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”), as provided in section 733(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”). The period of investigation is October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015. The estimated dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephen Bailey or Robert Bolling, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-3434, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 28, 2015, the Department received an antidumping duty (“AD”) petition concerning imports of iron transfer drive components from Canada, filed in proper form on behalf of TB Wood's Incorporated (“TB Woods”) (“Petitioner”).1 The Department initiated this investigation on November 17, 2015.2 Pursuant to section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department postponed this preliminary LTFV determination by 50 days until May 31, 2016.3

    1See the Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada, dated October 28, 2015 (the “Petition”).

    2See Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 80 FR 73716 (November 25, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    3See Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Postponement of Preliminary Determinations of Antidumping Duty Investigations, 81 FR 12687 (March 10, 2016).

    For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum that is dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.4 The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is made available to the public via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Department's Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed and the electronic versions of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    4See Memoranda from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled: “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Tolling and Postponement of Deadline for Preliminary Determination

    As explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the partial closure of the Federal Government due from Snowstorm “Jonas” from January 22, through January 27, 2016. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days.5 If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will become the next business day.6 In this case, the deadline is May 31, 2016.

    5See Memorandum for the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm `Jonas',” dated January 27, 2016.

    6See Notice of Clarification: Application of “Next Business Day” Rule for Administrative Determination Deadlines Pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930, As Amended, 70 FR 24533 (May 10, 2005).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is iron mechanical transfer drive components. The merchandise subject to this investigation is properly classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. Although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise under investigation is dispositive. For a complete description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix II to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,7 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., “scope”).8 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation, as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record, and an accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Department's Scope Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.9

    7See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    8See Initiation Notice, 80 FR at 73716.

    9See Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Scope Memorandum”).

    On March 30, 2016, Petitioner filed an amendment to the scope of the investigation to exclude certain finished torsional vibration dampers (“TVD”).10 On April 8, 2016, the Department preliminarily excluded TVDs from the scope of the investigation.11 On May 16, 2016, Petitioner filed an additional amendment to the scope to exclude certain light-duty, fixed- and variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves and certain bushings.12 As discussed in the Scope Memorandum, the Department has preliminarily excluded certain light-duty, fixed- and variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves and certain bushings. For a complete description of the scope exclusion language, see the full scope at Appendix II to this notice as well as the Department's Scope Memorandum issued concurrently with this notice.

    10See Letter from Petitioner to the Secretary of Commerce, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Amendment to the Scope,” dated March 30, 2016.

    11See Memorandum from Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Office IV, to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Scope Comments Regarding Exclusion of Certain Finished Torsional Vibration Dampers,” dated April 8, 2016.

    12See Letter from TB Woods to the Department, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada and the People's Republic of China: Petitioner's Additional Amendment to the Scope,” dated May 16, 2016.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. The sole selected mandatory respondent, Baldor Electric Company Canada (“Baldor”), failed to participate in this investigation and to respond to the Department's Sections A, B, C, and D supplemental questionnaires.13 As a result, we preliminarily determined to apply adverse facts available (“AFA”) to Baldor, in accordance with section 776 of the Act and 19 CFR 351.308. For a full discussion of the rationale underlying our preliminary determination, as well as a description of the methodology used, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    13See letter from Baldor to the Department, re: Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada—Baldor Canada's Decision Not to Respond to Department's Questionnaires, dated April 19, 2016 (No Response Letter).

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis or determined based entirely under section 776 of the Act, the Department may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated dumping margin for all other producers or exporters.

    We determined the dumping margin for mandatory respondent Baldor under section 776 of the Act. Consequently, the only available dumping margins for this preliminary determination are found in the petition and are margins upon which we initiated. Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, the Department's practice under these circumstances has been to calculate the “all-others” rate as a simple average of these margins from the petition.14 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memoranda.

    14See, e.g., Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 21909, 21912 (April 23, 2008), unchanged in Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sodium Nitrite from the Federal Republic of Germany, 73 FR 38986, 38987 (July 8, 2008), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2; see also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Raw Flexible Magnets From Taiwan, 73 FR 39673, 39674 (July 10, 2008); Steel Threaded Rod From Thailand: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, 78 FR 79670, 79671 (December 31, 2013), unchanged in Steel Threaded Rod from Thailand: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Affirmative Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 14476, 14477 (March 14, 2014).

    Preliminary Determination

    The preliminary dumping margins are as follows:

    Manufacturer/exporter Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Baldor Electric Company Canada 191.34 All-Others 100.47
    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 733(d)(2) of the Act, we will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to suspend liquidation of all entries of iron transfer drive components from Canada as described in the “Scope of Investigation” section entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Pursuant to section 733(d)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(d), we will instruct CBP to require cash deposits 15 equal to the dumping margins, as indicated in the chart above, as follows: (1) The rate for the mandatory respondent listed above will be the respondent-specific rate we determined in this preliminary determination; (2) if the exporter is not a mandatory respondent identified above, but the producer is, the rate will be the specific rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be the “all-others” rate. This suspension of liquidation instruction will remain in effect until further notice.

    15See Modification of Regulations Regarding the Practice of Accepting Bonds During the Provisional Measures Period in Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations, 76 FR 61042 (October 3, 2011).

    Disclosure

    Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because the Department preliminarily applied AFA to mandatory respondent Baldor in this investigation in accordance with section 776 of the Act, there are no calculations to disclose.

    Public Comment

    Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Interested parties may submit case briefs to the Department no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determination.16 Rebuttal briefs, the content of which is limited to the issues raised in the case briefs, must be filed within five days from the deadline date for the submission of case briefs.17 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the date the document is due.

    16See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(i).

    17See 19 CFR 351.309(d)(1) and 19 CFR 351.309(d)(2).

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request for a hearing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce. An electronically-filed request for a hearing must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.18 Hearing requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, we will inform parties of the scheduled date and time for the hearing which will be held at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.19 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    18See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    19Id.

    Verification

    Because Baldor failed to provide information requested by the Department and the Department preliminarily determines Baldor to have been uncooperative, verification will not be conducted.

    Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures

    Section 735(a)(2) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of an affirmative preliminary determination by the Department, a request for such postponement is made by exporters who account for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise. 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2) requires that requests by respondents for postponement of a final antidumping determination be accompanied by a request for extension of provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not more than six months in duration.

    On May 16, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii), Baldor requested that the Department postpone its final determination, and requested that the Department extend the application of the provisional measures prescribed under section 733(d) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(e)(2), from a four-month period to a period not to exceed six months.20 In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(2)(ii) and (e)(2), because (1) our preliminary determination is affirmative; (2) the requesting exporter accounts for a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise; and (3) no compelling reasons for denial exist, we are postponing the final determination and extending the provisional measures from a four-month period to a period not greater than six months. Accordingly, we will make our final determination no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.21

    20See letter from Baldor, entitled “Certain Iron Mechanical Transfer Drive Components from Canada—Baldor Canada's Request to Postpone Final Determination,” dated May 16, 2016.

    21See 19 CFR 351.210(e).

    International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memoranda 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures 5. Scope of the Investigation 6. Scope Comments 7. Product Comparisons 8. Respondent Selection 9. Application of Facts Available and Use of Adverse Inference 10. Selection of the AFA Rate 11. Corroboration of Secondary Information 12. All-Others Rate 13. Conclusion Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are iron mechanical transfer drive components, whether finished or unfinished (i.e., blanks or castings). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are in the form of wheels or cylinders with a center bore hole that may have one or more grooves or teeth in their outer circumference that guide or mesh with a flat or ribbed belt or like device and are often referred to as sheaves, pulleys, flywheels, flat pulleys, idlers, conveyer pulleys, synchronous sheaves, and timing pulleys. The products covered by this investigation also include bushings, which are iron mechanical transfer drive components in the form of a cylinder and which fit into the bore holes of other mechanical transfer drive components to lock them into drive shafts by means of elements such as teeth, bolts, or screws.

    Iron mechanical transfer drive components subject to this investigation are those not less than 4.00 inches (101 mm) in the maximum nominal outer diameter.

    Unfinished iron mechanical transfer drive components (i.e., blanks or castings) possess the approximate shape of the finished iron mechanical transfer drive component and have not yet been machined to final specification after the initial casting, forging or like operations. These machining processes may include cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering.

    Subject merchandise includes iron mechanical transfer drive components as defined above that have been finished or machined in a third country, including but not limited to finishing/machining processes such as cutting, punching, notching, boring, threading, mitering, or chamfering, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the iron mechanical transfer drive components.

    Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of width, design, or iron type (e.g., gray, white, or ductile iron). Subject iron mechanical transfer drive components are covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of whether they have non-iron attachments or parts and regardless of whether they are entered with other mechanical transfer drive components or as part of a mechanical transfer drive assembly (which typically includes one or more of the iron mechanical transfer drive components identified above, and which may also include other parts such as a belt, coupling and/or shaft). When entered as a mechanical transfer drive assembly, only the iron components that meet the physical description of covered merchandise are covered merchandise, not the other components in the mechanical transfer drive assembly (e.g., belt, coupling, shaft).

    For purposes of this investigation, a covered product is of “iron” where the article has a carbon content of 1.7 percent by weight or above, regardless of the presence and amount of additional alloying elements.

    Excluded from the scope are finished torsional vibration dampers (TVDs). A finished TVD is an engine component composed of three separate components: An inner ring, a rubber ring and an outer ring. The inner ring is an iron wheel or cylinder with a bore hole to fit a crank shaft which forms a seal to prevent leakage of oil from the engine. The rubber ring is a dampening medium between the inner and outer rings that effectively reduces the torsional vibration. The outer ring, which may be made of materials other than iron, may or may not have grooves in its outer circumference. To constitute a finished excluded TVD, the product must be composed of each of the three parts identified above and the three parts must be permanently affixed to one another such that both the inner ring and the outer ring are permanently affixed to the rubber ring. A finished TVD is excluded only if it meets the physical description provided above; merchandise that otherwise meets the description of the scope and does not satisfy the physical description of excluded finished TVDs above is still covered by the scope of the investigation regardless of end use or identification as a TVD.

    The scope also excludes light-duty, fixed-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves (“excludable LDFPN sheaves”) with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than two grooves; having a maximum face width of no more than 1.75 inches, where the face width is the width of the part at its outside diameter; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 18.75 inches; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter. Excludable LDFPN sheaves must also either have a maximum straight bore size of 1.6875 inches with a maximum hub diameter of 2.875 inches; or else have a tapered bore measuring 1.625 inches at the large end, a maximum hub diameter of 3.50 inches, a length through tapered bore of 1.0 inches, exactly two tapped holes that are 180 degrees apart, and a 2.0- inch bolt circle on the face of the hub. Excludable LDFPN sheaves more than 6.75 inches in outside diameter must also have an arm or spoke construction.22 Further, excludable LDFPN sheaves must have a groove profile as indicated in the table below:

    22 An arm or spoke construction is where arms or spokes (typically 3 to 6) connect the outside diameter of the sheave with the hub of the sheave. This is in contrast to a block construction (in which the material between the hub and the outside diameter is solid with a uniform thickness that is the same thickness as the hub of the sheave) or a web construction (in which the material between the hub and the outside diameter is solid but is thinner than at the hub of the sheave).

    Size (belt profile) Outside diameter Top width range of each groove
  • (in.)
  • Maximum height
  • (in.)
  • Angle
    MA/AK (A, 3L, 4L) ≤5.45 in 0.484-0.499 0.531 34° MA/AK (A, 3L, 4L) >5.45 in. but ≤18.75 in 0.499-0.509 0.531 38° MB/BK (A, B, 4L, 5L) ≤7.40 in 0.607-0.618 0.632 34° MB/BK (A, B, 4L, 5L) >7.40 in. but ≤18.75 in 0.620-0.631 0.635 38°

    In addition to the above characteristics, excludable LDFPN sheaves must also have a maximum weight (pounds-per-piece) as follows: For excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 4.7 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 4.0 inches but less than or equal to 8.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 8.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 8.0 inches but less than or equal to 12.0 inches, the maximum weight is 15.0 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 13.3 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 12.0 inches but less than or equal to 15.0 inches, the maximum weight is 17.5 pounds; for excludable LDFPN sheaves with one groove and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 16.5 pounds; and for excludable LDFPN sheaves with two grooves and an outside diameter of greater than 15.0 inches but less than or equal to 18.75 inches, the maximum weight is 26.5 pounds.

    The scope also excludes light-duty, variable-pitch, non-synchronous sheaves with each of the following characteristics: Made from grey iron designated as ASTM (North American specification) Grade 30 or lower, GB/T (Chinese specification) Grade HT200 or lower, DIN (German specification) GG 20 or lower, or EN (European specification) EN-GJL 200 or lower; having no more than 2 grooves; having a maximum overall width of less than 2.25 inches with a single groove, or of 3.25 inches or less with two grooves; having a maximum outside diameter of not more than 7.5 inches; having a maximum bore size of 1.625 inches; having either one or two identical, internally-threaded (i.e., with threads on the inside diameter), adjustable (rotating) flange(s) on an externally-threaded hub (i.e., with threads on the outside diameter) that enable(s) the width (opening) of the groove to be changed; and having no teeth on the outside or datum diameter.

    The scope also excludes certain IMTDC bushings. An IMTDC bushing is excluded only if it has a tapered angle of greater than or equal to 10 degrees, where the angle is measured between one outside tapered surface and the directly opposing outside tapered surface.

    The merchandise covered by this investigation is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheadings 8483.30.8090, 8483.50.6000, 8483.50.9040, 8483.50.9080, 8483.90.3000, 8483.90.8080. Covered merchandise may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 7325.10.0080, 7325.99.1000, 7326.19.0010, 7326.19.0080, 8431.31.0040, 8431.31.0060, 8431.39.0010, 8431.39.0050, 8431.39.0070, 8431.39.0080, and 8483.50.4000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-13535 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-549-821] Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On April 5, 2016 the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene retail carrier bags (PRCBs) from Thailand.1 The period of review (POR) is August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015. The review covers one producer/exporter of the subject merchandise, K. International Packaging Co., Ltd. (K. International Packaging). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminarily Results. None were received. Accordingly, for the final results, we continue to find that K. International Packaging made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value.

    1See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 21536 (April 12, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    DATES:

    Effective June 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 5, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Results of the administrative review. The Department gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. None were received. The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise subject to this order is PRCBs, which may be referred to as t-shirt sacks, merchandise bags, grocery bags, or checkout bags. The subject merchandise is defined as non-sealable sacks and bags with handles (including drawstrings), without zippers or integral extruded closures, with or without gussets, with or without printing, of polyethylene film having a thickness no greater than 0.035 inch (0.889 mm) and no less than 0.00035 inch (0.00889 mm), and with no length or width shorter than 6 inches (15.24 cm) or longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm). The depth of the bag may be shorter than 6 inches but not longer than 40 inches (101.6 cm).

    PRCBs are typically provided without any consumer packaging and free of charge by retail establishments, e.g., grocery, drug, convenience, department, specialty retail, discount stores, and restaurants, to their customers to package and carry their purchased products. The scope of the order excludes (1) polyethylene bags that are not printed with logos or store names and that are closeable with drawstrings made of polyethylene film and (2) polyethylene bags that are packed in consumer packaging with printing that refers to specific end-uses other than packaging and carrying merchandise from retail establishments, e.g., garbage bags, lawn bags, trash-can liners.

    As a result of changes to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS), imports of the subject merchandise are currently classifiable under statistical category 3923.21.0085 of the HTSUS. Furthermore, although the HTSUS subheading is provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    Final Results of Review

    The Department made no changes to the Preliminary Results. As a result of this review, we determine that a weighted-average dumping margin of 122.88 percent exists for K. International Packaging for the period August 1, 2014, through July 31, 2015.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to apply an ad valorem assessment rate of 122.88 percent to all entries of subject merchandise during the POR which were produced and/or exported by K. International Packaging. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for K. International Packaging will be 122.88 percent, the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the merchandise; (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer has its own rate, the cash deposit rate will be 4.69 percent.2 These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    2See Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags From Thailand, 75 FR 48940 (August 12, 2010).

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13468 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Coastal Mapping Strategy 1.0: Coastal Lidar Elevation for a 3D Nation Draft for Review AGENCY:

    National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability, Request for Comments; Webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Ocean Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) publishes this notice on behalf of the Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology's Interagency Working Group on Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG-OCM) to announce a 60-day public comment period on the draft National Coastal Mapping Strategy (NCMS), Version 1.0.

    Through this public comment period and corresponding webinar, the IWG-OCM seeks to solicit input on the draft NCMS.

    DATES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for location of the electronic version of the draft NCMS and webinar date.

    ADDRESSES:

    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for how to submit comments via email or by mail.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sasha Pryborowski, ([email protected], 301-713-2702 x 111) or, Ashley Chappell ([email protected], 301-713-2702 x 110).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The IWG-OCM, of which NOAA is a member agency, was formed in 2006 to provide federal interagency coordination on ocean and coastal mapping. In accordance with the 2009 Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act (OCMIA), the IWG-OCM is enhancing its coordination of ocean and coastal mapping to more effectively and efficiently provide stakeholders and the public with comprehensive geospatial information.

    This first version of the NCMS is intended to address interagency data acquisition and coordination mandates in the OCMIA, and the National Ocean Policy. It is focused on coastal topographic-bathymetric lidar elevation data collection; subsequent versions will focus on other types of data collection (e.g., bathymetry, photogrammetry). Lidar stands for Light Detection and Ranging, a remote sensing method that uses light in the form of a pulsed laser to measure ranges (variable distances) to the Earth. These light pulses—combined with other data recorded by the airborne system— generate precise, three-dimensional information about the shape of the Earth and its surface characteristics, in particular elevation. More information on lidar can be found at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/lidar.html.

    Following is the executive summary from the draft NCMS Version1.0, which provides additional detail on the National Coastal Mapping Strategy:

    Informed choices in the coastal zone, whether for the safety of coastal residents, environmental protection, security or economic decisions, require accurate and up-to-date U.S. coastal elevation data. The acquisition of this mapping data—in particular high-accuracy, high-resolution topographic and bathymetric lidar—must be comprehensive, coordinated, cost-effective, and recurring. Such a strategic approach to land-water lidar mapping at the coasts would bring the United States much closer to becoming a 3D Nation—a nation that translates robust mapping coordination into a seamless, modern elevation foundation for stronger, more resilient communities and a more competitive U.S. economy.

    The IWG-OCM, tasked by Congress to develop a coastal mapping plan in the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act of 2009, has produced this first iteration of a NCMS to focus on that portion of the U.S. coastal zone that can be successfully mapped by a mix of lidar techniques for accurate elevation data. Recognizing the ongoing progress on lidar mapping coordination in the coastal zone, the IWG-OCM decided to capitalize on this existing momentum, and focus this first version of the NCMS on topographic and bathymetric lidar mapping of the U.S. coasts, Great Lakes, territories and possessions. Future iterations will include ocean mapping in the offshore and Outer Continental Shelf regions using technologies such as acoustic, aerial photography, hyperspectral and satellite imagery, to continue to build out the U.S. elevation dataset and meet other mapping needs (e.g., bathymetry, nautical charting, habitat assessment, tsunami models). This NCMS 1.0 assesses the next steps needed to achieve the vision of the United States as a 3D Nation with comprehensive lidar elevation coverage, including whether there is sufficient interest in mapping U.S. coastal areas routinely through the judicious, efficient and closely-aligned collection of lidar bathymetry and topography. The strategy also contains four actionable components on the path to develop Coastal Lidar Elevation for a 3D Nation.

    • Component 1 describes the organization of IWG-OCM Coastal Mapping Summits linked to web-based reporting in order to enhance existing and ongoing coordination on coastal lidar acquisition.

    • Component 2 details definitions for bathymetric lidar Quality Levels that will foster the collection of interoperable datasets by all IWG-OCM member agencies involved in lidar collection.

    • The focus of Component 3 is to improve interagency coordination on data management tasks (validation, processing, stewardship, dissemination and archiving) in order to reduce costs, maximize efficiency, and avoid duplication of effort.

    • Lastly, Component 4 lays out an approach for cooperation on targeted methods, research, and technique development. New tools and improved technologies developed through this structure will facilitate interagency collaboration in obtaining the maximum value from shared coastal mapping data.

    Other Information

    The draft NCMS Version 1.0 can be found at: http://www.iocm.noaa.gov/iwg/.

    Stakeholders and the public are encouraged to submit comments and questions on the NCMS. Electronic comments and questions on the NCMS may be submitted via email to [email protected] Written comments may also be submitted to NOAA Integrated Ocean and Coastal Mapping Program, SSMC-3, #6815, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    A webinar has also been scheduled to answer questions that stakeholders or the public may have on the NCMS and to gather input on how to improve the draft, such as by identifying missing elements or incorporating other perspectives. All interested parties are encouraged to participate. Comments and questions are welcomed both ahead of, and after, the webinar using the mechanisms identified above.

    National Coastal Mapping Strategy Webinar—[June 23, 2016, 1:00-2:00 p.m. EST] • TELECONFERENCE INFORMATION ○ Dial-in Number: 1-888-459-8313 ○ Passcode: 6564989# • WEB CONFERENCE INFORMATION ○ Persons wishing to attend the meeting online via the web conference must register in advance no later than 5 p.m. EST on June 20, 2016, by sending an email to [email protected] ○ Instructions to Join Web Conference on June 23, 2016: Join the meeting: http://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?sigKey=mymeetings&i=748882585&p=&t=c Enter the required fields (no passcode required) • Meeting Number: 748882585 • Meeting Passcode: none required Indicate that you have read the Privacy Policy. Click on Proceed.

    Note that the web conference is limited to 200 participants and will therefore be available on a first-come, first-served basis. The agenda for the webinar will include time for questions and answers, and comments. The agenda will be posted to http://www.iocm.noaa.gov/iwg/ at least 10 days before the webinar.

    Other Information

    Paperwork Reduction Act: NOAA has determined that this action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: May 31, 2016. W. Russell Callender, Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13568 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-JE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Electronic Monitoring Systems and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) for Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS) 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 Margo Schulze-Haugen, (301) 427-8503 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    This request is for extension of a currently approved information collection.

    VMS and electronic monitoring systems collect important information on fishing effort, catch, and the geographic location of fishing effort and catch for certain sectors of the Atlantic HMS fleet. Data collected through these programs are used in both domestic and international fisheries management, including for law enforcement, stock assessments, and quota management purposes. Atlantic HMS vessels required to use VMS are pelagic longline, purse seine, bottom longline (directed shark permit holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia), and gillnet (directed shark permit holders consistent with the requirements of the Atlantic large whale take reduction plan requirements at 50 CFR 229.39.(h)) vessels. In addition to VMS, pelagic longline vessels are also required to have electronic monitoring systems to monitor catch and account for bluefin tuna harvest and discards.

    The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) monitors fleet adherence to gear- and time-area restrictions with VMS position location data. Gear restricted areas and time-area closures are important tools for Atlantic HMS management that have been implemented to reduce bycatch of juvenile swordfish, sea turtles, and bluefin tuna, among other species. Electronic monitoring data from the pelagic longline fleet includes bluefin tuna discard and harvest information. These data are used by NMFS to accurately monitor bluefin tuna catch by the pelagic longline fleet, to ensure compliance with Individual Bluefin Quota (IBQ) limits and requirements, and to ensure that the Longline category bluefin tuna quota is not over-harvested. VMS reporting of bluefin tuna catch is used to monitor the status of IBQ allocations in real-time.

    Atlantic HMS fisheries are managed under the dual authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and the Atlantic Tunas Conservation Act (ATCA). Under the MSA, management measures must be consistent with ten National Standards, and fisheries must be managed to maintain optimum yield, rebuild overfished fisheries, and prevent overfishing. Under ATCA, the Secretary of Commerce shall promulgate regulations, as necessary and appropriate, to implement measures adopted by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

    II. Method of Collection

    First-time VMS respondents must install a VMS unit and submit an activation checklist to NMFS via mail. Hail-out, hail-in, hourly position reports, and bluefin tuna catch reports must be submitted to NMFS via the VMS communication system. First-time electronic monitoring respondents must have an electronic monitoring system installed by a NMFS contractor. Electronic monitoring data must be submitted after each pelagic longline trip via mail.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0372.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Review: Regular submission (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households; State, Local, or Tribal government.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 311.

    Estimated Time per Response: Four hours for initial VMS installation; 5 minutes per VMS initial activation checklist; 2 minutes per VMS hail-out/hail-in declaration; 6 hours for electronic monitoring installation; 5 minutes for VMS pelagic longline bluefin tuna catch reporting;15 minutes for VMS purse seine bluefin tuna catch records; 1 minute for dockside review of bluefin tuna catch records previously submitted via VMS; 2 hours for electronic monitoring data retrieval.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 20,402.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $389,416 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. 2016-13519 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0011] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Vietnam War Commemoration Program Partner Events; DD Form 2956, DD Form 2957, Vietnam War 50th Commemoration Certificate of Honor (1) “In Memory Of” (DD Form x711), (2) “Former Vietnam POW” (DD Form x712), and (3) “Unaccounted For” (DD Form x713); OMB Control Number 0704-0500.

    Type of Request: Revision.

    Number of Respondents: 12,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 7.

    Annual Responses: 22,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 5,500.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to notify the United States of America Vietnam War Commemoration Program of Commemorative Partner's planned events. Information is submitted for inclusion on the Program's events calendar and to request event support in the form of materials and/or speakers from the program. The information collection is necessary to obtain, vet, record, process and provide Certificates of Honor to be presented on behalf of a grateful nation by partner organizations. Additionally, this collection is necessary for the partner organizations to communicate to the Commemoration program the results of their events and lessons learned.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profits; Not-for-profit institutions; Federal Government; State, local, or tribal government, and individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13561 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0069] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking 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, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Department of Defense Office of Economic Adjustment, 2231 Crystal Drive, Suite 520, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-3711, ATTN: Mr. James P. Holland, or call 703-697-2188, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Revitalizing Base Closure Communities, Economic Development Conveyance Annual Financial Statement; OMB Control Number 0790-0004.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to verify that Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) recipients of Economic Development Conveyances (EDCs) are in compliance with the requirement that the LRA reinvest proceeds from the use of EDC property for seven years.

    Affected Public: Business or other for profit; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 2,000.

    Number of Respondents: 50.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 50.

    Average Burden per Response: 40 hours.

    Frequency: Annual.

    Respondents are LRAs that have executed EDC agreements with a Military Department that transferred property from a closed military installation. As provided by 32 CFR 174.9, such agreements require that the LRA reinvest the proceeds from any sale, lease or equivalent use of EDC property (or any portion thereof) during at least the first seven years after the date of the initial transfer of the property to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. The Secretary of Defense may recoup from the LRA such portion of these proceeds not used to support the economic redevelopment of, or related to, the installation. LRAs are subject to this same seven-year reinvestment requirement if their EDC agreement is modified to reduce the debt owed to the Federal Government. Military Departments monitor LRA compliance with this provision by requiring an annual financial statement certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant. No specific form is required.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13566 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee on Military Personnel Testing.

    DATES:

    Thursday, July 7, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and Friday, July 8, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Academy Hotel, 8110 North Academy Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.), Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and title 41, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), section 102-3.150.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to review planned changes and progress in developing computerized tests for military enlistment screening.

    Agenda: The agenda includes an overview of current enlistment test development timelines, test development strategies, and planned research for the next 3 years.

    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.

    Committee's Designated Federal Officer or Point of Contact: Dr. Jane M. Arabian, Assistant Director, Accession Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Room 3D1066, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000, telephone (703) 697-9271.

    Persons desiring to make oral presentations or submit written statements for consideration at the committee meeting must contact Dr. Jane M. Arabian at the address or telephone number in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than Wednesday, June 15, 2016.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13524 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Comprehensive Centers Program—National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students With Disabilities AGENCY:

    Offices of Elementary and Secondary Education and Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information:

    Comprehensive Centers Program—National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities Notice inviting applications for a new award for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.283D.

    Dates:

    Applications Available: June 8, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 25, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: Section 2244 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), requires the Secretary to establish a comprehensive center on students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability. Comprehensive Centers are typically administered by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE). OESE is funding this Center; however, because of the Center's subject matter, it will be administered jointly by OESE and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

    Priority: We are establishing this priority for the FY 2016 grant competition in accordance with section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), 20 U.S.C. 1232(d)(1).

    Absolute Priority: This priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities.

    Priority: The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement to establish a National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities (the Center) for children in early childhood education programs through high school. The comprehensive center must:

    (a) Identify or develop free or low-cost evidence-based assessment tools for identifying students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;

    (b) Identify evidence-based literacy instruction, strategies, and accommodations, including assistive technology, designed to meet the specific needs of such students;

    (c) Provide families of such students with information to assist such students, and as part of this activity, the Center should plan to collaborate with the parent training and information and community parent resource centers funded by the Department of Education (the Department), Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) (e.g., Center for Parent Information and Resources, and Parent Technical Assistance Centers);

    (d) Identify or develop evidence-based professional development for teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel to—

    (1) Understand early indicators of students at risk of not attaining full literacy skills due to a disability, including dyslexia impacting reading or writing, or developmental delay impacting reading, writing, language processing, comprehension, or executive functioning;

    (2) Use evidence-based screening assessments for early identification of such students beginning not later than kindergarten; and

    (3) Implement evidence-based instruction designed to meet the specific needs of such students; and

    (d) Disseminate the products of the comprehensive center to regionally diverse State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), regional educational agencies, and schools, including, as appropriate, through partnerships with other comprehensive centers established under section 203 of the Educational Technical Assistance Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9602), regional educational laboratories established under section 174 of the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (20 U.S.C. 9564), and OSEP- and other related federally-funded technical assistance centers.

    Application Requirements: The following requirements apply to all applications submitted under this competition. Any application that does not include the required documents or information will not be considered.

    (a) Demonstrate in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project” how the proposed project will address current and emerging training and information needs of SEAs, LEAs, technical assistance (TA) centers, schools, and practitioners to select and implement evidence-based practices that will improve literacy outcomes for students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—

    (1) Demonstrate knowledge of current and emerging evidence-based practices in reading and literacy-related instruction, screening, assessment, and identification of students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills, including knowledge of culturally responsive evidence-based practices to respond to the needs of diverse learners with disabilities;

    (2) Demonstrate knowledge of and previous experience with using creative approaches to disseminate evidence-based practices to a variety of entities, including parents, SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other early childhood programs;

    (3) Demonstrate knowledge of and previous experience with implementing TA strategies and delivering evidence-based professional development (PD) to a variety of entities, including SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start, and other early childhood programs; and

    (4) Demonstrate how using these TA and PD strategies has resulted in SEAs, LEAs, schools, teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel adopting, implementing, and sustaining evidence-based practices in reading and literacy-related instruction.

    (b) Demonstrate in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Design,” how the Center will accomplish project goals and activities. To meet this requirement, the applicant must—

    (1) Describe a five-year plan for the Center to identify current and emerging training and information needs and to address the priority requirements;

    (2) Use a conceptual framework for developing project plans and activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables, and any empirical support for this framework;

    (3) Incorporate current research and evidence-based practices and strategies in the development and delivery of its products and services;

    (4) Provide TA that is of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. The applicant must describe how it will use TA of varying levels of intensity, based on the needs of SEAs and other entities, to assess and build the capacity of SEAs, LEAs, TA centers, schools, Head Start and other early childhood programs, and practitioners to—

    (i) Assess students' literacy-related skills, including the capacity to: Identify students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills, administer assessments including screening tools, evaluate the evidence base for an assessment (i.e., reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity), understand the purpose of the assessment and the skills being assessed, and interpret assessment results;

    (ii) Fully implement evidence-based literacy-related programs. This involves helping practitioners understand the literacy program's purpose or goal, intended population, content, and necessary implementation supports, including PD needed to implement it with fidelity; and

    (iii) Use evidence-based PD programs to improve practitioners' knowledge of reading and literacy-related instruction, ultimately leading to better literacy-related skills of students with disabilities or students who show indicators of disabilities that may prevent them from attaining full literacy skills;

    (5) Partner with other federally funded comprehensive centers, regional educational laboratories, equity assistance centers, TA centers, parent training and information and community parent resource centers, and other related organizations to refine or develop products, create training modules, and hold meetings to both encourage collaborative activities among SEAs, LEAs, schools, Head Start and other early childhood programs, practitioners, and parents, and maximize efficiency. These partnerships should include—

    (i) Using technology, including assistive technology, to achieve intended project outcomes;

    (ii) Collaborating with national experts, institutions of higher education, and TA providers to avoid duplicating efforts; and

    (iii) Collaboratively identifying measures or guidelines for detecting if, due to a disability, students are at risk of not attaining full literacy skills, not learning to read, or not reaching benchmarks.

    (c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. The evaluation plan must—

    (1) Describe performance goals, objectives, and outcomes for the project that are clearly specified and measurable in terms of the project activities to be accomplished and their stated outcomes;

    (2) In accordance with paragraph (f)(1) of these Application Requirements, describe the logic model by which the proposed project will achieve its intended outcomes;

    (3) Describe how both progress in implementation and project outcomes will be measured, including the extent to which the project's products and services will reach its target population, how intended outcomes or results are achieved, a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and data analytic strategies.

    (4) Specify the measures and associated instruments or sources for data appropriate to the evaluation questions, suggest analytic strategies for those data, provide a timeline for conducting the evaluation, and include staff assignments for completing the plan;

    (5) Describe how evaluations of performance will be used to inform and improve service delivery over the course of the grant and to refine the proposed logic model and evaluation plan, including data collection; and

    (6) Dedicate sufficient funds in each budget year to cover the costs of carrying out the tasks described in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of these Application Requirements and implementing the evaluation plan.

    (d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

    (1) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and subject-matter and technical expertise to carry out the proposed activities, achieve the project's intended outcomes, and develop ongoing partnerships with leading experts and organizations nationwide to inform project activities;

    (2) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities;

    (3) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits; and

    (4) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate.

    (e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

    (1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

    (i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as appropriate; and

    (ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks.

    (2) Allocation of key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

    (3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

    (4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including families, general and special education teachers, related services providers, TA providers, researchers, institutions of higher education, policy makers, among others, in its development and operation.

    (f) The applicant must—

    (1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project. A logic model communicates how a project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.

    Note:

    OSEP uses this definition of logic model to differentiate between logic models and conceptual frameworks. The following Web sites provide more information on logic models: www.osepideasthatwork.org/logicModel and www.osepideasthatwork.org/resources-grantees/program-areas/ta-ta/tad-project-logic-model-and-conceptual-framework.

    (2) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

    (3) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines, as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

    (4) Include in the budget 2-day trips twice per year to attend Department briefings, Department-sponsored conferences, and other meetings, as requested by the Department; and

    (5) Maintain a Web site that meets government or industry-recognized standards for accessibility.

    Note:

    Within 30 days of receipt of the award, a post-award teleconference must be held between the project officer and the grantee's project director or other authorized representative.

    Definitions: These definitions apply to the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities priority in this notice. The definition of “evidence-based” comes from section 8002 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The definitions are as follows:

    Evidence-based means an activity, strategy, or intervention that (i) demonstrates a statistically significant effect on improving student outcomes or other relevant outcomes based on—(I) strong evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study; (II) moderate evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study; or (III) promising evidence from at least one well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias; or (ii)(I) demonstrates a rationale based on high-quality research findings or positive evaluation that such activity, strategy, or intervention is likely to improve student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and (II) includes ongoing efforts to examine the effects of such activity, strategy, or intervention.

    Practitioners (for the purposes of this priority) includes teachers, paraprofessionals, principals, other school leaders, and specialized instructional support personnel.

    TA services are defined as a negotiated series of activities designed to reach a valued outcome. This category of TA should result in changes to policy, program, practice, or operations that support increased recipient capacity or improved outcomes at one or more systems levels.

    Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking: Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) the Department generally offers interested parties the opportunity to comment on proposed priorities and requirements. Section 437(d)(1) of GEPA, however, allows the Secretary to exempt from rulemaking requirements regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority. This is the first grant competition for the Comprehensive Centers program under section 2244 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6674, and therefore qualifies for this exemption. In order to ensure timely grant awards, the Secretary has decided to forego public comment on the priority and requirements under section 437(d)(1) of GEPA. The priority and requirements will apply to the FY 2016 grant competition only.

    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6674; Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016.

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 79 apply to all applicants except federally recognized Indian tribes.

    Note:

    The regulations in 34 CFR part 86 apply to institutions of higher education (IHEs) only.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

    Estimated Available Funds: $1,475,000.

    Maximum Award: We will reject any application that proposes a budget exceeding $1,475,000 for a single budget period of 12 months in year one and $1,500,000 for a single budget period in years 2-5.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

    Note:

    The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Research organizations, institutions, agencies, institutions of higher education, or partnerships among such entities, or individuals, with the demonstrated ability or capacity to carry out the activities described in this notice.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

    3. Eligible Subgrantees: (a) Under 34 CFR 75.708(b) and (c) a grantee may award subgrants—to directly carry out project activities described in its application—to the following types of entities: SEAs; LEAs, including public charter schools that operate as LEAs under State law; IHEs; other public agencies; private nonprofit organizations; freely associated States and outlying areas; Indian tribes or tribal organizations; and for-profit organizations suitable to carry out the activities proposed in the application.

    (b) The grantee may award subgrants to entities it has identified in an approved application.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address to Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.283D.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. You must limit Part III to no more than 60 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    • Use a font that is 12 point or larger.

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    The page limit and double-spacing requirements do not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the list of priority requirements, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the page limit and double-spacing requirements do apply to all of Part III, the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.

    We will reject your application if you exceed the page limit in the application narrative section or if you apply standards other than those specified in this notice and the application package.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: June 8, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 25, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this competition.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM) (formerly the Central Contractor Registry), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note:

    Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities competition, CFDA number 84.283D, must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the National Comprehensive Center on Improving Literacy for Students with Disabilities competition at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.283, not 84.283D).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: The Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF. Additional, detailed information on how to attach files is in the application instructions.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative, or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues With the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note:

    The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. FAX: (202) 245-7619.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.283D), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note:

    The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.283D), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays. Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications:

    If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 and are listed in the application package.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Additional Review and Selection Process Factors: In the past, the Department has had difficulty finding peer reviewers for certain competitions because so many individuals who are eligible to serve as peer reviewers have conflicts of interest. Therefore, the Department has determined that for some discretionary grant competitions, applications may be separated into two or more groups and ranked and selected for funding within specific groups. This procedure will make it easier for the Department to find peer reviewers by ensuring that greater numbers of individuals who are eligible to serve as reviewers for any particular group of applicants will not have conflicts of interest. It also will increase the quality, independence, and fairness of the review process, while permitting panel members to review applications under discretionary grant competitions for which they also have submitted applications.

    4. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN); or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: To evaluate the overall success of the Comprehensive Center program, the Department will use three performance measures to assess the quality, relevance, and usefulness of center activities funded under this competition. These measures, adapted from a set of common measures developed to help assess performance across the Department's TA programs, are: (1) The percentage of all Comprehensive Centers' products and services that are deemed to be of high quality by qualified experts or individuals with appropriate expertise to review the substantive content of the products and services; (2) the percentage of all Comprehensive Centers' products and services that are deemed to be of high relevance to educational policy or practice by target audiences; and (3) the percentage of all Comprehensive Centers' products and services that are deemed to be of high usefulness to educational policy or practice by target audiences.

    All grantees will be expected to submit, as part of their performance reports, quantitative data documenting their progress with regard to these performance measures.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: Whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact

    For Further Information Contact: Kristen Rhoads, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5142, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 245-6715.

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting Wendell Bell, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5113, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-5108. Telephone: (202) 245-7268. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or PDF. To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: June 3, 2016. Ann Whalen, Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13587 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0066] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 August 8, 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-0066. 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-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Deborah Spitz, 202-260-3793.

    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: Race to the Top—Early Learning Challenge Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0713.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 11.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,320.

    Abstract: The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services (Departments) are requesting renewal of the currently approved Annual Performance Report for RTT-ELC grantees, without making any material change to the collection instrument, instructions, frequency of collection or use. The information submitted in the Annual Performance Report is used to verify that grantees are making substantial progress toward the achievement of approved objectives. This grant awarded all funds up front, so the APR will not be used to determine continuation awards, but will be used to provide necessary performance information and data to program staff and to the public. Further, this APR form collects aggregate and quantifiable data needed to respond to the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

    Information is collected under the authority of Sections 14005 and 14006, Division A, of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, as amended by section 1832(b) of Division B of P.L. 112-10, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Title III of Division F of P.L. 112-74, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012). (Attached is a copy of the authorizing statute.)

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13460 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 16-28-LNG] Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application (Application), filed on March 1, 2016, by Venture Global Plaquemines LNG, LLC (Plaquemines LNG), requesting long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG), up to the equivalent of 1,240 billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/y) of natural gas. Plaquemines LNG requested authority to export this LNG to any country which has, or in future develops, the capacity to import LNG via ocean-going carriers, with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U. S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).1 Plaquemines LNG seeks authorization to export this LNG for a 25-year term commencing on the earlier of the date of first export or seven years from the date the authorization is issued. Plaquemines LNG proposes to conduct its export operations from the Plaquemines LNG Project, a planned natural gas liquefaction and LNG export terminal to be located on the west bank of the Mississippi River, near river mile marker 55, in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. Plaquemines LNG seeks to export this LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in Plaquemines LNG's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/fe/venture-global-plaquemines-lng-llc-plaquemines-lng-fe-dkt-no-16-28-lng-ftanfta.

    1 In the Application, Plaquemines LNG also requests authorization to export LNG to any nation that currently has, or in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (FTA countries). DOE/FE will review that request for a FTA export authorization separately pursuant to NGA § 3(c), 15 U.S.C. 717b(c). The proposed export volumes for FTA and non-FTA destination countries are not additive.

    Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing by email: [email protected].

    Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kyle W. Moorman or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34) Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7970; (202) 586-9578.

    Edward Myers, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76) Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-3397.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, U.S. energy security, and the cumulative impact of the requested authorization and any other LNG export application(s) previously approved on domestic natural gas supply and demand fundamentals. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy (including GDP, consumers, and industry), job creation, the U.S. balance of trade, and international considerations; and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the following two studies examining the cumulative impacts of exporting domestically produced LNG:

    Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas Exports on U.S. Energy Markets, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration upon DOE's request (2014 EIA LNG Export Study); 2 and

    2 The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study, published on Oct. 29, 2014, is available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/.

    The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports, conducted jointly by the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and Oxford Economics, on behalf of DOE (2015 LNG Export Study).3

    3 The 2015 LNG Export Study, dated Oct. 29, 2015, is available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/20151113_macro_impact_of_lng_exports_0.pdf.

    Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014);  4 and

    4 The Addendum and related documents are available at: http://energy.gov/fe/draft-addendum-environmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas from the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).5

    5 The Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report is available at: http://energy.gov/fe/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspective-exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

    Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested parties will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit their comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

    Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 16-28-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 16-28-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 1, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13550 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2960-006; ER10-1595-006; ER10-1598-006; ER10-1616-006; ER10-1618-006.

    Applicants: Astoria Generating Company, L.P., Crete Energy Venture, LLC, Lincoln Generating Facility, LLC, New Covert Generating Company, LLC, Rolling Hills Generating, L.L.C.

    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Astoria Generating Company, L.P., et al.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5671.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1822-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: May 2016 Western WDT Service Agreement Biannual Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5542.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1823-000.

    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: May 2016 Western Interconnection Agreement Biannual Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5549.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1824-000.

    Applicants: Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: WPC 2016 Rider F & G and SSR Amendments to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5559.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1825-000.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Progress, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: NCEMC-PJM Dynamic Transfer Agreement RS No 202 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5585.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1826-000.

    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 1067R7 East Texas Electric Cooperative NITSA and NOA to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5590.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1827-000.

    Applicants: GenOn Energy Management, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Filing and Request for Waiver to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5605.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1828-000.

    Applicants: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Executed Transmission Facility Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5361.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/16/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1829-000.

    Applicants: Clean Energy Future—Lordstown, LLC.

    Description: Request for Limited Waiver of Clean Energy Future ? Lordstown, LLC.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5640.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1830-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas Central Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-TNC-Rio Grande EC TSA Second Amend & Restated to be effective 5/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5111.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1831-000.

    Applicants: AEP Texas North Company.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: TCC-TNC-Rio Grande EC TSA Second Amend & Restated Concurrence to be effective 5/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5112.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13445 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-123-000.

    Applicants: BluCo Energy LLC.

    Description: Application under FPA Section 203 of BluCo Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5182.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-124-000.

    Applicants: Iron Energy LLC.

    Description: Application under FPA Section 203 of Iron Energy LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5187.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-125-000.

    Applicants: Northbrook New York, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for Waivers and Expedited Action of Northbrook New York, LLC.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5406.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-126-000.

    Applicants: Odell Wind Farm, LLC, Algonquin Power (Odell Holdings) Inc., Odell SponsorCo, LLC, Odell Holdings, LLC.

    Description: Application of Odell Wind Farm, LLC, et al. for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act for Disposition of Jurisdictional Facilities, Request for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2238-008; ER10-2239-008; ER10-2237-007; ER12-896-004.

    Applicants: Indigo Generation LLC, Larkspur Energy LLC, Wildflower Energy LP, Mariposa Energy, LLC.

    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for the Southwest Region of the DGC Southwest Sellers, et al.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5324.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-767-003

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-06-02_Schedule 43I White Pine 2 SSR Cost Allocation Compliance to be effective 1/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5256.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2145-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-06-02_Schedule 43H_White Pine 1 SSR Cost Allocation Compliance to be effective 4/16/2015.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5299.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-938-004.

    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing—Corrected Schedule 10 to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5329.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1083-001.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: 2016-06-02SA 2786 ITC Midwest-IPL 1st Rev. GIA (J233) Compliance to be effective 3/5/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5300.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1835-000.

    Applicants: Appalachian Power Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: AEPSC submits revisions to RAA Sch 8.1-Appdx 2B re: depreciation rates for APCo to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5002.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1836-000.

    Applicants: Deseret Generation & Transmission Co-operative, Inc.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016 RIA Annual Update to be effective 1/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5003.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1837-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4475, Queue No. Z2-116 to be effective 5/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1838-000.

    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool Participants Committee.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Joint Filing of ISO-NE and NEPOOL to Implement Sub-Hourly Settlements to be effective 3/1/2017.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5148.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1839-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-06-02SA 2921 Ameren Illinois-Prairie Power T-TIA (Ballard Substation) to be effective 5/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5150.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1840-000.

    Applicants: PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: PPL submits Engineering and Construction SA No. 4476 with MetEd to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5153.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1841-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4472, Queue No. Z2-114 to be effective 5/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1843-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5305.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1844-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy II LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5307.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1845-000.

    Applicants: Beech Ridge Energy Storage LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5308.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1846-000.

    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5309.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1847-000.

    Applicants: Buckeye Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5310.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1848-000.

    Applicants: Forward Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5312.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1849-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5313.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1850-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy III LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5314.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1851-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy IV LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5315.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1852-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy V LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5316.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1853-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy Storage LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5317.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1854-000.

    Applicants: Gratiot County Wind LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5318.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1855-000.

    Applicants: Gratiot County Wind II LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5319.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1856-000.

    Applicants: Grays Harbor Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5320.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1857-000.

    Applicants: Invenergy Cannon Falls LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5321.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1858-000.

    Applicants: Invenergy TN LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5322.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1859-000.

    Applicants: Invenergy Nelson LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5323.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1860-000.

    Applicants: Judith Gap Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5325.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1861-000.

    Applicants: Sheldon Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5326.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1862-000.

    Applicants: Spindle Hill Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5330.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1863-000.

    Applicants: Spring Canyon Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5332.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1864-000.

    Applicants: Stony Creek Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5333.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1865-000.

    Applicants: Willow Creek Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5336.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1866-000.

    Applicants: Wolverine Creek Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5340.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1867-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy II LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5342.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1868-000.

    Applicants: Prairie Breeze Wind Energy III LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5344.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1869-000.

    Applicants: Vantage Wind Energy LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5348.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1870-000.

    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy II LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Revised Market-Based Rate Tariff Filing to be effective 8/2/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160602-5357.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/23/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13512 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-976-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Madill Gas Processing Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5099.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-977-000.

    Applicants: Cimarron River Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates 2016-05 to be effective 5/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-978-000.

    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): FLU and EPC to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5143.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-979-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: AGT Cleanup Filing to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5172.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-980-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—Keyspan Release to Chief 791677 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5188.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-981-000.

    Applicants: Portland Natural Gas Transmission System.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Available Capacity ROFR Revisions to be effective 6/27/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-982-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—Col Gas Release to BBPC 791665 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5206.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-983-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—BUG Release to Chief Energy 791678 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5208.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-984-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—Baystate Release to BBPC 791586 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5213.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-985-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): FL&U effective July 1, 2016 to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5215.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-986-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Correct Language On Sheet 251 to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5216.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-987-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate—BBPC Release to EDF 791679 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5219.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-989-000.

    Applicants: WPX Energy Marketing, LLC, Citadel NGPE LLC.

    Description: Joint Petition of WPX Energy Marketing, LLC and Citadel NGPE LLC for Temporary Waivers of Capacity Release Regulations, et al. and Request for Shortened Comment Period under RP16-989.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/3/16

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1000-000.

    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated & Non-Conforming Service Agreement—Kentucky Power to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5595.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1001-000.

    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403(d)(2): 2016 FL&U Submittal to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5604.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1002-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Non-Conforming Agreements—Colonial 510025 and Narragansett 510075 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5614.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-988-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Jun 2016 to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-990-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Neg Rate Agmts (Munford 20593 and Poplar Grove 20592) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5186.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-991-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: NJRES 910531 6-1-2016 Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5289.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-992-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Willmut 35221 to BP 46451) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5369.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-993-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Atlanta 8438 to various eff 6-1-16) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5370.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-994-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Encana 37663 to Conoco 46456, Texla 46469) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5373.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-995-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Petrohawk 41455 to Texla 46493) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5374.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-996-000.

    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC eTariff Clean-Up to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5427.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-997-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Negotiated Rate Filing to Remove LER #5680 Effective 5-1-16 to be effective 5/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5454.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-998-000.

    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.403: Periodic Rate Adjustment Filing to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5485.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-999-000.

    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: 20160531 Negotiated Rate to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5500.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-549-002.

    Applicants: PGPipeline LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: NAESB 3.0 Compliance Filing to be effective 4/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5607.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/13/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13448 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-959-000.

    Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: June 2016 Open Season to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/19/16.

    Accession Number: 20160519-5142.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/31/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-970-000.

    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: PCB Adjustment Period Extension through 2018 to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-972-000.

    Applicants: Rager Mountain Storage Company LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Assignment Update to be effective 6/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-973-000.

    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Annual Cashout True-Up of Elba Express Company, L.L.C. under RP16-973.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5166.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-974-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (APS June 2016) to be effective 6/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5267.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-975-000.

    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) rate filing per 154.312: Filing to Change Rates to be effective 7/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 5/26/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5274.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/7/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: May 27, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13446 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-1833-000] Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is June 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic 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.

    Dated: June 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13513 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1150-001.

    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Duke Energy submits compliance filing per 5/13/16 order in Docket No. ER16-1150 to be effective 5/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5303.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1832-000.

    Applicants: Entergy Louisiana, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: ELL Nine Mile 6 Reactive to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5175.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1833-000.

    Applicants: Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Sempra Gas & Power Marketing, LLC Petition for Market-Based Rates to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5189.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1834-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4474, Queue No. Z2-113 to be effective 5/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 6/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160601-5268.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/22/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD16-6-000.

    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.

    Description: Petition of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation for Approval of Proposed Reliability Standards IRO-018-1 and TOP-010-1.

    Filed Date: 07/01/16.

    Accession Number: 20160526-5364.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 1, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13447 Filed 6-7-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-122-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company for Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Consideration.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5265.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1469-004; ER10-1467-004; ER10-1468-004; ER10-1459-008; ER13-785-003; ER13-713-003; ER10-1453-004.

    Applicants: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, FirstEnergy Generation Mansfield Unit 1 Corp., FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation, LLC, FirstEnergy Solutions Corp., Ohio Edison Company, The Toledo Edison Company, The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.

    Description: Notice of change in status of the FirstEnergy Companies et al.

    Filed Date: 5/27/16.

    Accession Number: 20160527-5247.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/17/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-623-009.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing pursuant to the May 10, 2016 Order on Rehearing and Compliance to be effective 4/1/2015.

    Filed Date: 5/31/16.

    Accession Number: 20160531-5509.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/21/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-923-002.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc.

    Description: Compliance filing: EIM Attac