Federal Register Vol. 81, No.119,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 119 (June 21, 2016)

Page Range40149-40472
FR Document

81_FR_119
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 40469 - National Week of Making, 2016PDF
81 FR 40393 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a Currently Approved Information Collection Request: Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of PropertyPDF
81 FR 40304 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 40226 - Treatment of a Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; HearingPDF
81 FR 40152 - Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 40197 - Community Development Revolving Loan FundPDF
81 FR 40350 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-The Open Group, L.L.C.PDF
81 FR 40352 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ASTM International StandardsPDF
81 FR 40352 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-ODVA, Inc.PDF
81 FR 40350 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-R Consortium, Inc.PDF
81 FR 40351 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-3D PDF Consortium, Inc.PDF
81 FR 40351 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc.PDF
81 FR 40354 - Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Department of Energy; Fort St. VrainPDF
81 FR 40301 - Reissuance of NPDES General Permit for Discharges From Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian Country Within the Boundaries of Washington State (Permit Number WAG130000)PDF
81 FR 40303 - The National Drinking Water Advisory Council: Request for NominationsPDF
81 FR 40302 - Evaluating Urban Resilience to Climate Change: A Multi-Sector ApproachPDF
81 FR 40218 - Use of Bureau-Operated Schools by Third Parties Under Lease Agreements and Fundraising Activity by Bureau-Operated School PersonnelPDF
81 FR 40396 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SEACROPPER II; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 40398 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel HEAD PELICAN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 40397 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BALAJAN; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 40348 - Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same; Commission Determination To Grant a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation on the Basis of a Settlement Agreement; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
81 FR 40320 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40397 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SAPHIRA; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 40398 - Pipeline Safety: Ineffective Protection, Detection, and Mitigation of Corrosion Resulting From Insulated Coatings on Buried PipelinesPDF
81 FR 40195 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota TransferPDF
81 FR 40340 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 40340 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Mortgage Insurance Termination; Application for Premium Refund or Distributive Share PaymentPDF
81 FR 40339 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Requisition for Disbursements of Sections 202 & 811 Capital Advance/Loan FundsPDF
81 FR 40188 - Safety Zone; Misery Challenge, Manchester Bay, Manchester, MAPDF
81 FR 40391 - Notice of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 40317 - Leveraging Existing Clinical Data for Extrapolation to Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 40400 - Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 40259 - Adoption of RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 40288 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software (OMB Control Number 0704-0369)PDF
81 FR 40338 - Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0105PDF
81 FR 40167 - Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International AirportPDF
81 FR 40357 - Entergy Operations, Inc., River Bend Station, Unit 3PDF
81 FR 40353 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40319 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco To Protect Children and AdolescentsPDF
81 FR 40181 - Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Classification of the Gynecologic Laparoscopic Power Morcellation Containment SystemPDF
81 FR 40331 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40250 - Expediting Rate CasesPDF
81 FR 40352 - Privacy Act of 1974; Publication in Full of All Notices of Systems of Records, Including Several New Systems, Substantive Amendments to Existing Systems, Decommissioning of Obsolete Legacy Systems, and Publication of Proposed Routines UsesPDF
81 FR 40344 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Receipt of Application for Renewal of Incidental Take Permit; Enbridge Pipelines (Lakehead) LLCPDF
81 FR 40341 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Permit ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 40226 - Safety Zone; Lower Niagara River at Niagara Falls, New YorkPDF
81 FR 40289 - Information Collection Requirement; Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege ProgramPDF
81 FR 40347 - Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the U.S.-Chile FTA Rules of OriginPDF
81 FR 40262 - Announcement of Loan Application Procedures, and Deadlines for the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP)PDF
81 FR 40149 - Use of Electronic Information Exchange Systems; Miscellaneous AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 40304 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40306 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40353 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Extend an Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 40311 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Request for New Information Collection for a Program Instruction on Guidance for the Development and Submission of State Plans on Aging, State Plan Amendments and the Intrastate Funding FormulaPDF
81 FR 40310 - Announcing the Intent To Award a Single-Source Supplement for the National Center for Benefits Outreach and Enrollment (NCBOE)PDF
81 FR 40310 - Reallotment of FY 2016 FundsPDF
81 FR 40309 - Notice of Intent To Award a Single Supplement to the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging; The Eldercare LocatorPDF
81 FR 40290 - Government-Industry Advisory Panel; Request for Information on Rights in Technical Data and the Validation of Proprietary Data RestrictionsPDF
81 FR 40345 - White House National Science and Technology Council; Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction; U.S. National Platform for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk ReductionPDF
81 FR 40287 - Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 40262 - Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect InformationPDF
81 FR 40298 - North American Electric Reliability Corporation; Notice of Staff Review of Compliance ProgramsPDF
81 FR 40296 - Ute Indian Tribe; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing ApplicationsPDF
81 FR 40297 - Combined Notice of Filings #2PDF
81 FR 40299 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 40300 - Birch Power Company; Notice of Application Ready for Environmental Analysis and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations, Terms and Conditions, and PrescriptionsPDF
81 FR 40299 - Coneross Power Corporation; Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing ProcessPDF
81 FR 40297 - Fred N. Sutter, Jr.; Shamrock Utilities, LLC; Notice of Transfer of ExemptionPDF
81 FR 40292 - California Department of Water Resources and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; Notice of Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and ProtestsPDF
81 FR 40293 - ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 40297 - Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Triad Expansion ProjectPDF
81 FR 40348 - Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers; Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting an Unopposed Motion for Termination of the Investigation Based on Withdrawal of the Complaint; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
81 FR 40287 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Assessment Webinar for Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited SpeciesPDF
81 FR 40392 - Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 40337 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40333 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40335 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40274 - Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Subsea Cable-Laying Operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort SeasPDF
81 FR 40312 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production; Recordkeeping and Registration ProvisionsPDF
81 FR 40392 - Environmental Impact Statement: Lafayette Parish, LouisianaPDF
81 FR 40334 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40273 - National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Smart Grid Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 40345 - Notice of Closure on Public Lands in Boise County, IdahoPDF
81 FR 40272 - Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee: Reestablishment of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for MembershipPDF
81 FR 40190 - Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 40346 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Herring River Restoration Project, Cape Cod National Seashore, MassachusettsPDF
81 FR 40308 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 40253 - Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for the 2016-2018 Fishing YearsPDF
81 FR 40363 - Postal Rate ChangesPDF
81 FR 40292 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2019) Pilot Test RecruitmentPDF
81 FR 40315 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Medical Device AccessoriesPDF
81 FR 40364 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 3 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval to a Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) To Establish Margin Requirements for the TBA Market, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1, 2, and 3PDF
81 FR 40377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 510 To Extend the Penny Pilot Program Until December 31, 2016PDF
81 FR 40381 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change to Rule 14.11, Managed Fund Shares, To List and Trade Shares of the Pointbreak Agriculture Commodity Strategy Fund of the Pointbreak ETF TrustPDF
81 FR 40377 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of the Shares of the First Trust Strategic Mortgage REIT ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund VIIIPDF
81 FR 40379 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 40381 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Shares of the Global Currency Gold Fund Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.201PDF
81 FR 40395 - Notice of Intent To Grant a Buy America Waiver to the City of Sacramento, California, Department of Public Works, To Use Marmoleum FlooringPDF
81 FR 40191 - Rules of Procedure Before the Judicial OfficerPDF
81 FR 40316 - Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; XOFIGOPDF
81 FR 40325 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 40322 - National Library of Medicine Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 40324 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 40323 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 40324 - National Library of Medicine; Notice of MeetingsPDF
81 FR 40323 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 40325 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 40350 - Meeting of the Advisory Committee; MeetingPDF
81 FR 40186 - Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SCPDF
81 FR 40395 - Notice of Public Hearing for Statutory ExemptionPDF
81 FR 40394 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
81 FR 40229 - Disapproval of Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; New YorkPDF
81 FR 40174 - Addition of Certain Persons and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity ListPDF
81 FR 40169 - Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL)PDF
81 FR 40325 - Final NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site ResearchPDF
81 FR 40235 - Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certification, Rural Broadband ExperimentsPDF
81 FR 40358 - Biweekly Notice: Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 40197 - Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Compressors; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 40322 - Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request, Grants.govPDF
81 FR 40261 - Notice of Proposed New Special Recreation Permit FeePDF
81 FR 40203 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbHPDF
81 FR 40201 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 40391 - Texas Disaster #TX-00472PDF
81 FR 40158 - Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft EnginesPDF
81 FR 40235 - Commercial Fishing Industry VesselsPDF
81 FR 40437 - Commercial Fishing Vessels-Implementation of 2010 and 2012 LegislationPDF
81 FR 40217 - Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Glasgow, KYPDF
81 FR 40165 - Establishment of Class D Airspace: Destin, FL; Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eglin Air Force Base, FL; Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL; and Crestview, FLPDF
81 FR 40215 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Falmouth, MAPDF
81 FR 40213 - Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Troy, ALPDF
81 FR 40164 - Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace Orlando, FL; and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, FLPDF
81 FR 40403 - Amendments To Streamline Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Malt Beverages, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, and Facilitate Use of the International Trade Data SystemPDF
81 FR 40183 - Importer Permit Requirements for Tobacco Products and Processed Tobacco, and Other Requirements for Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco and Cigarette Papers and TubesPDF
81 FR 40160 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 40210 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 40208 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 40205 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 40294 - Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Shidler Line Segment Abandonment Project and Request for Comments on Environmental IssuesPDF

Issue

81 119 Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Contents Administrative Administrative Conference of the United States NOTICES Adoption of Recommendations, 40259-40261 2016-14636 Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40304-40308 2016-14614 2016-14615 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

National Agricultural Library

See

Rural Utilities Service

Alcohol Tobacco Tax Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Importer Permit Requirements for Tobacco Products and Processed Tobacco, and Other Requirements for Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco and Cigarette Papers and Tubes, 40183-40185 2016-14358 PROPOSED RULES Amendments to Streamline Importation of Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer, Malt Beverages, Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco, and Cigarette Papers and Tubes and Facilitate Use of the International Trade Data System, 40404-40436 2016-14359 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Use of Electronic Information Exchange Systems; Miscellaneous Amendments, 40149-40152 2016-14616 Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: 3D PDF Consortium, Inc., 40351 2016-14703 ASTM International Standards, 40352 2016-14706 ODVA, Inc., 40352 2016-14705 Open Group, LLC, 40350-40351 2016-14707 R Consortium, Inc., 40350 2016-14704 Membership Changes under National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, Inc., 40351-40352 2016-14695 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40308-40309 2016-14569 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Misery Challenge, Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA, 40188-40190 2016-14642 Special Local Regulations: Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, Bucksport, SC, 40186-40188 2016-14541 PROPOSED RULES Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels; Withdrawal, 40235 2016-14400 Commercial Fishing Vessels Implementation of 2010 and 2012 Legislation, 40438-40468 2016-14399 Safety Zones: Lower Niagara River at Niagara Falls, NY, 40226-40229 2016-14620 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40338-40339 2016-14633 Commerce Commerce Department See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Program Instruction on Guidance for the Development and Submission of State Plans on Aging, State Plan Amendments and the Intrastate Funding Formula, 40311-40312 2016-14612 Proposed Single-Source Supplements: National Center for Benefits Outreach and Enrollment, 40310-40311 2016-14611 Reallotment of Fiscal Year 2016 funds, 40310 2016-14610 Supplemental Funding: National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, 40309-40310 2016-14609 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board RULES Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License, 40190 2016-14572 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; DoD Pilot Mentor-Protege Program, 40289-40290 2016-14619 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software, 40288-40289 2016-14634 Defense Department Defense Department See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Requests for Information: Rights in Technical Data and the Validation of Proprietary Data Restrictions, 40290-40292 2016-14608
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study Pilot Test Recruitment, 40292 2016-14563 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

PROPOSED RULES Energy Conservation Program: Standards for Compressors, 40197 2016-14480
Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Disapproval of Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; New York, 40229-40235 2016-14523 NOTICES Evaluating Urban Resilience to Climate Change: A Multi-Sector Approach, 40302-40303 2016-14666 Reissuance of NPDES General Permit for Discharges: Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian Country Within the Boundaries of Washington State; Permit Number WAG130000, 40301-40302 2016-14671 Requests for Nominations: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council, 40303-40304 2016-14667 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 40160-40164 2016-14317 Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines, 40158-40160 2016-14406 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Orlando and Gainesville, FL, 40164-40165 2016-14373 Establishment of Class D Airspace; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Amendment of Class D and E Airspace: Destin, FL; Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL; Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL; Eglin Air Force Base, FL; Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL; and Crestview, FL, 40165-40167 2016-14377 Operating Limitations At John F. Kennedy International Airport, 40167-40169 2016-14631 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 40201-40203, 40210-40213 2016-14301 2016-14430 Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH, 40203-40205 2016-14470 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 40205-40210 2016-14293 2016-14295 Class D and E Airspace; Amendments: Falmouth, MA, 40215-40217 2016-14376 Class D and E Airspace; Revocation of Class E Airspace; Amendments: Troy, AL, 40213-40215 2016-14374 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Glasgow, KY, 40217-40218 2016-14382 NOTICES Meetings: Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee, 40392 2016-14589 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certification, Rural Broadband Experiments, 40235-40250 2016-14507 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 40304 2016-14736 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Applications: ANR Pipeline Co., 40293-40294 2016-14595 Coneross Power Corp., 40299 2016-14598 Ute Indian Tribe, 40296 2016-14602 Combined Filings, 40297, 40299-40300 2016-14600 2016-14601 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Southern Star Central Gas Pipeline, Inc.; Shidler Line Segment Abandonment Project, 40294-40296 2016-14147 Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., L.L.C., Triad Expansion Project, 40297-40298 2016-14594 Hydroelectric Applications: Birch Power Co., 40300-40301 2016-14599 California Department of Water Resources and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 40292-40293 2016-14596 Staff Review of Compliance Programs: North American Electric Reliability Corp., 40298-40299 2016-14603 Transfers of Exemptions: Fred N. Sutter, Jr.; Shamrock Utilities, LLC, 40297 2016-14597 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Lafayette Parish, LA, 40392-40393 2016-14583 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Financial Responsibility for Motor Carriers of Passengers and Motor Carriers of Property, 40393-40394 2016-14743 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Buy America Waivers Sacramento, CA, Department of Public Works, to Use Marmoleum Flooring, 40395-40396 2016-14554 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 40394-40395 2016-14533 Public Hearing for Statutory Exemption, 40395 2016-14534 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Endangered and Threatened Species Permit Applications, 40341-40344 2016-14622 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Enbridge Pipelines (Lakehead) LLC; Receipt of Application for Renewal of Incidental Take Permit, 40344-40345 2016-14623 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Medical Devices: Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Classification of the Gynecologic Laparoscopic Power Morcellation Containment System, 40181-40183 2016-14627 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals Medical Device Accessories, 40315-40316 2016-14562 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production; Recordkeeping and Registration Provisions, 40312-40315 2016-14584 Regulations Restricting the Sale and Distribution of Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and Adolescents, 40319-40320 2016-14628 Guidance: Leveraging Existing Clinical Data for Extrapolation to Pediatric Uses of Medical Devices, 40317-40319 2016-14640 Regulatory Review Periods for Purposes of Patent Extension: XOFIGO, 40316-40317 2016-14551 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Proposed New Special Recreation Permit Fee, 40261-40262 2016-14471 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: White House National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction, U.S. National Platform for the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 40345 2016-14606 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

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 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Grants.gov, 40322 2016-14476
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40320-40322 2016-14656 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application and Recertification Packages for Approval of Nonprofit Organizations in FHA Activities, 40340-40341 2016-14647 Mortgage Insurance Termination; Application for Premium Refund or Distributive Share Payment, 40340 2016-14646 Requisition for Disbursements of Sections 202 and 811 Capital Advance/Loan Funds, 40339-40340 2016-14644 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau PROPOSED RULES Use of Bureau-Operated Schools by Third Parties under Lease Agreements and Fundraising Activities by Bureau-Operated School Personnel, 40218-40226 2016-14665 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Addition of Certain Persons and Removal of Certain Persons from the Entity List, 40174-40181 2016-14515 Revisions to the Unverified List, 40169-40174 2016-14514 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Treatment of a Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Hearing, 40226 2016-14734 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee; Reestablishment, 40272-40273 2016-14573 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Graphics Processing Chips, Systems on a Chip, and Products Containing the Same, 40348-40350 2016-14657 Certain Silicon-on-Insulator Wafers, 40348 2016-14593 Probable Economic Effect of Certain Modifications to the U.S.-Chile FTA Rules of Origin, 40347-40348 2016-14618 Joint Joint Board for Enrollment of Actuaries NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee, 40350 2016-14542 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

Labor Department Labor Department NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 40352-40353 2016-14624 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Closure of Public Lands: Boise, ID, 40345-40346 2016-14575 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel BALAJAN, 40397-40398 2016-14662 Vessel HEAD PELICAN, 40398 2016-14663 Vessel SAPHIRA, 40397 2016-14655 Vessel SEACROPPER II, 40396-40397 2016-14664 National Agricultural National Agricultural Library NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40262 2016-14604 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:, 40353 2016-14629 National Credit National Credit Union Administration RULES Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 40152-40158 2016-14719 PROPOSED RULES Community Development Revolving Loan Fund, 40197-40201 2016-14718 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Smart Grid Advisory Committee, 40273-40274 2016-14580 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 40325 2016-14544 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 40323-40324 2016-14545 National Library of Medicine, 40322-40325 2016-14546 2016-14547 2016-14548 2016-14549 2016-14550 Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research, 40325-40331 2016-14513 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer, 40195-40196 2016-14650 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Northeastern United States: Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years, 40253-40258 2016-14568 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review; Assessment Webinar for Gulf of Mexico Data-Limited Species, 40287 2016-14590 Fisheries of the South Atlantic; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review, 40287-40288 2016-14605 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities: Subsea Cable-laying Operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas, 40274-40287 2016-14585 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Herring River Restoration Project, Cape Cod National Seashore, MA, 40346-40347 2016-14570 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40353-40354 2016-14613 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined License Applications: Entergy Operations, Inc., River Bend Station, Unit 3; Withdrawal, 40357-40358 2016-14630 Exemptions: Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, Department of Energy; Fort St. Vrain, 40354-40357 2016-14673 Facility Operating and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc.; Biweekly Notice, 40358-40363 2016-14486 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Pipeline Safety: Ineffective Protection, Detection, and Mitigation of Corrosion Resulting from Insulated Coatings on Buried Pipelines, 40398-40400 2016-14651 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES Postal Rate Changes, 40363-40364 2016-14564 Postal Service Postal Service RULES Rule of Procedure Before the Judicial Officer, 40191-40195 2016-14553 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Week of Making (Proc. 9463), 40469-40472 2016-14844 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service NOTICES Rural Energy Savings Program: Loan Application Procedures, and Deadlines, 40262-40272 2016-14617 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats BZX Exchange, Inc., 40381 2016-14559 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc,, 40364-40377 2016-14561 Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, 40377-40379 2016-14560 NYSE Arca, Inc., 40379-40391 2016-14556 2016-14557 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 40377 2016-14558 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Texas, 40391 2016-14421 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on International Postal and Delivery Services, 40391-40392 2016-14641 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 40331-40338 2016-14581 2016-14586 2016-14587 2016-14588 2016-14626 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Expediting Rate Cases, 40250-40253 2016-14625 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Meetings: Health Services Research and Development Service, Scientific Merit Review Board, 40400-40401 2016-14639 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Treasury Department, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 40404-40436 2016-14359 Part III Homeland Security Department, Coast Guard, 40438-40468 2016-14399 Part IV Presidential Documents, 40469-40472 2016-14844 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.

81 119 Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 7 CFR Parts 319, 322, 352, and 353 9 CFR Parts 93 and 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0016] Use of Electronic Information Exchange Systems; Miscellaneous Amendments AGENCY:

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are amending our regulations regarding the importation or exportation of animals and animal products and plants and plant products to address instances where the current regulations require the use of a hard-copy form or specify that a particular document must be submitted in writing. This final rule amends the regulations to provide the flexibility needed for persons to take advantage of electronic systems when a regulation has a limiting requirement. The amendments we are making in this final rule are not to mandate the use of electronic systems or preclude the use of paper documents; rather, they address those instances where our regulations specify a submission method to the exclusion of other methods.

DATES:

Effective June 21, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Stephen O'Neill, Chief, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3072.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (“SAFE Act”) requires the interagency establishment of a single portal system, known as the International Trade Data System (ITDS), to be operated by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). ITDS is an electronic information exchange capability, or “single-window,” through which individuals and businesses will transmit data required by participating agencies for the importation or exportation of cargo. The goal of ITDS is to eliminate redundant data reporting and replace multiple filings, many of which are on paper. ITDS provides individuals and companies involved in international trade with an electronic format to secure necessary certifications, complete required forms, and provide information about the requirements and regulations relevant to the commodity of interest. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has actively participated in the development of ITDS in cooperation with CBP and other Federal agencies.

As part of the ITDS initiative, CBP developed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE), a single, centralized, online access point that connects the trade community and partner government agencies. ACE will allow trade participants access to and management of their trade information via reports; expedite legitimate trade by providing CBP with tools to efficiently process imports/exports and move goods quickly across the border; improve communication, collaboration and compliance efforts between CBP and the trade community; facilitate efficient collection, processing and analysis of commercial import and export data; and provide an information-sharing platform for trade data throughout government agencies.

For its part, APHIS is working to enhance trade facilitation in several ways. In some cases, APHIS programs will work within ACE to take required actions. In other cases, legacy systems will be updated to allow for more efficient processing of the information. For example, a new permitting system, E-file, is currently being developed to replace the legacy E-permits system. E-file will be used across APHIS programs, will include advanced functionality, and will provide permitting data directly to ACE to allow for speedier review and admissibility determinations at the ports of arrival. Other APHIS system enhancements will allow for better communication with our CBP Agriculture colleagues concerning pest identification and allow for expansion of e-certification opportunities with our trading partners. APHIS recognizes the advantages provided by the “single-window” concept and will continue to incorporate those strategies into future planning.

On February 19, 2014, President Obama issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13659, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, in order to reduce unnecessary procedural requirements to commerce while continuing to protect our national security, public health and safety, the environment, and natural resources. Pursuant to E.O. 13659, participating Federal agencies are to have capabilities, agreements, and other requirements in place to utilize ITDS and supporting systems such as ACE as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export no later than by December 31, 2016.

Pursuant to E.O. 13659, APHIS has reviewed its regulations in 7 CFR chapter III and 9 CFR chapter I to identify any provisions that may present an obstacle to the use of ACE/ITDS or similar systems by persons importing plants/plant products or animals/animal products that are subject to APHIS' regulations.

In particular, we looked for instances where the regulations required the use of a hard-copy form or specified that a particular document had to be submitted in writing. Where those limiting sorts of requirements were found, this final rule amends the regulations to provide the flexibility needed for persons to take advantage of electronic systems. The amendments we are making in this final rule do not mandate the use of electronic systems or preclude the use of paper documents; rather, the rule simply addresses those instances where our regulations specify a submission method to the exclusion of other methods.

In many cases, however, we found our regulations require importers or shippers to provide documents such as import permits or certificates upon arrival in the United States without specifying the medium in which those documents must be provided. We do not believe that provisions written in that manner require any changes since the language used already allows for the use of electronic systems.

Effective Date

This final rule amends the regulations regarding the importation or exportation of animals and animal products and plants and plant products to address instances where the regulations require the use of a hard-copy form or specify that a particular document must be submitted in writing. Where those limiting sorts of requirements exist, this final rule amends the regulations to provide the flexibility needed for persons to take advantage of electronic systems without precluding the use of other methods already in place. Accordingly, the Administrator of APHIS has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553 to publish this final rule without prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

Since prior notice and other public procedures with respect to this final rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest, there is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this final rule effective upon publication.

Finally, since a notice of proposed rulemaking is not required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, APHIS is not required to prepare and make available for public comment an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604).

Executive Order 12866

This rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 319

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

7 CFR Part 322

Bees, Honey, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

7 CFR Part 352

Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

7 CFR Part 353

Exports, Plant diseases and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 93

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

9 CFR Part 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 7 CFR parts 319, 322, 352, and 353 and 9 CFR parts 93 and 94 are amended as follows:

Title 7—Agriculture PART 319—FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES 1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 319.6 [Amended]
2. In § 319.6, paragraph (e)(4) is amended by removing the words “written permission” and adding the word “authorization” in their place.
3. Section 319.8-4 is revised to read as follows:
§ 319.8-4 Notice of arrival.

Immediately upon arrival at a port of entry of any shipment of cotton or covers, the importer shall submit to an inspector or, in the case of Guam, through the Customs officer of the Government of Guam, notice of such arrival using a form provided for that purpose (Form PPQ-368). Forms will be submitted using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)
§ 319.40-4 [Amended]
4. In § 319.40-4, paragraph (a) is amended by removing the words “A written” and adding the word “An” in their place.
§ 319.40-9 [Amended]
5. In § 319.40-9, paragraph (b)(1) is amended by removing the words “in writing or by telephone” and adding the words “by any authorized method” in their place.
PART 322—BEES, BEEKEEPING BYPRODUCTS, AND BEEKEEPING EQUIPMENT 6. The authority citation for part 322 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 281; 7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

7. Section 322.7 is amended as follows: a. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(3) and adding the word “, or” in its place. b. By adding paragraph (b)(4).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 322.7 Notice of arrival.

(b) * * *

(4) Using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

8. Section 322.31 is amended as follows: a. By removing the period at the end of paragraph (b)(3) and adding the word “, or” in its place. b. By adding paragraph (b)(4).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 322.31 Notice of arrival.

(b) * * *

(4) Using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

PART 352—PLANT QUARANTINE SAFEGUARD REGULATIONS 9. The authority citation for part 352 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 7701-7772 and 7781-7786; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.

10. Section 352.7 is revised to read as follows:
§ 352.7 Notice of arrival.

Immediately upon arrival of any shipment of plants or plant products (including noxious weeds) subject to this part and covered by a specific permit, the importer shall submit to an inspector notice of such arrival using a form provided for that purpose (Form PPQ-368) and, where relevant, the proposed routing to the proposed U.S. port of exit. Forms will be submitted using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method. Notice of arrival shall not be required for other products or articles subject to this part since other available documentation meets the requirement for this notice.

(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0049)
PART 353—EXPORT CERTIFICATION 11. The authority citation for part 353 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

§ 353.1 [Amended]
12. Section 353.1 is amended as follows: a. In the definition of export certificate for processed plant products, by adding the words “or an approved electronic equivalent” after the words “Form 578”. b. In the definition of phytosanitary certificate, by adding the words “or an approved electronic equivalent” after the words “Form 577”. c. In the definition of phytosanitary certificate for reexport, by adding the words “or an approved electronic equivalent” after the words “Form 579”.
§ 353.2 [Amended]
13. Section 353.2 is amended by removing the words “(PPQ Form 577)”, “(PPQ Form 579)”, and “(PPQ Form 578)”.
14. In § 353.5, paragraph (a) is revised as follows:
§ 353.5 Application for certification.

(a) To request the services of an inspector, a written application (PPQ Form 572) shall be made as far in advance as possible, and shall be filed in the office of inspection at the port of certification. Forms will be submitted using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

Title 9—Animals and Animal Products PART 93—IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND POULTRY, AND CERTAIN ANIMAL, BIRD, AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; REQUIREMENTS FOR MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS 15. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

§ 93.101 [Amended]
16. Section 93.101 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (d) introductory text, footnote 4 is amended by adding the words “or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/” after the numbers “20737-1231”. b. In paragraph (f)(2)(iii)(B) introductory text, by adding the words “, available electronically or through other authorized method” after the words “Form 17-8”.
§ 93.103 [Amended]
17. In § 93.103, paragraph (a)(1) introductory text, footnote 8 is amended by adding the words “or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/” after the numbers “20737-1231”.
18. In § 93.206, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
§ 93.206 Declaration and other documents for poultry.

(c) Any declaration, permit, or other document for poultry required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

§ 93.215 [Amended]
19. In § 93.215, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the word “paper” and adding the word “document” in its place, and by removing the words “attached to” and adding the words “included with” in their place.
20. In § 93.305, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
§ 93.305 Declaration and other documents for horses.

(c) Any declaration, permit, or other document for horses required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

21. In § 93.407, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
§ 93.407 Declaration and other documents for ruminants.

(c) Any declaration, permit, or other document for ruminants required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

§ 93.421 [Amended]
22. In § 93.421, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the word “paper” and adding the word “document” in its place, and by removing the words “attached to” and adding the words “included with” in their place.
23. In § 93.506, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:
§ 93.506 Declaration and other documents for swine.

(c) Any declaration, permit, or other document for swine required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

§ 93.519 [Amended]
24. In § 93.519, paragraph (a)(2) is amended by removing the word “paper” and adding the word “document” in its place, and by removing the words “attached to” and adding the words “included with” in their place.
25. In § 93.704, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
§ 93.704 Import permit.

(b) Import permit required. Any person who desires to import a hedgehog or tenrec must submit an application (VS Form 17-129) for an import permit. Applications are available from the Import-Export Animals Staff, National Center for Import-Export, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231 or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/. A separate application must be prepared for each shipment.

26. In § 93.802, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
§ 93.802 Import permit.

(b) An application for an import permit may be obtained from the Import-Export Animals Staff, National Center for Import-Export, Veterinary Services, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231 or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/.

§ 93.804 [Amended]
27. Section 93.804 introductory text is amended by adding the words “or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/” after the numbers “20737-1231” and by removing the words “It must state:” and adding the words “Forms may be provided to the inspector using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method. The completed form must state:” in their place.
28. In § 93.905, paragraph (b) is added to read as follows:
§ 93.905 Declaration and other documents for live fish, fertilized eggs, and gametes.

(b) Any declaration, permit, or other document for live fish, fertilized eggs, and gametes required under this subpart may be issued and presented using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, NEWCASTLE DISEASE, HIGHLY PATHOGENIC AVIAN INFLUENZA, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, SWINE VESICULAR DISEASE, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 29. The authority citation for part 94 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

§ 94.6 [Amended]
30. In § 94.6, paragraph (d) is amended by adding the words “or visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/” at the end of the sentence.
§ 94.15 [Amended]
31 In § 94.15, paragraphs (b)(1) and (c)(1) are amended by adding the words “or by visiting http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/” after the numbers “20737-1231”.
32. In § 94.24, paragraph (b)(2) is revised to read as follows:
§ 94.24 Restrictions on importation of meat and edible products from ovines and caprines due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.

(b) * * *

(2) The person importing the gelatin obtains a United States Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled Materials and Organisms and Vectors by filing a permit application on VS Form 16-3. Permit applications are available from APHIS, Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/permits/. Forms may be submitted using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method. The application for such a permit must state the intended use of the gelatin and name and address of the consignee in the United States.

§ 94.27 [Amended]
33. In § 94.27, the introductory text of paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words “Notification may be made using a U.S. Government electronic information exchange system or other authorized method.” after the words “before such transit.”
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of June 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14616 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 747 RIN 3133-AE59 Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION:

Interim final rule with request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The NCUA Board (Board) is amending its regulations to adjust the maximum amount of each civil monetary penalty (CMP) within its jurisdiction to account for inflation. This action, including the amount of the adjustments, is required under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 and the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

DATES:

This interim final rule is effective July 21, 2016. Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

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

NCUA Web site: https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/Pages/rules/proposed.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: Address to [email protected]. Include “[Your name] Comments on “Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment” in the email subject line.

Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

Public Inspection: All public comments are available on the agency's Web site at http://www.ncua.gov/RegulationsOpinionsLaws/comments as submitted, except as may not be possible for technical reasons. Public comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Paper copies of comments may be inspected in NCUA's law library at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, by appointment weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. To make an appointment, call (703) 518-6546 or send an email to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ian Marenna, Senior Trial Attorney, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, or telephone: (703) 518-6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Background II. Calculation of Adjustments III. Regulatory Procedures I. Legal Background A. Statutory Requirements and Overview of Changes Enacted in 2015

The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 1 (DCIA) amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 2 (FCPIA Act) to require every federal agency to enact regulations that adjust each CMP provided by law under its jurisdiction by the rate of inflation at least once every four years. The Board most recently adjusted CMPs within its jurisdiction in September 2015.3

1 Public Law 104-134, sec. 31001(s), 110 Stat. 1321-373 (Apr. 26, 1996). The law is codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

2 Public Law 101-410, 104 Stat. 890 (Oct. 5, 1990), also codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

3 80 FR 57284 (Sept. 23, 2015).

In November 2015, Congress further amended the CMP inflation requirements in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015,4 which contains the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 amendments).5 This legislation provides for an initial “catch-up” adjustment of CMPs in 2016, followed by annual adjustments. The catch-up adjustment will generally re-set CMP maximum amounts by setting aside the inflation adjustments that agencies made in prior years and instead calculating inflation with reference to the year when each CMP was enacted or last modified by Congress.

4 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (Nov. 2, 2015).

5 129 Stat. 599.

The 2015 amendments made several procedural changes including: (1) Starting in 2016, each agency must adjust its CMPs for inflation annually by the date set forth in the 2015 amendments; (2) the rounding ranges and procedure that applied before the 2015 amendments no longer apply, and agencies instead must round increases to the nearest dollar; (3) the ten percent cap on the first adjustment of any CMP has been eliminated; (4) the amount of the 2016 adjustment is limited to 150 percent of the amount of each CMP on the date that the 2015 amendments were enacted; and (5) October, rather than June, will be the relevant month for determining the percentage increase in inflation between relevant years.6

6 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (Nov. 2, 2015).

The legislation also modified the process by making the following additional changes: (1) In 2016, agencies will make the required adjustments through an interim final rule by July 1, 2016, to be effective by August 1, 2016; (2) in 2017 and subsequent years, agencies will make the required adjustments through direct final rules published and effective by January 15 of each year; (3) the adjusted maximum amounts will apply to CMPs issued after the adjustment takes effect, including cases in which the associated violation predates the adjustment; (4) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will publish annual guidance for agencies; (5) agencies must publish information regarding CMPs in their annual financial reports; and (6) the Government Accountability Office will report to Congress annually on agencies' compliance with the statute.7

7 Id.

The basic framework for the inflation calculation process remains the same in that agencies must calculate the increase in inflation according to a cost-of-living index and apply this percentage to each CMP to establish a new maximum amount. The resulting adjustment permits but does not require assessment at the new maximum level. Agencies must publish the adjusted maximum amounts in the Federal Register, as they did prior to the 2015 amendments.

However, the 2015 amendments do make a significant change to the calculations for the first year by requiring an initial catch-up adjustment to re-set penalty levels.8 In 2016, agencies must measure inflation by comparing the cost-of-living index for the year in which each CMP was established or last adjusted under a provision other than the FCPIA Act with the index for 2015.9 That is, agencies must disregard the inflation adjustments that they have made under the FCPIA Act since 1996, determine when Congress initially established or last modified each CMP, and adjust for inflation between that year and 2015. This calculation is based on the amount of the CMP as Congress set it, not the adjustments that agencies have made since 1996 under the FCPIA Act. The amount of the catch-up adjustment is separately limited to 150 percent of the CMP maximum in effect as of November 2, 2015, when the 2015 amendments became effective.10

8 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(2)(B), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

9 Id.

10 Id.

The next section provides more detail on the revised inflation procedures.

B. Statutory Procedures for Calculating Adjustments and OMB Guidance

This section provides a detailed explanation of the inflation adjustment procedures under the 2015 amendments, including the 150 percent cap on the 2016 adjustment, the discretionary exception that agencies may invoke to limit the required increases based on negative economic impact or social costs, and an exception that agencies may apply when a CMP has been increased by a greater amount than the current calculation within the preceding 12 months. The 150 percent cap applies to one CMP within NCUA's jurisdiction, namely the CMP for violating NCUA security requirements.11 The Board does not seek to invoke the discretionary exception based on negative economic impact or social costs or the exception for greater increases in the preceding 12 months.

11 12 U.S.C. 1785(e)(3).

In the FCPIA Act, the term “this Act” is used throughout to refer to the entire FCPIA Act as amended, not merely the 2015 amendments or prior amendments. In 2016, agencies must determine the percentage increase in inflation by comparing the October 2015 CPI-U with the CPI-U for October in the year “during which the amount of such civil monetary penalty was established or adjusted pursuant to a provision of law other than this Act.” 12 Also, the 2015 amendments provide that the percentage increase in inflation must be applied to the CMP “as it was most recently established or adjusted under a provision of law other than this Act.” 13 The increase must be rounded to the nearest dollar.14 The new maximum CMP is calculated by dividing the October 2015 CPI-U by the CPI-U for October of the year when Congress established or last modified the CMP. The resulting multiplier is applied to the original or modified maximum amount set by Congress to find the new maximum amount.

12 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(2)(A), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The CPI-U is published by the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is available at its Web site: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/.

13 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(2)(B), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

14 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(2)(A), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

In making the calculations, the Board refers to the year in which the statute establishing the CMP was enacted, even if the statute provided that the CMP would not go into effect until a later year. In 2015, the Board referred to the year in which the statutes establishing the CMPs became effective.15 The Board has determined that disregarding delayed effective dates is more consistent with the FCPIA Act's language, as well as OMB's guidance.16

15 The CMPs for senior examiner conflicts of interest, appraisal independence standards, and display of the NCUA insurance logo were enacted with delayed effective dates.

16 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, at 3, 6 (2016).

After completing this calculation for each CMP, agencies must also consider the 150 percent cap, the exception based on a greater increase within the preceding 12 months of the required adjustment, and the exception based on negative economic impact or social costs. These considerations are described in detail below.

First, “the amount of the increase in a civil monetary penalty . . . shall not exceed 150 percent of the amount of that civil monetary penalty on the date of enactment” of the 2015 amendments.17 This mandatory cap applies only to the 2016 initial catch-up adjustment. The 150 percent cap applies to the amount of the increase in the CMP. Accordingly, the final maximum amount for each CMP is capped at 250 percent of its current level.18 Based on the Board's calculations, this cap applies only to NCUA's security requirements CMP.19

17 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(2)(B), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

18 For consistency, the Board refers to this limitation as the 150 percent cap throughout this rule.

19 12 U.S.C. 1785(e)(3).

Second, if a CMP “is, during the 12 months preceding a required cost-of-living adjustment, increased by an amount greater than the amount of the adjustment required . . ., the head of the agency is not required” to make the adjustment.20 The Board has compared the projected increases with the increases that it made in 2015.21 The only CMP that was increased by a greater amount in 2015 than it would be under the current adjustments is the appraisal independence standards CMP.22 The Board will not invoke the exception in this case because: (1) The difference between the existing maximum and the new maximum under the current adjustments is immaterial; and (2) setting the new maximum without invoking this exception will place NCUA's CMP at the same level as the federal banking regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will be adjusting this CMP for the first time this year.

20 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1)(D), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

21 The Board notes that this exception is not limited to the initial catch-up adjustment and could apply in the future.

22 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k).

Third, only for the 2016 adjustment, an agency may seek to limit the amount of an adjustment if it determines that the otherwise-required adjustment would have a “negative economic impact” or that “the social costs” of the increase “outweigh the benefits.” 23 To invoke this discretionary exception in 2016, an agency must first publish a notice of proposed rulemaking with an opportunity to comment on the proposed invocation of the exception, and the Director of OMB must concur with the agency's determination.24 OMB's guidance states that agencies should consult with OMB before proposing to invoke this limitation and must submit the proposal to OMB by May 2, 2016.25 The memorandum also states that OMB expects “determination concurrences” to be rare.26

23 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1)(D), 129 Stat. 599-600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

24 Id.

25 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, at 3 (2016).

26 Id.

The statute does not define “negative economic impact” or “social costs.” Given these statutory criteria and historical trends in NCUA's CMP assessments, the Board will not seek to invoke this exception for any of its CMP authorities.

In addition to the statute, the Board has reviewed OMB's guidance. On February 24, 2016, as required by the 2015 amendments, OMB published guidance for agencies to implement the new procedures, including the 2016 catch-up adjustment.27 OMB's guidance covers the following issues: (1) Identifying CMPs to which the law applies; (2) completing the 2016 catch-up adjustment; (3) making future inflation adjustments; and (4) performing agency oversight of inflation adjustments. The Board has reviewed the guidance and finds that the Board's calculations of the increases and the 150 percent cap are wholly consistent with the guidance. Further, the Board finds that it has appropriately identified CMPs subject to adjustment under the FCPIA Act. All of the adjusted CMPs are set by federal law at specific maximums, are assessed by NCUA under the Federal Credit Union Act or other federal statutes, and are assessed or enforced through agency proceedings or civil actions in the federal courts.28 The Board will also review OMB's guidance in connection with future adjustments and its annual financial reporting requirement.

27 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2016).

28 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, § 3(2).

In sum, under the statute, the Board must determine: (1) When Congress established or most recently modified each CMP; (2) the amount of each CMP as set by Congress at that time; (3) the increase in each CMP based on the CPI-U; (4) whether the increase must be limited by the 150 percent cap; (5) whether the Board will invoke the exception based on a greater increase in a CMP maximum amount in the preceding 12 months; and (6) whether the Board will seek to invoke the exception to limit the increases based on negative economic impact or social costs.

Accordingly, the Board has reviewed the CMPs within its jurisdiction to determine when Congress established or last modified each CMP and to determine the amount set by Congress. Next, the Board applied the appropriate inflationary multiplier to the maximum amount of each CMP as it was established or last modified by Congress in order to determine the new maximum. Finally, the Board considered the 150 percent cap, the exception based on greater increases in the preceding 12 months, and the exception based on negative economic impact or social costs. The next section presents the calculations and applies the 150 percent cap and the two exceptions in detail to arrive at the new maximum CMP amounts to be published in the Federal Register.

II. Calculation of Adjustments A. Penalty Adjustment Calculations

Consistent with the NCUA's September 2015 CMP adjustments, the Board provides the inflation calculations in table format immediately below. The separate table included in the regulatory text section to be published at 12 CFR 747.1001 shows only the adjusted CMPs, not the calculations leading to the adjusted levels. The table below calculates the projected increase by carrying out the steps described above. The multiplier, which is the quotient of the October 2015 CPI-U divided by the CPI-U for October of the year noted in parentheses, is applied to the maximum amount as originally established or last modified by Congress to calculate the new maximum. The final maximum amount is the lesser of the calculated maximum and the 150 percent cap.

Table—Calculation of Maximum CMP Adjustments Citation Description/tier 29 Original
  • maximum
  • ($)
  • Multiplier Projected new maximum 150 Percent cap
  • ($) 30
  • Adjusted
  • maximum ($)
  • (lesser of
  • projected new maximum and 150 percent cap)
  • 12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Inadvertent failure to submit a report or the inadvertent submission of a false or misleading report 2,000 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 3,787 8,000 3,787.
    12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Non-inadvertent failure to submit a report or the non-inadvertent submission of a false or misleading report 20,000 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 37,872 80,000 37,872.
    12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Failure to submit a report or the submission of a false or misleading report done knowingly or with reckless disregard Lesser of 1,000,000 or 1% of total CU assets 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 1,893,610 3,562,500. Lesser of 1,893,610 or 1% of total CU assets.
    12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(A) Tier 1 CMP for inadvertent failure to submit certified statement of insured shares and charges due to NCUSIF, or inadvertent submission of false or misleading statement 2,000 1.73099
  • (1991)
  • 3,462 8,000 3,462.
    12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(B) Tier 2 CMP for non-inadvertent failure to submit certified statement or submission of false or misleading statement 20,000 1.73099
  • (1991)
  • 34,620 80,000 34,620.
    12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(C) Tier 3 CMP for failure to submit a certified statement or the submission of a false or misleading statement done knowingly or with reckless disregard Lesser of 1,000,000 or 1% of total CU assets 1.73099
  • (1991)
  • 1,730,990 3,562,500 Lesser of 1,730,990 or 1% of total CU assets.
    12 U.S.C. 1785(a)(3) Non-compliance with insurance logo requirements 100 1.17858
  • (2006)
  • 118 275 118.
    12 U.S.C. 1785(e)(3) Non-compliance with NCUA security requirements 100 6.03650
  • (1970)
  • 554 275 275.
    12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(A) Tier 1 CMP for violations of law, regulation, and other orders or agreements 5,000 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 9,468 21,250 9,468.
    12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(B) Tier 2 CMP for violations of law, regulation, and other orders or agreements and for recklessly engaging in unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty 25,000 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 47,340 106,250 47,340.
    12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(C) Tier 3 CMP for knowingly committing the violations under Tier 1 or 2 (natural person) 1,000,000 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 1,893,610 3,812,500 1,893,610.
    12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(C) Tier 3 (same) (CU) Lesser of 1,000,000 or 1% of total CU assets 1.89631
  • (1989)
  • 1,893,610 3,812,500 Lesser of 1,893,610 or 1% of total CU assets.
    12 U.S.C. 1786(w)(5)(A)(ii) Non-compliance with senior examiner post-employment restrictions 250,000 1.24588
  • (2004)
  • 311,470 687,500 311,470.
    15 U.S.C. 1639e(k) Non-compliance with appraisal independence standards (first violation) 10,000 1.08745
  • (2010)
  • 10,875 27,500 10,875.
    15 U.S.C. 1639e(k) Subsequent violations of the same 20,000 1.08745
  • (2010)
  • 21,749 50,000 21,749.
    42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(5) Non-compliance with flood insurance requirements 2,000 1.02819
  • (2012)
  • 2,056 5,000 2,056.
    29 The table uses condensed descriptions of CMP tiers. Refer to the U.S. Code citations for complete descriptions. 30 This column displays 250 percent of the current maximums found at 12 CFR 747.1001.
    B. Application of the 150 Percent Cap and Two Exceptions

    This section describes in detail the Board's consideration of the 150 percent cap, the exception based on greater increases in the preceding 12 months, and the exception based on negative economic impact or social costs.

    First, as shown in the table above, the Board has applied the 150 percent cap on the amount of the increase of the initial adjustments and has determined that it must limit the increase in the security requirements CMP.31 The other CMPs are not affected.

    31 12 U.S.C. 1785(e)(3).

    Second, the Board has compared the increases calculated above with the increases that it made in September 2015 32 to determine whether any of those increases are greater than the increases calculated for 2016. In September 2015, the Board adjusted this CMP to $11,000.33 This occurred because under the pre-2015 amendments procedures, the Board rounded the amount of the increase to the nearest multiple of $1,000. Under the amended FCPIA Act, the Board could leave this adjustment in place because “during the 12 months preceding [the] required cost-of-living adjustment,” the Board increased the CMP “by an amount greater than the amount of the adjustment required” by the new calculation.34 Under these circumstances, the Board is “not required” to make the otherwise-required adjustment.35 The Board has determined that it will not invoke this exception, which is not mandatory. First, the difference between the maximum set in 2015 and the maximum calculated above is immaterial. Second, the Board expects the federal banking regulators and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which also have jurisdiction to enforce this CMP, to make their first adjustment of this CMP this year. By declining to invoke this exception, the Board will set the maximum at the same level as those agencies, which means that parties subject to this CMP will not face differing maximums based on which agency has jurisdiction. This exception does not apply to the other CMPs because the adjustments required in 2016 exceed those made in 2015.

    32 These increases are set forth at 80 FR 57285-286 (Sept. 23, 2015).

    33 80 FR 57285 (Sept. 23, 2015).

    34 Public Law 114-74, sec. 701(b)(1)(D), 129 Stat. 600, codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    35 Id.

    Finally, the Board does not seek to invoke the discretionary limitation tied to “negative economic impact” or “social costs” posed by the otherwise-required increases. The statute and the OMB guidance do not define these terms. In applying these criteria, the Board has considered the overall amount of its CMP assessments and their likely impact on credit unions and individuals. NCUA historically has not assessed CMPs frequently. They have averaged 10.6 a year, or less than one a month, over the past quarter century. Furthermore, when NCUA has assessed CMPs it has not usually assessed them at or near the maximum levels allowed by law, which would be most likely to invoke economic impact or social cost concerns. The Board reviewed the 281 CMP orders that it has issued since 1990 and found that they total approximately $665,000, with an average (mean) value of approximately $2,400. The table at the end of this section summarizes this information. Based on historical trends, third tier CMPs appear likely to remain rare. Moreover, NCUA considers the size of the credit union in determining the amount of a CMP assessment. These factors indicate that the increased maximums will not cause a negative economic impact or social costs. Also, for most of its CMPs, the Board is required by statute to consider potential mitigating factors in determining a CMP assessment amount.36 These considerations include the party's financial resources.37 Interagency policy on CMP assessments includes this consideration.38 This requirement applies to all of the CMPs that have maximum levels above $1,000,000. Thus, by their own terms, these CMPs account for the financial impact on the penalized party, which guards against negative economic impact or social costs. In addition, the Board is not required to assess at the new maximum amounts. Accordingly, the Board finds that the economic and social considerations under the statute do not warrant seeking to invoke this exception.

    36 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(G).

    37 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(G)(i).

    38 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Assessment of Civil Money Penalties, 63 FR 30226 (June 3, 1998).

    Table—NCUA CMP Assessments (1990-2016) Number of CMPs 281 Aggregate Amount of CMP Assessments $665,208 Average (Mean) Amount of Assessments $2,367 C. Effective Date for Adjusted Maximum Amounts

    Finally, the 2015 amendments changed the effective date provision for adjusted CMPs. Before the 2015 amendments, the statute provided: “Any increase under this Act in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to violations which occur after the date the increase takes effect.” 39 Under that standard, the new maximums could only be assessed for violations that occurred after the date the adjustment took effect. The 2015 amendments changed this provision to read: “Any increase under this Act in a civil monetary penalty shall apply only to civil monetary penalties, including those whose associated violation predated such increase, which are assessed after the date the increase takes effect.” 40 The OMB guidance notes this change.41 The adjusted maximums now apply to CMPs assessed after the effective date of the adjustment, even if the associated violation occurred before the adjustment took effect. The Board is amending 12 CFR 747.1001(b) to reflect this change.

    39 Public Law 104-134, § 31001(s)(1), 110 Stat. 1321-373 (Apr. 26, 1996).

    40 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 600 (Nov. 2, 2015), codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    41 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, at 4 (2016).

    III. Regulatory Procedures A. Interim Final Rule Under the Administrative Procedure Act

    In the 2015 amendments to the FCPIA Act, Congress directed agencies to issue an interim final rule for the 2016 inflation adjustments.42 OMB's guidance reiterated this requirement and stated that agencies therefore do not need to solicit comments prior to promulgating the rule.43 The legislative directive provides an exception to the APA's ordinary notice-and-comment requirement.44 In addition, the Board finds that notice-and-comment procedures would be impracticable and unnecessary under the APA because of: (1) the legislative directive to issue an interim final rule; (2) the largely ministerial and technical nature of the rule, which affords agencies limited discretion in promulgating the rule; and (3) the statutory deadlines for publishing and making the interim final rule effective.45 In these circumstances, the Board finds good cause to issue an interim final rule without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. Accordingly, this interim final rule is issued without prior notice. However, the Board invites comments on all aspects of the interim final rule. The interim final rule will become effective 30 days from publication in the Federal Register.46 The Board will review and consider all comments before issuing a final rule.

    42 Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 600 (Nov. 2, 2015), codified at 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

    43 Office of Mgmt. & Budget, Exec. Office of the President, OMB Memorandum No. M-16-06, Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, at 3 (2016).

    44 See 5 U.S.C. 559; Asiana Airlines v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 134 F.3d 393, 396-99 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

    45 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B); see Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 822 F.2d 1123, 1133-34 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

    46 See 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires the Board to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact a regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities.47 For purposes of this analysis, the Board considers small credit unions to be those having under $100 million in assets.48 This interim final rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions because it only affects the maximum amounts of CMPs that may be assessed in individual cases, which are not numerous and generally do not involve assessments at the maximum level. In addition, several of the CMPs are limited to a percentage of a credit union's assets. Finally, in assessing CMPs, the Board generally must consider a party's financial resources.49 Because this interim final rule would affect few, if any, small entities, the Board certifies that the interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on small entities.

    47 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    48 Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement 15-1, 80 FR 57512 (Sept. 24, 2015).

    49 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(G)(i).

    C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency creates a new paperwork burden on regulated entities or modifies an existing burden.50 For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of either a reporting or a recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. This interim final rule adjusts the maximum amounts of certain CMPs that the Board may assess against individuals, entities, or credit unions but does not require any reporting or recordkeeping. Therefore, this interim final rule will not create new paperwork burdens or modify any existing paperwork burdens.

    50 44 U.S.C. 3507(d); 5 CFR part 1320.

    D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This interim final rule adjusts the maximum amounts of certain CMPs that the Board may assess against individuals, entities, and federally insured credit unions, including state-chartered credit unions. However, the interim final rule does not create any new authority or alter the underlying statutory authorities that enable the Board to assess CMPs. Accordingly, this interim final rule will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The Board has determined that this interim final rule does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

    E. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The Board has determined that this interim final rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.51

    51 Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (Oct. 21, 1998).

    F. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 52 (SBREFA) provides generally for congressional review of agency rules. A reporting requirement is triggered in instances where the Board issues a final rule as defined by Section 551 of the Administrative Procedure Act.53 The Board has submitted this interim final rule to OMB for it to determine whether it is a “major rule” within the meaning of the relevant sections of SBREFA.

    52 Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (Mar. 29, 1996).

    53 5 U.S.C. 551.

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 747

    Credit unions, Civil monetary penalties.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 16, 2016. Gerard S. Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

    For the reasons stated above, the NCUA Board amends 12 CFR part 747 as follows:

    PART 747—ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS, ADJUDICATIVE HEARINGS, RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, AND INVESTIGATIONS 1. The authority citation for Part 747 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785, 1786, 1787, 1790a, 1790d; 15 U.S.C. 1639e; 42 U.S.C. 4012a; Pub. L. 101-410; Pub. L. 104-134; Pub. L. 109-351; Pub. L. 114-74.

    Subpart K—Inflation Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties 2. Revise § 747.1001 to read as follows:
    § 747.1001 Adjustment of civil monetary penalties by the rate of inflation.

    (a) NCUA is required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended (28 U.S.C. 2461 note)) to adjust the maximum amount of each civil monetary penalty within its jurisdiction by the rate of inflation. The following chart displays those adjusted amounts, as calculated pursuant to the statute:

    U.S. Code citation CMP Description New maximum amount (1) 12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Inadvertent failure to submit a report or the inadvertent submission of a false or misleading report $3,787. (2) 12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Non-inadvertent failure to submit a report or the non-inadvertent submission of a false or misleading report 37,872. (3) 12 U.S.C. 1782(a)(3) Failure to submit a report or the submission of a false or misleading report done knowingly or with reckless disregard 1,893,610 or 1 percent of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is less. (4) 12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(A) Tier 1 CMP for inadvertent failure to submit certified statement of insured shares and charges due to NCUSIF, or inadvertent submission of false or misleading statement 3,462. (5) 12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(B) Tier 2 CMP for non-inadvertent failure to submit certified statement or submission of false or misleading statement 34,620. (6) 12 U.S.C. 1782(d)(2)(C) Tier 3 CMP for failure to submit a certified statement or the submission of a false or misleading statement done knowingly or with reckless disregard 1,730,990 or 1 percent of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is less. (7) 12 U.S.C. 1785(a)(3) Non-compliance with insurance logo requirements 118. (8) 12 U.S.C. 1785(e) (3) Non-compliance with NCUA security requirements 275. (9) 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(A) Tier 1 CMP for violations of law, regulation, and other orders or agreements 9,468. (10) 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(A) Tier 2 CMP for violations of law, regulation, and other orders or agreements and for recklessly engaging in unsafe or unsound practices or breaches of fiduciary duty 47,340. (11) 12 U.S.C. 1786(k)(2)(A) Tier 3 CMP for knowingly committing the violations under Tier 1 or 2 (natural person) For a person other than an insured credit union: $1,893,610;
  • For an insured credit union: $1,893,610 or 1 percent of the total assets of the credit union, whichever is less.
  • (12) 12 U.S.C. 1786(w)(5)(ii) Non-compliance with senior examiner post-employment restrictions 311,470. (13) 15 U.S.C. 1639e(k) Non-compliance with appraisal independence requirements First violation: $10,875
  • Subsequent violations: $21,749.
  • (14) 42 U.S.C. 4012a(f)(5) Non-compliance with flood insurance requirements 2,056.

    (b) The adjusted amounts displayed in paragraph (a) of this section apply to civil monetary penalties that are assessed after the date the increase takes effect, including those whose associated violation or violations predate the increase.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14719 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2010-0219; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-14-AD; Amendment 39-18556; AD 2016-12-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2010-11-10 for all Turbomeca S.A. Astazou XIV B and XIV H turboshaft engines. AD 2010-11-10 requires inspection of certain third stage turbine wheels and removal of any damaged wheel. This AD requires expanding the population and frequency of repetitive inspections. This AD was prompted by a report of a third stage turbine wheel crack detected during engine overhaul. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the third stage turbine wheel, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the helicopter.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 26, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of July 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2010-0219.

    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-2010-0219; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772, fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2010-11-10, Amendment 39-16315 (75 FR 30270, June 1, 2010), (“AD 2010-11-10”). AD 2010-11-10 applied to the specified products. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 11, 2016 (81 FR 12843) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM proposed to continue to require inspection of certain third stage turbine wheels and removal of any damaged wheel. The NPRM also proposed to expand the population and frequency of repetitive inspections.

    Comments

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

    Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 283 72 0804, Version D, dated July 24, 2015. The MSB describes procedures for inspecting the third stage turbine wheels.

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Service Bulletin (SB) No. 283 72 0805, Version B, dated December 15, 2010. That SB describes optional terminating action for the inspections.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects seven engines installed on helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $2,975.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (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) 2010-11-10, Amendment 39-16315 (75 FR 30270, June 1, 2010), (“AD 2010-11-10”), and adding the following new AD: 2016-12-07 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18556; Docket No. FAA-2010-0219; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-14-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 26, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2010-11-10.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A., Astazou XIV B and XIV H turboshaft engines with the following part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N) third stage turbine wheels that incorporate modification AB 173 (Turbomeca S.A. Service Bulletin (SB) No. 283 72 0091) or modification AB 208 (Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 283 72 0117). This AD does not apply to third stage turbine wheels that incorporate Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 283 72 805.

    (1) Third stage turbine wheels, P/N 0 265 25 700 0, all S/Ns;

    (2) Third stage turbine wheels, P/N 0 265 25 702 0, all S/Ns;

    (3) Third stage turbine wheels, P/N 0 265 25 706 0, all S/Ns;

    (4) Third stage turbine wheels, P/N 0 265 25 705 0, with an S/N listed in Appendix 2.1 of Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 283 72 0804, Version D, dated July 24, 2015.

    (d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of a third stage turbine wheel crack detected during engine overhaul. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the third stage turbine wheel, which could result in damage to the engine and damage to the helicopter.

    (e) Compliance

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

    (1) Perform a dye penetrant inspection of the third stage turbine wheel. Use paragraph 2.4.2.2 of Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 283 72 0804, Version D, dated July 24, 2015, to do the inspection, as follows:

    (i) Inspect third stage turbine wheels with 300 engine cycles (EC) or more accumulated since last inspection, or since new, or since last overhaul, or since repair, within 100 EC after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Inspect third stage turbine wheels with less than 300 EC accumulated since last inspection, or since new, or since last overhaul, or since repair, within 400 EC since last inspection, or since new, or since last overhaul, or since repair.

    (2) Repeat the inspection required by this AD within 400 EC since last inspection.

    (3) Remove from service any third stage turbine wheels that fail the inspection required by this AD.

    (f) Optional Terminating Action

    Application of Turbomeca S.A. SB No. 283 72 0805, Version B, dated December 15, 2010 is terminating action for the inspections required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this AD.

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to: [email protected]

    (h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7772; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2015-0211, dated October 15, 2015, for related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2010-0219.

    (i) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 283 72 0804, Version D, dated July 24, 2015.

    (ii) Turbomeca S.A. Service Bulletin No. 283 72 0805, Version B, dated December 15, 2010.

    (3) For Turbomeca S.A. service information identified in this AD, contact Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: (33) 05 59 74 40 00; fax: (33) 05 59 74 45 15.

    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 7, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14406 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7263; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-072-AD; Amendment 39-18564; AD 2016-12-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-07-30 for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes, and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. For certain airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 required replacing certain Angle of Attack (AOA) sensors (probes) with certain new AOA sensors. For certain other airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 also required inspections and functional heat testing of certain AOA sensors for discrepancies, and replacement if necessary. This new AD requires the same actions as AD 2016-07-30. This new AD was prompted by a report of a typographical error in the regulatory text of AD 2016-07-30. We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective July 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of May 18, 2016 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016).

    We must receive comments on this AD by August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7263.

    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-2016-7263; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    On March 26, 2016, we issued AD 2016-07-30, Amendment 39-18475 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-30”), for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Airbus Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. AD 2016-07-30 was prompted by a report of blockage of AOA probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Prot while the Mach number increased. This activation could cause a continuous nose-down pitch rate that cannot be stopped with backward sidestick input, even in the full backward position. For certain airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 required replacing certain AOA sensors (probes) with certain new AOA sensors. For certain other airplanes, AD 2016-07-30 also required inspections and functional heat testing of certain AOA sensors for discrepancies, and replacement if necessary. We issued AD 2016-07-30 to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Prot activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and loss of control of the airplane.

    Since we issued AD 2016-07-30, we received a report of a typographical error in the regulatory text of AD 2016-07-30. Paragraph (l) of AD 2016-07-30 inadvertently referred to paragraph (g) and should have referred to paragraph (j), “Repetitive Inspections/Tests of Certain Thales AOA Sensors.” The intent of paragraph (l) of AD 2016-07-30 was to give credit for doing the actions required by paragraph (j) of AD 2016-07-30 using earlier revisions of the service information specified in paragraph (j) of AD 2016-07-30. We have changed paragraph (l) of this AD to refer to paragraph (j) of this AD.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0134, dated July 8, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and all Model A340-200, -300, -500, and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported where an Airbus A321 aeroplane encountered a blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. The flight crew managed to regain full control and the flight landed uneventfully. It was determined that the affected AOA probes are also fitted on A330 and A340 aeroplanes.

    When Alpha Prot is activated due to blocked AOA probes, the flight control laws order a continuous nose down pitch rate that, in a worst case scenario, cannot be stopped with backward sidestick inputs, even in the full backward position. If the Mach number increases during a nose down order, the AOA value of the Alpha Prot will continue to decrease. As a result, the flight control laws will continue to order a nose down pitch rate, even if the speed is above minimum selectable speed, known as VLS.

    This condition, if not corrected, could result in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    Investigation results indicated that aeroplanes equipped with certain UTC Aerospace (UTAS, formerly known as Goodrich) AOA sensors, or equipped with certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors, appear to have a greater susceptibility to adverse environmental conditions than aeroplanes equipped with the latest Thales AOA sensor, Part Number (P/N) C16291AB, which was designed to improve AOA indication behaviour in heavy rain conditions.

    Having determined that replacement of these AOA sensors is necessary to achieve and maintain the required safety level of the aeroplane, EASA issued [an AD * * *], to require modification of the aeroplanes by replacement of the affected P/N sensors, and, after modification, prohibits (re-) installation of those P/N AOA sensors. That [EASA] AD also required repetitive detailed visual inspections (DET) and functional heating tests of certain Thales AOA sensors and provided an optional terminating action for those inspections.

    Since EASA AD 2015-0089 was issued, based on further analysis results, Airbus issued Operators Information Transmission (OIT) Ref. 999.0017/15 Revision 1, instructing operators to speed up the removal from service of UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA [AD * * *], which is superseded, but reduces the compliance times for aeroplanes with UTAS P/N 0861ED2 AOA sensors installed.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7263. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 03, dated July 23, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 03, dated July 27, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 02, dated July 24, 2015.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009.

    • Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for replacing certain pitot probes with certain new pitot probes. The service information also describes procedures for inspections and functional heat testing of certain pitot probes, and replacement if necessary. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This 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 issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    We are superseding AD 2016-07-30 to correct a typographical error in the regulatory text. No other changes have been made to AD 2016-07-30. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment are unnecessary.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7263; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-072-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

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

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S.
  • operators
  • Replacement 5 work-hours × $85 per hour = $425 $0 $425 $23,375 Inspection/test 3 work-hours × $85 per hour = $255 0 $255 per inspection/test cycle 14,025

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive AD 2016-07-30, Amendment 39-18475 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016), and adding the following new AD: 2016-12-15 Airbus: Amendment 39-18564. Docket No. FAA-2016-7263; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-072-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-07-30, Amendment 39-18475 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016) (“AD 2016-07-30”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, -313, -541, and -642 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of blockage of two Angle of Attack (AOA) probes during climb, leading to activation of the Alpha Protection (Alpha Prot) while the Mach number increased. This activation could cause a continuous nose-down pitch rate that cannot be stopped with backward sidestick input, even in the full backward position. We are issuing this AD to prevent erroneous AOA information and Alpha Prot activation due to blocked AOA probes, which could result in a continuous nose-down command and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Replacement of Certain UTC Aerospace (UTAS) AOA Sensors With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. For airplanes on which any UTAS AOA sensor having part number (P/N) 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 is installed: At the applicable time specified in paragraph (h) of this AD, replace all Captain and First Officer AOA sensors (probes) having P/N 0861ED or 0861ED2 with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A330 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (h) Retained Compliance Times for the Requirements of Paragraph (g) of This AD With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. Do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD at the applicable time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For airplanes with AOA sensors having P/N 0861ED: Within 22 months after May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30).

    (2) For airplanes with AOA sensors having P/N 0861ED2: Within 7 months after May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30).

    (i) Retained Replacement of Certain SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA Sensors With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. For airplanes on which any SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320 is installed: Within 22 months after May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30), replace all SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensors (probes) having P/N 45150320 with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A330 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (j) Retained Repetitive Inspections/Tests of Certain Thales AOA Sensors With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. For airplanes on which one or more Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA is installed: Before the accumulation of 17,000 total flight hours on the AOA sensor since first installation on an airplane, or within 6 months after May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30), whichever occurs later; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,800 flight hours; do a detailed inspection of the three AOA sensors at FINs 3FP1, 3FP2, and 3FP3 for discrepancies (e.g., the vane of the sensor does not deice properly), and a functional heating test of each AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 03, dated July 23, 2015 (for Model A330 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 03, dated July 27, 2015 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 02, dated July 24, 2015 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (k) Retained Corrective Actions With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. If any discrepancy is found during any inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, or if any test is failed during the heating test required by paragraph (j) of this AD: Before further flight, replace all affected AOA sensors with sensors identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.

    (1) Replace with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AA, on which the inspection and test required by paragraph (j) of this AD were passed.

    (2) Replace with AOA sensors having Thales P/N C16291AB.

    (l) Retained Credit for Previous Actions With a Change to a Paragraph Reference

    This paragraph restates the credit provided in paragraph (l) of AD 2016-07-30, with a change to a paragraph reference. This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30), using the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (l)(1), (l)(2), and (l)(3) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010. (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 02, dated March 29, 2010.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 01, dated March 29, 2010.

    (m) Retained Airplanes Excluded From Certain Requirements With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the exception specified in paragraph (m) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes.

    (1) The actions specified in paragraphs (g), (i), (j), and (k) of this AD are not required, provided that the conditions specified in paragraphs (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), and (m)(1)(iii) of this AD are met.

    (i) Airbus Modification 58555 (installation of Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensors) has been embodied in production.

    (ii) Airbus Modification 46921 (installation of UTAS AOA sensors) has not been embodied in production.

    (iii) No AOA sensor having SEXTANT/THOMSON P/N 45150320 or UTAS P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 has been installed on the airplane since date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

    (2) The actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD are not required, provided that all conditions specified in paragraphs (m)(2)(i), (m)(2)(ii), and (m)(2)(iii) of this AD are met.

    (i) Only AOA sensors with part numbers approved after the effective date of this AD have been installed.

    (ii) The AOA sensor part number is approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (iii) The installation is accomplished in accordance with airplane modification instructions approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (n) Retained Optional Terminating Modification With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the optional action specified in paragraph (n) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes. Replacement of all Thales AOA sensors having P/N C16291AA with Thales AOA sensors having P/N C16291AB, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraph (n)(1), (n)(2), or (n)(3) of this AD, terminates the repetitive inspections and functional heating tests required by paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A330 airplanes).

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009 (for Model A340-200 and -300 airplanes).

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009 (for Model A340-500 and -600 airplanes).

    (o) Retained Parts Installation Prohibitions With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2016-07-30, with no changes.

    (1) For airplanes on which only Thales P/N C16291AB AOA sensors are installed as of May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30): No person may install, on any airplane, a Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA as of May 18, 2016.

    (2) For airplanes on which the modification specified in paragraph (n) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a Thales AOA sensor having P/N C16291AA after accomplishing the specified modification.

    (3) For airplanes on which Thales P/N C16291AA or P/N C16291AB AOA sensors are installed as of May 18, 2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-07-30): No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, as of May 18, 2016.

    (4) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, after accomplishing the replacement.

    (5) For airplanes on which the replacement required by paragraph (g) of this AD has been done: No person may install, on any airplane, a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2, or a SEXTANT/THOMSON AOA sensor having P/N 45150320, after accomplishing the replacement, except that a UTAS AOA sensor having P/N 0861ED may be installed in the standby position of that airplane.

    (p) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (q) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0134, dated July 8, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7263.

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

    (r) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on May 18, 2016 (81 FR 21722, April 13, 2016).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3215, Revision 03, dated July 23, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3228, dated October 7, 2009.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3315, dated March 26, 2015.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4215, Revision 03, dated July 27, 2015.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4234, dated October 7, 2009.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4294, dated March 26, 2015.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5062, Revision 02, dated July 24, 2015.

    (viii) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5070, dated October 9, 2009.

    (ix) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-5105, dated March 26, 2015.

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

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14317 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-0071; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-1] Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace Orlando, FL; and Amendment of Class E Airspace; Gainesville, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Class E Airspace at Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL; and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL, by eliminating the Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) part time status of the Class E airspace designated as an extension at each airport. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of Orlando Executive Airport in existing Class D and E airspace.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, September 15, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 amends Class D and Class E airspace at the Florida airports listed in this final rule.

    History

    In a review of the airspace, the FAA found the airspace description for Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL, and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL, as published in FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, does not match the FAA's charting information. This is an administrative change to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

    Class D and Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6004, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends 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 Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by eliminating the NOTAM information that reads “This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and time established in advance by Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory” from the regulatory text of the Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D, at Gainesville Regional Airport, Gainesville, FL; and Orlando Executive Airport, Orlando, FL.

    This is an administrative change amending the description for the above Florida airports, to be in concert with the FAA's aeronautical database, and does not affect the boundaries, or operating requirements of the airspace, therefore, notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary. The geographic coordinates of Orlando Executive Airport are adjusted under Class D and Class E airspace, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    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. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 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, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO FL D Orlando, FL [Amended] Orlando Executive Airport, FL (Lat. 28°32′44″ N., long. 81°19′59″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to but not including 1,600 feet MSL, within a 4.2-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport, excluding that portion within the Orlando, FL, Class B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO FL E2 Orlando, FL [Amended] Orlando Executive Airport, FL (Lat. 28°32′44″ N., long. 81°19′59″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport excluding that portion within the Orlando, FL Class B airspace area.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO FL E4 Gainesville, FL [Amended] Gainesville Regional Airport, FL (Lat. 29°41′24″ N., long. 82°16′18″ W.) Gators VORTAC (Lat. 29°41′32″ N., long. 82°16′23″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 2.4 miles each side of the Gators VORTAC 53° radial, extending from the 4.9-mile radius of Gainesville Regional Airport to 7 miles northeast of the VORTAC.

    ASO FL E4 Orlando, FL [Amended] Orlando Executive Airport, FL (Lat. 28°32′44″ N., long. 81°19′59″ W.) Orlando VORTAC (Lat. 28°32′34″ N., long. 81°20′06″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.6 miles each side of the Orlando VORTAC 254° radial extending from the 4.2-mile radius of Orlando Executive Airport, to 8.1 miles west of the Orlando VORTAC; excluding that portion within the Orlando, FL, Class B airspace area.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 8, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14373 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2015-7203; Airspace Docket No. 15-ASO-14] Establishment of Class D Airspace: Destin, FL; Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL; Revocation of Class D Airspace; Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL; and Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Eglin Air Force Base, FL; Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL; and Crestview, FL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action establishes Class D airspace at Destin, FL, providing the controlled airspace required for the Air Traffic Control Tower at Destin Executive Airport, (formerly Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport). Additionally, this action removes Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field from the Class D designation, and establishes Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL in its place. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also changes the existing Class D airspace designation at Duke Field, Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), FL, and adjusts the geographic coordinates of Eglin AFB, Destin Executive Airport, Duke Field, and Hurlburt Field, to stay in concert with the FAA's database.

    DATES:

    Effective 0901 UTC, July 21, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9Z and publication of conforming amendments.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/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 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 establishes Class D airspace at Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, and Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL; and removes Class D airspace at Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field; and amends Class D and Class E airspace at Eglin Air Force Base, FL.

    History

    On March 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class D airspace at Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, and Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL; and remove Class D airspace at Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field; and amend Class D and Class E airspace at Eglin Air Force Base, FL (81 FR 11136). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends 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 Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 establishes Class D airspace up to and including 1,600 feet within a 4.4 mile radius of Destin Executive Airport, Destin, FL, providing the controlled airspace required to support the Air Traffic Control Tower. Additionally, this action removes the Class D designator for Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL, and replaces it with Duke Field, Eglin AFB, FL. This action also adjusts the geographic coordinates in Class D airspace, Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Eglin Air Force Base, FL, Destin Executive Airport, Duke Field, and Hurlburt Field, to stay in concert with the FAA's database. Also, Destin-Fort Walton Beach Airport is changed to Destin Executive Airport.

    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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ASO FL D Destin, FL [New] Destin Executive Airport, FL (Lat. 30°24′00″ N., long. 86°28′17″ W.) Eglin Air Force Base, FL (Lat. 30°29′00″ N., long. 86°31′34″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 1,600 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Destin Executive Airport, excluding that portion north of the triangle beginning at lat. 30°23′39″ N., long. 86°23′13″ W., to lat. 30°27′00″ N., long. 86°30′19″ W., to lat. 30°20′54″ N., long. 86°31′56″ W. This Class D airspace is effective during the operating hours of the Destin Executive Airport tower published in the Airport/Facility Directory. The airspace is incorporated into the Eglin Air Force Base, FL Class D airspace when the tower is closed.

    ASO FL D Eglin Air Force Base, FL [Amended] Eglin Air Force Base, FL (Lat. 30°29′00″ N., long. 86°31′34″ W.) Destin Executive Airport (Lat. 30°24′00″ N., long. 86°28′17″ W.) Duke Field (Lat. 30°38′55″ N., long. 86°31′19″ W.) Hurlburt Field (Lat. 30°25′44″ N., long. 86°41′20″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 5.5-mile radius of Eglin AFB, and within a 4.4-mile radius of Destin Executive Airport, excluding the portion north of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection within a 5.2-mile radius centered on Duke Field; excluding the portion southwest of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection within a 5.3-mile radius of Hurlburt Field; excluding a portion east of a line beginning at lat. 30°30′43″ N., long. 86°26′21″ W. extending east to the 5.5-mile radius of Eglin AFB. When the tower at Destin Executive Airport is operational, it excludes Destin's Class D airspace defined as that airspace south of the triangle beginning at lat. 30°23′39″ N., long. 86°23′13″ W. to lat. 30°27′00″ N., long. 86°30′19″ W. to lat. 30°20′54″ N., long. 86°31′56″ W. from the surface to and including 1,600 feet MSL.

    ASO FL D Eglin AF Aux No 3 Duke Field, FL [Removed] ASO FL D Duke Field Eglin AFB, FL [New] Duke Field, FL (Lat. 30°38′55 N., long. 86°31′19″ W.) Crestview, Bob Sikes Airport (Lat. 30°46′44″ N., long. 86°31′20″ W.) Eglin AFB (Lat. 30°29′00″ N., long. 86°31′34″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,700 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of Duke Field; excluding the portion north of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection with a 4.2-mile radius circle centered on Bob Sikes Airport; excluding the portion south of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection with a 5.5-mile radius circle centered on Eglin AFB. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    ASO FL D Eglin Hurlburt Field, FL [Amended] Eglin, Hurlburt Field, FL (Lat. 30°25′44″ N., long. 86°41′20″ W.) Eglin AFB (Lat. 30°29′00″ N., long. 86°31′34″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface, to and including 2,500 feet MSL within a 5.3-mile radius of Hurlburt Field; excluding the portion northeast of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection with a 5.5-mile radius circle centered on Eglin AFB. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace. ASO FL E2 Crestview, FL [Amended] Bob Sikes Airport, FL (Lat. 30°46′44″ N., long. 86°31′20″ W.) Duke Field, Eglin AFB (Lat. 30°38′55″ N., long. 86°31′19″ W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Bob Sikes Airport; excluding the portion south of a line connecting the 2 points of intersection with a 5.2-mile radius circle centered on Duke Field. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO FL E5 Eglin Air Force Base, FL [Amended] Eglin Air Force Base, FL (Lat. 30°29′00″ N., long. 86°31′34″ W.) Destin Executive Airport (Lat. 30°24′00″ N., long. 86°28′17″ W.) Duke Field (Lat. 30°38′55″ N., long. 86°31′19″ W.) Hurlburt Field (Lat. 30°25′44″ N., long. 86°41′20″ W.) Fort Walton Beach Airport (Lat. 30°24′23″ N., long. 86°49′45″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Eglin Air Force Base, and within a 7.8-mile radius of Destin Executive Airport, and within a 7-mile radius of Duke Field, and within a 7-mile radius of Hurlburt Field, excluding a 1.5-mile radius of Fort Walton Beach Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 9, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14377 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. FAA-2007-29320] Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International Airport AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of amendment to order.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends the Order Limiting Operations at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK) published on January 18, 2008, as amended, and most recently extended on May 24, 2016. This action replaces an obsolete statement concerning the Order's expiration date with the correct expiration date of October 27, 2018. The Order remains effective until October 27, 2018.

    DATES:

    This amendment is effective on June 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Requests may be submitted by mail to Slot Administration Office, AGC-240, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by email to: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions concerning this Order contact: Susan Pfingstler, System Operations Services, Air Traffic Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-6462; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You may obtain an electronic copy using the Internet by:

    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);

    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or

    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.

    You also may obtain a copy by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.

    Background

    From 1968, the FAA limited the number of arrivals and departures at JFK during the peak afternoon demand period (corresponding to transatlantic arrival and departure banks) through the implementation of the High Density Rule (HDR).1 By statute enacted in April 2000, the HDR's applicability to JFK operations terminated as of January 1, 2007.2 Using AIR-21 exemptions and the HDR phase-out, U.S. air carriers serving JFK significantly increased their domestic scheduled operations throughout the day. This increase in operations resulted in significant congestion and delays that negatively impacted the National Airspace System (NAS). In January 2008, the FAA placed temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK to mitigate persistent congestion and delays at the airport.3 With a temporary schedule limit order in place, the FAA proposed a long-term rule that would limit the number of scheduled and unscheduled operations at JFK.4 On October 10, 2008, the FAA published the Congestion Management Rule for John F. Kennedy International Airport and Newark Liberty International Airport, which would have become effective on December 9, 2008.5 That rule was stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and subsequently rescinded by the FAA.6 The FAA extended the January 18, 2008, Order placing temporary limits on scheduled operations at JFK on October 7, 2009,7 April 4, 2011,8 May 14, 2013,9 March 26, 2014,10 and May 24, 2016.11

    1 33 FR 17896 (Dec. 3, 1968). The FAA codified the rules for operating at high density traffic airports in 14 CFR part 93, subpart K. The HDR required carriers to hold a reservation, which came to be known as a “slot,” for each takeoff or landing under instrument flight rules at the high density traffic airports.

    2 Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), Public Law 106-181 (Apr. 5, 2000), 49 U.S.C. 41715(a)(2).

    3 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as amended by 73 FR 8737 (Feb. 14, 2008).

    4 73 FR 29626 (May 21, 2008); Docket FAA-2008-0517.

    5 73 FR 60544, amended by 73 FR 66516 (Nov. 10, 2008).

    6 74 FR 52134 (Oct. 9, 2009).

    7 74 FR 51650.

    8 76 FR 18620.

    9 78 FR 28276.

    10 79 FR 16854.

    11 81 FR 32636.

    Under the Order, as amended, the FAA (1) maintains the current hourly limits on 81 scheduled operations at JFK during the peak period; (2) imposes an 80 percent minimum usage requirement for Operating Authorizations (OAs) with defined exceptions; (3) provides a mechanism for withdrawal of OAs for FAA operational reasons; (4) establishes procedures to allocate withdrawn, surrendered, or unallocated OAs; and (5) allows for trades and leases of OAs for consideration for the duration of the Order.

    The reasons for issuing the Order have not changed appreciably since it was implemented. Demand for access to JFK remains high and the average weekday hourly flights in the busiest morning, afternoon, and evening hours are generally consistent with the limits under this Order. The FAA has reviewed the on-time and other performance metrics in the peak May to August 2014 and 2015 months and found continuing improvements relative to the same period in 2007, even with runway construction at JFK in 2015.12 Without the operational limitations imposed by this Order, the FAA expects severe congestion-related delays would occur at JFK and at other airports throughout the NAS. The FAA will continue to monitor performance and runway capacity at JFK to determine if changes are warranted.

    12 Docket No. FAA-2007-25320 includes a copy of the MITRE analysis completed for the FAA.

    On January 8, 2015, the DOT and FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking “Slot Management and Transparency at LaGuardia Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, and Newark Liberty International Airport.” 13 The DOT and FAA proposed to replace the Orders limiting scheduled operations at JFK, limiting scheduled operations at Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR), and limiting scheduled and unscheduled operations at LaGuardia Airport (LGA) with a more permanent system for managing slots. The NPRM included certain proposed changes to how slots are currently managed in the New York City area in order to increase transparency and address issues considering anti-competitive behavior. Since the FAA and DOT first initiated this rulemaking effort there have been significant changes in circumstances affecting New York City area airports, including changes in competitive effects from ongoing industry consolidation, slot utilization and transfer behavior, and actual operational performance at the three airports. Furthermore, the FAA recently announced that slot controls are no longer needed at EWR (81 FR 19861). In light of the changes in market conditions and operational performance at the New York City area airports, the Department is withdrawing the NPRM by Federal Register notice published May 16, 2016 (81 FR 30218), to allow for further evaluation of these changes. Accordingly, the FAA has concluded it is necessary to extend the expiration date of this Order until October 27, 2018. This expiration date coincides with the extended expiration date for the Order limiting scheduled operations at LGA (81 FR 33126).14 No amendments other than correcting the expiration date in paragraph 3 have been made to this Order.

    13 80 FR 1274.

    14 The FAA notes that the Order limiting scheduled operations at EWR will expire October 29, 2016; beginning on October 30, 2016, EWR is designated a Level 2 schedule-facilitated airport consistent with the FAA's action published in the Federal Register on April 6, 2016. See 81 FR 19861.

    The FAA finds that notice and comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The FAA further finds that good cause exists to make this Order effective in less than 30 days.

    The Amended Order

    The Order, as amended, is recited below in its entirety.

    1. This Order assigns operating authority to conduct an arrival or a departure at JFK during the affected hours to the U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier identified in the appendix to this Order. The FAA will not assign operating authority under this Order to any person or entity other than a certificated U.S. or foreign air carrier with appropriate economic authority and FAA operating authority under 14 CFR part 121, 129, or 135. This Order applies to the following:

    a. All U.S. air carriers and foreign air carriers conducting scheduled operations at JFK as of the date of this Order, any U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier that operates under the same designator code as such a carrier, and any air carrier or foreign-flag carrier that has or enters into a codeshare agreement with such a carrier.

    b. All U.S. air carriers or foreign air carriers initiating scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service to JFK while this Order is in effect.

    c. The Chief Counsel of the FAA, in consultation with the Vice President, System Operations Services, is the final decisionmaker for determinations under this Order.

    2. This Order governs scheduled arrivals and departures at JFK from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time, Sunday through Saturday.

    3. This Order takes effect on March 30, 2008, and will expire October 27, 2018.

    4. Under the authority provided to the Secretary of Transportation and the FAA Administrator by 49 U.S.C. 40101, 40103 and 40113, we hereby order that:

    a. No U.S. air carrier or foreign air carrier initiating or conducting scheduled or regularly conducted commercial service at JFK may conduct such operations without an Operating Authorization assigned by the FAA.

    b. Except as provided in the appendix to this Order, scheduled U.S. air carrier and foreign air carrier arrivals and departures will not exceed 81 per hour from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m., Eastern Time.

    c. The Administrator may change the limits if he determines that capacity exists to accommodate additional operations without a significant increase in delays.

    5. For administrative tracking purposes only, the FAA will assign an identification number to each Operating Authorization.

    6. A carrier holding an Operating Authorization may request the Administrator's approval to move any arrival or departure scheduled from 6 a.m. through 10:59 p.m. to another half hour within that period. Except as provided in paragraph seven, the carrier must receive the written approval of the Administrator, or his delegate, prior to conducting any scheduled arrival or departure that is not listed in the appendix to this Order. All requests to move an allocated Operating Authorization must be submitted to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email 7-[email protected], and must come from a designated representative of the carrier. If the FAA cannot approve a carrier's request to move a scheduled arrival or departure, the carrier may then apply for a trade in accordance with paragraph seven.

    7. For the duration of this Order, a carrier may enter into a lease or trade of an Operating Authorization to another carrier for any consideration. Notice of a trade or lease under this paragraph must be submitted in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office, facsimile (202) 267-7277 or email [email protected], and must come from a designated representative of each carrier. The FAA must confirm and approve these transactions in writing prior to the effective date of the transaction. The FAA will approve transfers between carriers under the same marketing control up to five business days after the actual operation, but only to accommodate operational disruptions that occur on the same day of the scheduled operation. The FAA's approval of a trade or lease does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to grant the associated historical rights to any operator in the event that slot controls continue at JFK after this order expires.

    8. A carrier may not buy, sell, trade, or transfer an Operating Authorization, except as described in paragraph seven.

    9. Historical rights to Operating Authorizations and withdrawal of those rights due to insufficient usage will be determined on a seasonal basis and in accordance with the schedule approved by the FAA prior to the commencement of the applicable season.

    a. For each day of the week that the FAA has approved an operating schedule, any Operating Authorization not used at least 80% of the time over the time-frame authorized by the FAA under this paragraph will be withdrawn by the FAA for the next applicable season except:

    i. The FAA will treat as used any Operating Authorization held by a carrier on Thanksgiving Day, the Friday following Thanksgiving Day, and the period from December 24 through the first Saturday in January.

    ii. The Administrator of the FAA may waive the 80% usage requirement in the event of a highly unusual and unpredictable condition which is beyond the control of the carrier and which affects carrier operations for a period of five consecutive days or more.

    b. Each carrier holding an Operating Authorization must forward in writing to the FAA Slot Administration Office a list of all Operating Authorizations held by the carrier along with a listing of the Operating Authorizations and:

    i. The dates within each applicable season it intends to commence and complete operations.

    A. For each winter scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than August 15 during the preceding summer.

    B. For each summer scheduling season, the report must be received by the FAA no later than January 15 during the preceding winter.

    ii. The completed operations for each day of the applicable scheduling season:

    A. No later than September 1 for the summer scheduling season.

    B. No later than January 15 for the winter scheduling season.

    iii. The completed operations for each day of the scheduling season within 30 days after the last day of the applicable scheduling season.

    10. In the event that a carrier surrenders to the FAA any Operating Authorization assigned to it under this Order or if there are unallocated Operating Authorizations, the FAA will determine whether the Operating Authorizations should be reallocated. The FAA may temporarily allocate an Operating Authorization at its discretion. Such temporary allocations will not be entitled to historical status for the next applicable scheduling season under paragraph 9.

    11. If the FAA determines that an involuntary reduction in the number of allocated Operating Authorizations is required to meet operational needs, such as reduced airport capacity, the FAA will conduct a weighted lottery to withdraw Operating Authorizations to meet a reduced hourly or half-hourly limit for scheduled operations. The FAA will provide at least 45 days' notice unless otherwise required by operational needs. Any Operating Authorization that is withdrawn or temporarily suspended will, if reallocated, be reallocated to the carrier from which it was taken, provided that the carrier continues to operate scheduled service at JFK.

    12. The FAA will enforce this Order through an enforcement action seeking a civil penalty under 49 U.S.C. 46301(a). A carrier that is not a small business as defined in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632, will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. A carrier that is a small business as defined in the Small Business Act will be liable for a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for every day that it violates the limits set forth in this Order. The FAA also could file a civil action in U.S. District Court, under 49 U.S.C. 46106, 46107, seeking to enjoin any air carrier from violating the terms of this Order.

    13. The FAA may modify or withdraw any provision in this Order on its own or on application by any carrier for good cause shown.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2016. Daniel E. Smiley, Vice President, System Operations Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14631 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160503391-6391-01] RIN 0694-AG96 Revisions to the Unverified List (UVL) AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding thirty-six (36) persons to the Unverified List (the “Unverified List” or UVL), and adding an additional address for one (1) person currently listed on the UVL. The 36 persons are being added to the UVL on the basis that BIS could not verify their bona fides because an end-use check could not be completed satisfactorily for reasons outside the U.S. Government's control. A new address is added for one current UVL person as BIS has determined that this person has changed its registered address.

    DATES:

    Effective date: This rule is effective: June 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Kurland, Director, Office of Enforcement Analysis, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-4255 or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Unverified List, found in Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 to the EAR, contains the names and addresses of foreign persons who are or have been parties to a transaction, as that term is described in § 748.5 of the EAR, involving the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of items subject to the EAR, and whose bona fides BIS has been unable to verify through an end-use check. BIS may add persons to the UVL when BIS or federal officials acting on BIS's behalf have been unable to verify a foreign person's bona fides (i.e., legitimacy and reliability relating to the end use and end user of items subject to the EAR) because an end-use check, such as a pre-license check (PLC) or a post-shipment verification (PSV), cannot be completed satisfactorily for such purposes for reasons outside the U.S. Government's control.

    End-use checks cannot be completed for a number of reasons, including reasons unrelated to the cooperation of the foreign party subject to the end-use check. For example, BIS sometimes initiates end-use checks and cannot find a foreign party at the address indicated on export documents, and cannot locate the party by telephone or email. Additionally, BIS sometimes is unable to conduct end-use checks when host government agencies do not respond to requests to conduct end-use checks, are prevented from scheduling such checks by a party to the transaction other than the foreign party that is the proposed subject of the end-use check or refuse to schedule them in a timely manner. Under these circumstances, although BIS has an interest in informing the public of its inability to verify the foreign party's bona fides, there may not be sufficient information to add the foreign persons at issue to the Entity List under § 744.11 of the EAR (Criteria for revising the Entity List). In such circumstances, BIS may add the foreign persons to the UVL.

    Furthermore, BIS sometimes conducts end-use checks but cannot verify the bona fides of a foreign party. For example, BIS may be unable to verify bona fides if during the conduct of an end-use check a recipient of items subject to the EAR is unable to produce those items for visual inspection or provide sufficient documentation or other evidence to confirm the disposition of those items. The inability of foreign persons subject to end-use checks to demonstrate their bona fides raises concerns about the suitability of such persons as participants in future exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR and indicates a risk that such items may be diverted to prohibited end uses and/or end users. However, BIS may not have sufficient information to establish that such persons are involved in activities described in part 744 of the EAR, preventing the placement of the persons on the Entity List. In such circumstances, the foreign persons may be added to the Unverified List.

    As provided in § 740.2(a)(17) of the EAR, the use of license exceptions for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL is suspended. Additionally, under § 744.15(b) of the EAR, there is a requirement for exporters, reexporters, and transferors to obtain (and keep a record of) a UVL statement from a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL before proceeding with exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to such persons, when the exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) are not subject to a license requirement.

    Requests for removal of a UVL entry must be made in accordance with § 744.15(d) of the EAR. Decisions regarding the removal or modification of UVL listings will be made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, based on a demonstration by the listed person of its bona fides.

    Changes to the EAR Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 (“the Unverified List” or “UVL”)

    This rule adds thirty-six (36) persons to the UVL by amending Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 of the EAR to include their names and addresses. BIS adds these persons in accordance with the criteria for revising the UVL set forth in § 744.15(c) of the EAR. The new entries consist of one person located in Finland, twenty-five persons located in Hong Kong, one person located in India, one person located in Latvia, one person located in Singapore, one person located in Switzerland, and six persons located in the United Arab Emirates. Each listing is grouped within the UVL by country with each party's name(s) listed in alphabetical order under the country; each entry includes available alias(es) and address(es), as well as the Federal Register citation and the date the person was added to the UVL. The UVL is included in the Consolidated Screening List, available at www.export.gov.

    This rule also adds a new address for a current UVL person in Hong Kong: Hong Kong U.Star Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. BIS has determined that this person changed its registered address from that originally included in the UVL entry.

    Savings Clause

    Shipments (1) removed from license exception eligibility or that are now subject to requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR as a result of this regulatory action, (2) eligible for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license before this regulatory action, and (3) on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on June 21, 2016, pursuant to actual orders, may proceed to that UVL-listed person under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license, so long as the items have been exported from the United States, reexported or transferred (in-country) before July 21, 2016. Any such items not actually exported, reexported or transferred (in-country) before midnight on July 21, 2016 are subject to the requirements in § 744.15 of the EAR in accordance with this regulation.

    Export Administration Act

    Since August 21, 2001, the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended, has been in lapse. However, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013), and as extended by the Notice of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48233 (Aug. 11, 2015) has continued the EAR in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222 as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

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

    2. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable to this rule, which is adding 36 persons and updating the address of 1 Hong Kong listed company on the UVL, because this regulation involves military or foreign affairs under 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by requiring a license or, where no license is required, a UVL statement for items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) involving a party or parties to the transaction who are listed on the UVL. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the UVL by this action and the entity operating at previously unlisted addresses would continue to be able to receive items without additional oversight by BIS and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the UVL or amend their current entry on the UVL, and create an incentive for these persons to accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR in furtherance of activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing once a final rule was published.

    Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor is subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under the following control numbers: 0694-0088, 0694-0122, 0694-0134, and 0694-0137.

    This rule slightly increases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, which authorizes, among other things, export license applications. The removal of license exceptions for listed persons on the Unverified List will result in increased license applications being submitted to BIS by exporters. Total burden hours associated with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB control number 0694-0088 are expected to increase minimally, as the suspension of license exceptions will only affect transactions involving persons listed on the Unverified List and not all export transactions. Because license exceptions are restricted from use, this rule decreases public burden in a collection of information approved by OMB under control number 0694-0137 minimally, as this will only affect specific individual listed persons. The increased burden under 0694-0088 is reciprocal to the decrease of burden under 0694-0137, and results in no change of burden to the public. This rule also increases public burden in a collection of information under OMB control number 0694-0122, as a result of the exchange of UVL statements between private parties, and under OMB control number 0694-0134, as a result of appeals from persons listed on the UVL for removal of their listing. The total increase in burden hours associated with both of these collections is expected to be minimal, as they involve a limited number of persons listed on the UVL.

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

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) is amended as follows:

    Part 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016).

    2. Supplement No. 6 to Part 744 is amended by: a. Adding one entry for “Finland”; b. Adding 25 entries, in alphabetical order, under “Hong Kong”; c. Revising the entry for “Hong Kong U.Star Electronics Technology Co., Ltd” under “Hong Kong”; d. Adding one entry for “India”; e. Adding one entry for “Latvia”; f. Adding one entry for “Singapore”; g. Adding one entry for “Switzerland”; and h. Adding 6 entries, in alphabetical order, under the “United Arab Emirates”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    SUPPLEMENT NO. 6 TO PART 744—UNVERIFIED LIST Country Listed person and address Federal Register citation and date of publication *         *         *         *         *         *         * FINLAND Sav-Inter OY Ltd., Nuolitie 20, Vantaa, Finland; and Manttaalitie 5, Vantaa, Finland; and Virkatie 1, Vantaa, Finland 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * HONG KONG Advent International Limited, Room 1303 Goldfield Tower, 53-59 Wuhu Street, Kung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Flat F, 13/F, Block 1, Hong Sing Garden, Tsueng Kwan O, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Boqur International Ltd., Room 1203, 12/F, International Trade Centre, 11-19 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong; and Room 19C, Lockhart Centre, 301-307 Lockhart Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Carry Goldstar Ltd., 15A, 15/F, Cheuk Nang Plaza, 250 Hennessy Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER AND DATE OF PUBLICATION]. Central Right Investments Ltd., Room 1019, 10/F, 1 Hung To Road, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. CITI Hong Kong Ltd., Unit F, 7/F, Haribest Industry Building, 45-47 Au Pui Wan Street, Fo Tan, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. CST Source Industrial Co., Ltd., Rooms 5-15, 13/F, South Tower, World Finance Centre, Harbour City, 17 Canton Road, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Fuiyen Technology Ltd., 6/F, Block H, East Sun Industrial Centre, 16 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1405, Lucky Centre, 165-171 Wan Chai Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Fussion Electronics Co., Ltd., 11/F, International Trade Centre, 11-19 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Global Sourcing Electronics (HK) Ltd., Unit 4, 7/F, Bright Way Tower, No. 33 Mong Kok Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Globe Communication (HK) Ltd., Flat 01A2, 10/F, Carnival Commercial Building, 18 Java Road, North Point, Hong Kong; and Flat C, 9/F, Winning House, 72-74 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Haofeng Industrial Co., Ltd., Room 1101, 11/F, San Toi Building, 139 Connaught Road, Central, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hong Kong Engy Technology Co., a.k.a. Hong Kong Energy Technology Co., a.k.a. SZ Engy Technology Co., a.k.a. SZ Energy Technology Co., Workshop 15, 2/F, Cardinal Industrial Building, 17 On Lok Mun Street, Fanling, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hong Kong U.Star Electronics Technology Co., Ltd., Room 28, 8/F, Shing Yip Industrial Building, 19-21 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit 5, 27/F, Richmong Commercial Building, 109 Argyle Street, Mong Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 704, 7/F, Bright Way Tower, 33 Mong Kok Road, Mong Kok, Kowloon, Hong Kong 80 FR 4781, January 29, 2015; 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Jin Yan Technology & Development Co., Ltd., Workshop 11, 8/F, Block A, Delya Industrial Centre, 7 Shek Pai Tau Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong; and Room 1, Fook Cheung Building, 42 Ka Shin Street, Tai Kok Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. KingV Ltd., a.k.a. Jinnway Data Ltd., Room 31, 9/F, Shing Yip Industrial Building, 19-21 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and 11/F, Front Block, Hang Lok Building, 130 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Master-Uni Industry Co., Ltd., Room 602, 6/F, 168 Queens Road, Central, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Newplus Equipment Ltd., 12/F, Chinachem Johnston Plaza, 178-186 Johnston Road, Wan Chai, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Phonai Electronics Ltd., 51F, Core Building 11, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Runtop Circuits Technology Co., Room D9, 67/F, Block 2, Camel Paint Building, 62 Hoi Yuen Road, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong; and Flat 8-11, 16/F, New Trend Centre, 704 Prince Edward Road East, San Po Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Scitech International Express Co. Limited, Workshop 11, 8/F, Block A, Delya Industrial Centre, 7 Shek Pai Tau Road, Tuen Mun, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Selective Components Ltd., Room 8, 10/F, International Trade Centre, 11-19 Sha Tsui Road, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Sun Wing Ltd., Room 31, 9/F, Shing Yip Industrial Building, 19-21 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Sur-Link Technology (HK) Ltd., a.k.a. Sur-Link International (HK) Ltd., a.k.a. Surlink Group, Flat 6, 20/F, Mega Trade Centre, 1-9 Mei Wan Street, Tsuen Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Toptech Electronics Ltd., 15/F, Hong Kong and Macau Building, 156-157 Connaught Road, Central, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Winthought Company Ltd., Unit E1, 3/F, Wing Tat Commercial Building, 121-125 Wing Lok Street, Sheung Wan, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Yield Best International, 6/F, Block H, East Sun Industrial Centre, 16 Shing Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Unit J, 9/F, King Win Factory Building, 65-67 King Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * INDIA Conduit Technologies Pvt., Ltd., Office 201, 2/F, Lunkad Sky Station, Konark Naga, Mhada Colony, Viman Nagar, Pune, India; and Office UG21, East Court, Phoenix Market City, Viman Nagar, Pune, India 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. LATVIA Alfa Photonics, 21 Krisjana Valdemara Iela, Riga, Latvia; and 151-11 Krisjana Valdemara Iela, Riga, Latvia; and 52-66 Darza Iela, Riga, Latvia; and Nordic Technology Park, 15/25 Jurkalnes Iela, Riga, Latvia 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * SINGAPORE Dorado Network Pte., Ltd., 128 Joo Seng Road, DP Computers Building 04-04, Singapore; and 629 Aljunied Road, Cititech Industrial Building, Singapore; and 512 Woodlands Drive 14, Singapore 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. SWITZERLAND Light Range AG, Stutzstrasse 13C, Schindellegi, Switzerland; and Lowenstrasse 20, Zurich, Switzerland; and Via Delle Scuole 34E, Figino, Switzerland 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Abu Trade LLC, Lot Number 155, Al Zaroni Yard, Al Wasl Road, Dubai, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Alsima Middle East General Trading, 802 Whiteswan Building, near Fairmont Hotel, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Establishment Standard Lab FZE, a.k.a. Standard Lab FZE, Ras Al Khaimah Free Trade Zone Business Park, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE; and P.O. Box 17049, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Marinatec, Office 2008, Grosvenor Commercial Tower, Sheikh Zayed Road, Dubai, UAE; and P.O. Box 42236, 17A Radisson Plaza, Deira, Dubai, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. Middle East Oilfield Equipment, 723 Sama Tower, 6/F, near Fairmont Hotel, Sheikh Zayed Road, P.O. Box 4404, Dubai, UAE; and 217 Twin Towers, Baniyas Road, P.O. Box 4404, Deira, Dubai, UAE; and Flat 102, Mohammed Zainal Faraidooni Building, Salahuddin Road, Dubai, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Tek Work General Trading, 1902 Metropolis Business Tower, P.O. Box 12865, Business Bay, Dubai, UAE 81 FR [INSERT Federal Register PAGE NUMBER, 6/21/16]. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: June 15, 2016. Matthew S. Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14514 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160415341-6341-01] RIN 0694-AG94 Addition of Certain Persons and Removal of Certain Persons From the Entity List AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule amends the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) by adding twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List. The twenty-eight persons who are added to the Entity List have been determined by the U.S. Government to be acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. These twenty-eight persons will be listed on the Entity List under the destinations of Afghanistan, Austria, China, Hong Kong, Iran, Israel, Panama, Taiwan, and the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.).

    This final rule also removes three entities from the Entity List under the destinations of Finland, Pakistan and Turkey as the result of requests for removal received by BIS pursuant to the section of the EAR used for requesting removal or modification of an Entity List entity and the End-User Review Committee's (ERC) review of the information provided in the removal requests.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective June 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Fax: (202) 482-3911, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Entity List (Supplement No. 4 to part 744) identifies entities and other persons reasonably believed to be involved, or to pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved, in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The EAR imposes additional license requirements on, and limits the availability of most license exceptions for, exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to those listed. The “license review policy” for each listed entity or other person is identified in the License Review Policy column on the Entity List and the impact on the availability of license exceptions is described in the Federal Register notice adding entities or other persons to the Entity List. BIS places entities and other persons on the Entity List pursuant to sections of part 744 (Control Policy: End-User and End-Use Based) and part 746 (Embargoes and Other Special Controls) of the EAR.

    The ERC, composed of representatives of the Departments of Commerce (Chair), State, Defense, Energy and, where appropriate, the Treasury, makes all decisions regarding additions to, removals from, or other modifications to the Entity List. The ERC makes all decisions to add an entry to the Entity List by majority vote and all decisions to remove or modify an entry by unanimous vote.

    ERC Entity List Decisions Additions to the Entity List

    This rule implements the decision of the ERC to add twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List. These twenty-eight persons are being added on the basis of § 744.11 (License requirements that apply to entities acting contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States) of the EAR. The thirty-one entries added to the entity list consist of one entry in Afghanistan, one entry in Austria, two entries in China, six entries in Hong Kong, four entries in Iran, eight entries in Israel, one entry in Panama, four entries in Taiwan, and four entries in the U.A.E. There are thirty-one entries for the twenty-eight persons because three persons are listed in multiple locations, resulting in three additional entries.

    The ERC reviewed § 744.11(b) (Criteria for revising the Entity List) in making the determination to add these twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List. Under that paragraph, persons and those acting on behalf of such persons may be added to the Entity List if there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that they have been involved, are involved, or pose a significant risk of being or becoming involved in, activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of § 744.11 include an illustrative list of activities that could be contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States.

    Pursuant to § 744.11(b)(2) of the EAR, the ERC determined that twenty persons, located in the destinations of Afghanistan, Austria, China, Hong Kong, Iran, Taiwan, and the U.A.E., be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined that there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Mehrdad Rueen Foomanie, Mehrdad Moeinansari and related parties including Enrich Ever Technologies Co., Ltd.; Foang Tech Inc.; Global Merchant General Trading L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Sea Cargo L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC; Gulf Gate Shipping Co. L.L.C.; Gulf Gate Spedition GmbH; Hivocal Technology Company, Ltd.; Infinity Wise Technology Limited; Kuang-Su Corporation; Morvarid Shargh Co. Ltd.; Morvarid Sanat Co. LTD; Ninehead Bird Semiconductor; Panda Semiconductor; Pinky Trading Co., Ltd.; Sazgan Ertebat Co. Ltd.; Well Smart (HK) Technology; and Wise Smart (HK) Electronics Limited, have been involved in actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, Foomanie and Moeinansari conducted nearly 600 transactions with 63 different U.S. companies in which they obtained or attempted to obtain U.S.-origin parts and components without notifying the U.S. companies that the parts would be shipped to Iran and without getting the required U.S. Government license to ship the parts and components to Iran. Foomanie and Moeinansari, with the assistance of companies located in Iran, arranged to have the items unlawfully shipped to Iran through companies located in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China. Additionally, Moeinansari attempted to transship and transshipped cargo originating in the United States using his company, Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, located in Dubai, U.A.E.

    In addition, pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that eight persons, located in the destinations of Israel and Panama, be added to the Entity List for actions contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. The ERC determined there is reasonable cause to believe, based on specific and articulable facts, that Eliyahu Cohen and the following related persons: A. Leib Ltd.; AVS (Armored Vehicle Spares); M&P Trading Inc.; P.AD Ltd.; QPS Ltd.; RSP Ltd.; and Wheels Incorporated have been involved in activities that are contrary to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States. Specifically, these persons procured and/or retransferred U.S.-origin items to Israel and Iran without having first obtained the required authorization or license from the U.S. Government.

    Pursuant to § 744.11(b) of the EAR, the ERC determined that the conduct of these twenty-eight persons raises sufficient concern that prior review of exports, reexports or transfers (in-country) of items subject to the EAR involving these persons, and the possible imposition of license conditions or license denials on shipments to the persons, will enhance BIS's ability to prevent violations of the EAR. Therefore, these twenty-eight persons are being added to the Entity List under thirty-one entries.

    For the twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries added to the Entity List, BIS imposes a license requirement for all items subject to the EAR and a license review policy of presumption of denial. The license requirements apply to any transaction in which items are to be exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) to any of the persons or in which such persons act as purchaser, intermediate consignee, ultimate consignee, or end-user. In addition, no license exceptions are available for exports, reexports, or transfers (in-country) to the persons being added to the Entity List in this rule. The acronym “a.k.a.” (also known as) is used in entries on the Entity List to help exporters, reexporters and transferors better identify listed persons on the Entity List.

    This final rule adds the following twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries to the Entity List:

    Afghanistan (1) Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, Gulzaad Market Building, 4th Floor, Room 2, Kabul, Afghanistan. Austria (1) Gulf Gate Spedition GmbH, A-1040 Argentinierstrasse 35/6, Vienna, Austria. China (1) Foang Tech Inc., a.k.a., the following one alias: —Ofogh Electronics Co. 52F, Shun Hing Square, Unit 1-8 Di Wang Commercial Center, Shenzhen, China (See alternate address under Hong Kong); and (2) Ninehead Bird Semiconductor, RM 15, Jufu Ge, Caifu Bld, Caitian Road, Futian Qu, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518033, China. Hong Kong (1) Foang Tech Inc., a.k.a., the following one alias: —Ofogh Electronics Co. Flat/RM 1701-Ricky CTR, 36 Chowg Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China); (2) Infinity Wise Technology Limited, 7/F One Kowloon, 1 Wang Yuen Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1213 Chui King House, Choi Hung Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong (See alternate addresses under Taiwan); (3) Panda Semiconductor, Room 2, Unit A 14/F Shun on Commercial building, 112-114 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong; (4) Pinky Trading Co., Ltd., 338 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong; (5) Well Smart (HK) Technology, Room 604, Kalok Building, 720 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and (6) Wise Smart (HK) Electronics Limited, Room 1213, Chui King House, Choi Hung Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong. Iran (1) Mehrdad Rueen Foomanie, a.k.a., the following four aliases: —Frank Foomanie; —Mark Foomanie; —Mark Averin; and —Max Xian. No. 35 Abaas Abaad Street, Daryosh Street Andesheh 2 Street (Hamid Qods), Iran—Tehran; and Sohrivardi Shomali Street, Andesheh 2 Street, after Daryoush Crossroad, No. 35, Floor 5, No. 8, Tehran, Iran; (2) Morvarid Sanat Co., Ltd., Sohrivardi Shomah Street, Andesheh 2 Street, after Daryosh Crossroad, No. 35, Floor 5, No. 8, Tehran, Iran; (3) Morvarid Shargh Co., Ltd., Sohrivardi Street No. 35, Tehran, Iran; and (4) Sazgan Ertebat Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias: —Sazgan Ertebat Poya Co. Ltd. No. 40-Hoveizeh St. Sohrevardi St., Tehran, Iran; and P.O. Box 16315-194 Zip: 1559934314. Israel (1) A. Leib Ltd., HA'Assif 19, Binyamina, Israel; (2) AVS (Armored Vehicle Spares), a.k.a., the following one alias: —Armored Vehicle Service. 42 Hamesilla Street, Binyamina, Israel; (3) Eliyahu Cohen, a.k.a., the following six aliases: —Arie Cohen; —Eli Cohen; —Eliyahu Ari Cohen; —Eliyahu Arie Cohen; —Eric Cohen; and —Ari Kohan. Binyamina, Israel. (4) M&P Trading Inc., P.O. Box 161, Caesarea, Israel 3088903; (5) P.AD Ltd., 42 Hamesilla Street, Binyamina, Israel; (6) QPS Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases: —Quality Parts and Spares; and —Quality Parts and Services. 5 Ner Halayla Street, Caesarea, Israel; and 42 Hamesilla Street, Railway Industrial Area, Binyamina, Israel; (7) RSP Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias: —Rebuilt Spare Parts. HA'Assif 19, Binyamina, Israel 30550; and (8) Wheels Incorporated, HA'Assif 43, Binyamina, Israel 30551 (See alternate address under Panama). Panama (1) Wheels Incorporated, P.O. Box 6—2875, El Dorado, Panama (See alternate address under Israel). Taiwan (1) Enrich Ever Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias: —Enrich Ever Technologies Co. 9F No. 38 Ming-Fu 13th Street, Taoyuan, Taiwan; and 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan; (2) Hivocal Technology Company, Ltd.; 10F, No. 736, Jhongjheng Road, Jhonghe City, Taipei County 235, Taiwan; (3) Infinity Wise Technology Limited, Flat/RMA 6/F, Man Wing Building 503-507 Nathan Road Yaumate 1, Taiwan; and 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road Taoyuan, Taiwan (See alternate addresses under Hong Kong); and (4) Kuang-Su Corporation, 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan. United Arab Emirates (1) Global Merchant General Trading LLC, P.O. Box 39960, Dubai, U.A.E.; (2) Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, No. 508, Bldg P-114, Almaktoum Road, Deirah, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 39948, Dubai, U.A.E.; (3) Gulf Gate Shipping Co. LLC, No. 508, Bldg P-114, Almaktoum Road, Deirah, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 39948, Dubai, U.A.E.; and (4) Mehrdad Moeinansari, a.k.a., the following one alias: —Mehrdad Ansari. No 7101, Index Tower DIFC, Dubai, U.A.E.; and No 508, Sheikha Maryam Bldg., Deirah, Dubai, U.A.E. 39948. Removals From the Entity List

    This rule implements the decisions of the ERC to remove the following three entries from the Entity List based on removal requests received by the BIS: Nurminen Oy, located in Finland; Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd., located in Pakistan; and AAG Makina, located in Turkey.

    The ERC's decisions to remove Nurminen Oy, Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd and AAG Makina from the Entity List were based on information received by the BIS pursuant to § 744.16 of the Export Administration Regulation and further review conducted by the ERC.

    In accordance with § 744.16(c), the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration has sent written notification informing these three persons of the ERC's decisions to remove them from the Entity List.

    This final rule implements the decisions to remove the following three entities located in Finland, Pakistan and Turkey from the Entity List:

    Finland (1) Nurminen Oy, 231B Vanha Porvoontie, Vantaa, Finland 01380.

    Note that while Nurminen Oy is being removed, Olkebor Oy is being retained on the Entity List in this final rule.

    Pakistan (1) Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd., House No 614 Street No 58 I-8/2 Islamabad, Pakistan; and Office No 456, K Street No 57 I-8/3 Islamabad, Pakistan. Turkey (1) AAG Makina, Mah. Idris Kosku Caddesi Kutu, Sokak No:1 Pierreloti/Eyup, Istanbul, Turkey.

    The removal of the three persons referenced above, which was approved by the ERC, eliminates the existing license requirements in Supplement No. 4 to part 744 for exports, reexports and transfers (in-country) to these entities. However, the removal of these three persons from the Entity List does not relieve persons of other obligations under part 744 of the EAR or under other parts of the EAR. Neither the removal of an entity from the Entity List nor the removal of Entity List-based license requirements relieves persons of their obligations under General Prohibition 5 in § 736.2(b)(5) of the EAR which provides that, “you may not, without a license, knowingly export or reexport any item subject to the EAR to an end-user or end-use that is prohibited by part 744 of the EAR.” Additionally, these removals do not relieve persons of their obligation to apply for export, reexport or in-country transfer licenses required by other provisions of the EAR. BIS strongly urges the use of Supplement No. 3 to part 732 of the EAR, “BIS's `Know Your Customer' Guidance and Red Flags,” when persons are involved in transactions that are subject to the EAR.

    Savings Clause

    Shipments of items removed from eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR) as a result of this regulatory action that were en route aboard a carrier to a port of export or reexport, on June 21, 2016, pursuant to actual orders for export or reexport to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous eligibility for a License Exception or export or reexport without a license (NLR).

    Export Administration Act

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

    Rulemaking Requirements

    1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

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

    4. For the twenty-eight persons under thirty-one entries added to the Entity List in this final rule, the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).) BIS implements this rule to protect U.S. national security or foreign policy interests by preventing items from being exported, reexported, or transferred (in country) to the persons being added to the Entity List. If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, the entities being added to the Entity List by this action would continue to be able to receive items without a license and to conduct activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States. In addition, publishing a proposed rule would give these parties notice of the U.S. Government's intention to place them on the Entity List and would create an incentive for these persons to either accelerate receiving items subject to the EAR to conduct activities that are contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States, and/or to take steps to set up additional aliases, change addresses, and other measures to try to limit the impact of the listing on the Entity List once a final rule was published. Further, no other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    5. For the three entries removed from the Entity List in this final rule, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), BIS finds good cause to waive requirements that this rule be subject to notice and the opportunity for public comment because it would be contrary to the public interest.

    In determining whether to grant removal requests from the Entity List, a committee of U.S. Government agencies (the End-User Review Committee (ERC)) evaluates information about and commitments made by listed persons requesting removal from the Entity List, the nature and terms of which are set forth in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b). The information, commitments, and criteria for this extensive review were all established through the notice of proposed rulemaking and public comment process (72 FR 31005 (June 5, 2007) (proposed rule), and 73 FR 49311 (August 21, 2008) (final rule)). These three removals have been made within the established regulatory framework of the Entity List. If the rule were to be delayed to allow for public comment, U.S. exporters may face unnecessary economic losses as they turn away potential sales to the other entities removed by this rule because the customer remained listed persons on the Entity List even after the ERC approved the removals pursuant to the rule published at 73 FR 49311 on August 21, 2008. By publishing without prior notice and comment, BIS allows the applicants to receive U.S. exports immediately since the applicants already have received approval by the ERC pursuant to 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5, as noted in 15 CFR 744.16(b).

    The removals from the Entity List granted by the ERC involve interagency deliberation and result from review of public and non-public sources, including sensitive law enforcement information and classified information, and the measurement of such information against the Entity List removal criteria. This information is extensively reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating removal requests from the Entity List, as set out in 15 CFR part 744, Supplement No. 5 and 15 CFR 744.16(b). For reasons of national security, BIS is not at liberty to provide to the public detailed information on which the ERC relied to make the decisions to remove these three entities. In addition, the information included in the removal request is information exchanged between the applicant and the ERC, which by law (section 12(c) of the Export Administration Act), BIS is restricted from sharing with the public. Moreover, removal requests from the Entity List contain confidential business information, which is necessary for the extensive review conducted by the U.S. Government in assessing such removal requests.

    Section 553(d) of the APA generally provides that rules may not take effect earlier than thirty (30) days after they are published in the Federal Register. BIS finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1) because this rule is a substantive rule which relieves a restriction. This rule's removal of three persons under three entries from the Entity List removes a requirement (the Entity-List-based license requirement and limitation on use of license exceptions) on these three persons being removed from the Entity List. The rule does not impose a requirement on any other person for these three removals from the Entity List.

    No other law requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment be given for this final rule. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required under the APA or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) are not applicable. As a result, no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of August 7, 2015, 80 FR 48233 (August 11, 2015); Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016).

    2. Supplement No. 4 to part 744 is amended:
    a. By adding under Afghanistan, in alphabetical order, one Afghani entity; b. By adding in alphabetical order, an entry for Austria and one Austrian entity; c. By adding under China, People's Republic of, in alphabetical order, two Chinese entities; d. By removing under Finland, the Finnish entity, “Olkebor Oy/Nurminen Oy” and adding in its place the Finnish entity, “Olkebor Oy”; e. By adding under Hong Kong, in alphabetical order, six Hong Kong entities; f. By adding under Iran, in alphabetical order, four Iranian entities; g. By adding under Israel, in alphabetical order, eight Israeli entities; h. By removing under Pakistan, one Pakistani entity, “Rayyan Air Pvt Ltd.”; i. By adding under Panama, in alphabetical order, one Panamanian entity; j. By adding under Taiwan, in alphabetical order, four Taiwanese entities; k. By removing under Turkey, one Turkish entity, “AAG Makina”; and l. By adding under United Arab Emirates, in alphabetical order, four Emirati entities.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    Supplement No. 4 to Part 744—Entity List Country Entity License requirement License review policy Federal Register citation AFGHANISTAN  *         *         *         *         *         * Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, Gulzaad Market Building, 4th Floor, Room 2, Kabul, Afghanistan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * AUSTRIA Gulf Gate Spedition GmbH, A-1040 Argentinierstrasse 35/6, Vienna, Austria. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * CHINA, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF *         *         *         *         *         * Foang Tech Inc., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Ofogh Electronics Co.
  • 52F, Shun Hing Square, Unit 1-8 Di Wang Commercial Center, Shenzhen, China (See alternate address under Hong Kong).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Ninehead Bird Semiconductor, RM 15, Jufu Ge, Caifu Bld, Caitian Road, Futian Qu, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518033, China. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * FINLAND *         *         *         *         *         * Olkebor Oy, 231B Vanha Porvoontie, Vantaa, Finland 01380. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 77 FR 61256, 10/9/12. 78 FR 3319, 1/16/13. 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * HONG KONG *         *         *         *         *         * Foang Tech Inc., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Ofogh Electronics Co.
  • Flat/RM 1701-Ricky CTR, 36 Chowg Yip Street, Kwun Tong, Hong Kong (See alternate address under China).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Infinity Wise Technology Limited, 7/F One Kowloon, 1 Wang Yuen Street, Kowloon Bay, Kowloon, Hong Kong; and Room 1213 Chui King House, Choi Hung Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong
  • (See alternate addresses under Taiwan).
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Panda Semiconductor, Room 2, Unit A 14/F Shun on Commercial building, 112-114 Des Voeux Road, Central, Hong Kong. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. Pinky Trading Co., Ltd., 338 Queen's Road, Central, Hong Kong. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Well Smart (HK) Technology, Room 604, Kalok Building, 720 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. Wise Smart (HK) Electronics Limited, Room 1213, Chui King House, Choi Hung Estate, Kowloon, Hong Kong. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * IRAN *         *         *         *         *         * Mehrdad Rueen Foomanie, a.k.a., the following four aliases:
  • —Frank Foomanie;
  • —Mark Foomanie;
  • —Mark Averin; and
  • —Max Xian.
  • No. 35 Abaas Abaad Street, Daryosh Street Andesheh 2 Street (Hamid Qods), Iran—Tehran; and Sohrivardi Shomali Street, Andesheh 2 Street, after Daryoush Crossroad, No. 35, Floor 5, No. 8, Tehran, Iran.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Morvarid Sanat Co. Ltd., Sohrivardi Shomah Street, Andesheh 2 Street, after Daryosh Crossroad, No. 35 Floor 5, No. 8, Tehran, Iran. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. Morvarid Shargh Co. Ltd., Sohrivardi Street No. 35, Tehran, Iran. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Sazgan Ertebat Co. Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Sazgan Ertebat Poya Co. Ltd.
  • No. 40-Hoveizeh St. Sohrevardi St., Tehran, Iran; and P.O. Box 16315-194 Zip: 1559934314.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * ISRAEL A. Leib Ltd.; HA'Assif 19, Binyamina, Israel. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. AVS (Armored Vehicle Spares), a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Armored Vehicle Service.
  • 42 Hamesilla Street, Binyamina, Israel.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         * Eliyahu Cohen, a.k.a., the following six aliases:
  • —Arie Cohen;
  • —Eli Cohen;
  • —Eliyahu Ari Cohen;
  • —Eliyahu Arie Cohen;
  • —Eric Cohen; and
  • —Ari Kohan.
  • Binyamina, Israel.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    M&P Trading Inc., P.O. Box 161, Caesarea, Israel 3088903. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * P.AD Ltd., 42 Hamesilla Street, Binyamina, Israel. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. QPS Ltd., a.k.a., the following two aliases:
  • —Quality Parts and Spares; and
  • —Quality Parts and Services.
  • 5 Ner Halayla Street, Caesarea, Israel; and 42 Hamesilla Street, Railway Industrial Area, Binyamina, Israel.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    RSP Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Rebuilt Spare Parts.
  • HA'Assif 19, Binyamina, Israel 30550.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    Wheels Incorporated, HA'Assif 43, Binyamina, Israel 30551 (See alternate address under Panama). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * PANAMA *         *         *         *         *         * Wheels Incorporated, P.O. Box 6—2875, El Dorado, Panama (See alternate address under Israel). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * TAIWAN *         *         *         *         *         * Enrich Ever Technologies Co., Ltd., a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Enrich Ever Technologies Co., 9F No. 38 Ming-Fu 13th Street, Taoyuan, Taiwan; and 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    Hivocal Technology Company, Ltd., 10F, No. 736, Jhongjheng Road, Jhonghe City, Taipei County 235, Taiwan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Infinity Wise Technology Limited, Flat/RMA 6/F, Man Wing Building 503-507 Nathan Road Yaumate 1, Taiwan; and 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road Taoyuan, Taiwan (See alternate addresses under Hong Kong). For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Kuang-Su Corporation, 8F, No. 431, Da-You Road, Taoyuan, Taiwan. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         *         * UNITED ARAB EMIRATES *         *         *         *         *         * Global Merchant General Trading LLC, P.O. Box 39960, Dubai, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Gulf Gate Sea Cargo LLC, No. 508, Bldg P-114, Almaktoum Road, Deirah, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 39948, Dubai, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. Gulf Gate Shipping Co. LLC, No. 508, Bldg P-114, Almaktoum Road, Deirah, Dubai, United Arab Emirates; and P.O. Box 39948, Dubai, U.A.E. For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16. *         *         *         *         *         * Mehrdad Moeinansari, a.k.a., the following one alias:
  • —Mehrdad Ansari. No 7101, Index Tower DIFC, Dubai, U.A.E.; and No 508, Sheikha Maryam Bldg., Deirah, Dubai, U.A.E. 39948.
  • For all items subject to the EAR. (See § 744.11 of the EAR). Presumption of denial 81 FR [INSERT FR PAGE NUMBER] 6/21/16.
    *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: June 9, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14515 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 884 [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1318] Medical Devices; Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Classification of the Gynecologic Laparoscopic Power Morcellation Containment System AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is classifying the gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system into class II (special controls). The special controls that will apply to the device are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system's classification. The Agency is classifying the device into class II (special controls) in order to provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device.

    DATES:

    This order is effective June 21, 2016. The classification was applicable on April 7, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Veronica Price, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G116, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6538, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In accordance with section 513(f)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)), devices that were not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976 (the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976), generally referred to as postamendments devices, are classified automatically by statute into class III without any FDA rulemaking process. These devices remain in class III and require premarket approval, unless and until the device is classified or reclassified into class I or II, or FDA issues an order finding the device to be substantially equivalent, in accordance with section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. The Agency determines whether new devices are substantially equivalent to predicate devices by means of premarket notification procedures in section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807) of the regulations.

    Section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, as amended by section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144), provides two procedures by which a person may request FDA to classify a device under the criteria set forth in section 513(a)(1). Under the first procedure, the person submits a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act for a device that has not previously been classified and, within 30 days of receiving an order classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2). Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act and then a request for classification under the first procedure, the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence and requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. If the person submits a request to classify the device under this second procedure, FDA may decline to undertake the classification request if FDA identifies a legally marketed device that could provide a reasonable basis for review of substantial equivalence with the device or if FDA determines that the device submitted is not of “low-moderate risk” or that general controls would be inadequate to control the risks and special controls to mitigate the risks cannot be developed.

    In response to a request to classify a device under either procedure provided by section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA will classify the device by written order within 120 days. This classification will be the initial classification of the device.

    On June 19, 2015, Advanced Surgical Concepts submitted a request for classification of the PneumoLiner device under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act. The manufacturer recommended that the device be classified into class II (Ref. 1).

    In accordance with section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act, FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1). FDA classifies devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. After review of the information submitted in the request, FDA determined that the device can be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls. FDA believes these special controls, in addition to general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device.

    Therefore, on April 7, 2016, FDA issued an order to the requestor classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 884.4050.

    Following the effective date of this final classification order, any firm submitting a premarket notification (510(k)) for a gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system will need to comply with the special controls named in this final order.

    The device is assigned the generic name gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system and is identified as a prescription device consisting of an instrument port and tissue containment method that creates a working space allowing for direct visualization during a power morcellation procedure following a laparoscopic procedure for the excision of benign gynecologic tissue that is not suspected to contain malignancy.

    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks, in Table 1.

    Table 1—Gynecologic Laparoscopic Power Morcellation Containment System Risks and Mitigation Measures Identified risk Mitigation measure Adverse tissue reaction Biocompatibility. Infection Sterilization validation, shelf life validation, and labeling. Intraperitoneal tissue dissemination (benign or malignant):
  •   • Material permeability;
  • Non-clinical performance testing (bench and animal), shelf life validation, labeling, and training.
    • Improper function of containment device; • Inadequate material strength; • Physical trauma to liner caused by contact with morcellator or grasper/tenaculum; • Damage to liner (intentional or accidental) from instrument inserted through secondary port; • Tearing during removal with loss of contents into abdominal cavity; and • Use error. Traumatic injury to non-target tissue/organ:
  •   • Active end of morcellator or grasper/tenaculum breaches liner;
  • Non-clinical performance testing (bench and animal), labeling, and training.
    • Loss of insufflation; • Inadequate space to perform morcellation; • Inadequate visualization of the laparoscopic instruments and tissue specimen relative to the external viscera; and • Use error. Hernia through abdominal wall incision Labeling and training. Prolongation of procedure and exposure to anesthesia Labeling and training.

    FDA believes that the special controls, in addition to the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

    A gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to direct the use of the device. As such, the device is a prescription device and must satisfy prescription labeling requirements (see 21 CFR 801.109, Prescription devices).

    Section 510(m) of the FD&C Act provides that FDA may exempt a class II device from the premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act if FDA determines that premarket notification is not necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. For this type of device, FDA has determined that premarket notification is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device. Therefore, this device type is not exempt from premarket notification requirements. Persons who intend to market this type of device must submit to FDA a premarket notification, prior to marketing the device, which contains information about the gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system they intend to market.

    II. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120, and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.

    IV. Reference

    The following reference is on display in the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and is available for viewing by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; it is also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov.

    1. DEN150028: De novo request from Advanced Surgical Concepts, dated June 19, 2015.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 884

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 884 is amended as follows:

    PART 884—OBSTETRICAL AND GYNECOLOGICAL DEVICES 1. The authority citation for part 884 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 371.

    2. Add § 884.4050 to subpart E to read as follows:
    § 884.4050 Gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system.

    (a) Identification. A gynecologic laparoscopic power morcellation containment system is a prescription device consisting of an instrument port and tissue containment method that creates a working space allowing for direct visualization during a power morcellation procedure following a laparoscopic procedure for the excision of benign gynecologic tissue that is not suspected to contain malignancy.

    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special controls for this device are:

    (1) The patient-contacting components of the device must be demonstrated to be biocompatible;

    (2) Device components that are labeled sterile must be validated to a sterility assurance level of 10 6;

    (3) Performance data must support shelf life by demonstrating continued sterility of the device or the sterile components, package integrity, and device functionality over the intended shelf life;

    (4) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device meets all design specifications and performance requirements. The following performance characteristics must be tested:

    (i) Demonstration of the device impermeability to tissue, cells, and fluids;

    (ii) Demonstration that the device allows for the insertion and withdrawal of laparoscopic instruments while maintaining pneumoperitoneum;

    (iii) Demonstration that the containment system provides adequate space to perform morcellation and adequate visualization of the laparoscopic instruments and tissue specimen relative to the external viscera;

    (iv) Demonstration that intended laparoscopic instruments and morcellators do not compromise the integrity of the containment system; and

    (v) Demonstration that intended users can adequately deploy the device, morcellate a specimen without compromising the integrity of the device, and remove the device without spillage of contents;

    (5) Training must be developed and validated to ensure users can follow the instructions for use; and

    (6) Labeling must include the following:

    (i) A contraindication for use in gynecologic surgery in which the tissue to be morcellated is known or suspected to contain malignancy;

    (ii) Unless clinical performance data demonstrates that it can be removed or modified, a contraindication for removal of uterine tissue containing suspected fibroids in patients who are: Peri- or postmenopausal, or candidates for en bloc tissue removal, for example, through the vagina or via a mini-laparotomy incision;

    (iii) The following boxed warning: “Warning: Information regarding the potential risks of a procedure with this device should be shared with patients. Uterine tissue may contain unsuspected cancer. The use of laparoscopic power morcellators during fibroid surgery may spread cancer. The use of this containment system has not been clinically demonstrated to reduce this risk.”

    (iv) A statement limiting use of device to physicians who have completed the training program; and

    (v) An expiration date or shelf life.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14627 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 44 [Docket No. TTB-2013-0006; T.D. TTB-137; Re: T.D. TTB-115; Notice No. 137; T.D. ATF-421; T.D. ATF-422; ATF Notice Nos. 887 and 888] RIN 1513-AB37 Importer Permit Requirements for Tobacco Products and Processed Tobacco, and Other Requirements for Tobacco Products, Processed Tobacco and Cigarette Papers and Tubes AGENCY:

    Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; Treasury decision.

    SUMMARY:

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau is adopting as a final rule, without change, a temporary rule concerning permit and other requirements related to importers and manufacturers of tobacco products and processed tobacco published in the Federal Register on June 27, 2013. The regulatory amendments adopted in this final rule include an extension in the duration of new permits for importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco from three years to five years, a technical correction amending the definition of “Manufacturer of tobacco products” to reflect a statutory change, and a technical correction related to references to the sale price of large cigars. This final rule also permanently incorporates and reissues other TTB regulations pertaining to importer permit requirements for tobacco products as well as minimum manufacturing and marking requirements for tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes that also were incorporated in the June 27, 2013, temporary rule.

    DATES:

    Effective July 21, 2016, the temporary regulations published in the Federal Register as T.D. TTB-115 at 78 FR 38555 on June 27, 2013, are adopted as final, and those temporary regulations will no longer have a sunset date of August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jessie Longbrake, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; telephone 202-453-2265; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background TTB Authority

    Chapter 52 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC) contains excise tax and related provisions pertaining to tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes. Section 5701 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5701) imposes various rates of tax on such products manufactured in, or imported into, the United States. Section 5704 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5704) provides for certain exemptions from those taxes. Sections 5712 and 5713 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5712 and 5713) provide that manufacturers and importers of tobacco products or processed tobacco and export warehouse proprietors must apply for and possess a permit in order to engage in such businesses. Section 5712 also allows for the promulgation of regulations prescribing minimum manufacturing and activity requirements for such permittees, and section 5713 also sets forth standards regarding the suspension and revocation of permits. Section 5754 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5754) sets forth restrictions on the importation of previously exported tobacco products. Section 5761 of the IRC (26 U.S.C. 5761) sets forth civil penalties for, among other things, selling, relanding, or receiving any tobacco products or cigarette papers or tubes that were labeled or shipped for exportation.

    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) administers these statutory provisions pursuant to section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2003, codified at 6 U.S.C. 531(d). The Secretary has delegated various authorities through Treasury Department Order 120-01 (dated December 10, 2013, superseding Treasury Order 120-01 (Revised), “Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau,” dated January 24, 2003), to the TTB Administrator to perform the functions and duties in the administration and enforcement of these laws.

    Regulations implementing the Chapter 52 provisions are contained in chapter I of title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (27 CFR). Those regulations include: Part 40 (Manufacture of tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and processed tobacco); part 41 (Importation of tobacco products, cigarette papers and tubes, and processed tobacco); and part 44 (Exportation of tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes, without payment of tax, or with drawback of tax).

    Publication of Temporary Regulations and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On June 27, 2013, TTB published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 38555, T.D. TTB-115 amending the regulations in 27 CFR parts 40, 41, and 44. The temporary rule was effective on August 26, 2013, and would have expired on August 26, 2016, if not finalized prior to that date. In the same issue of the Federal Register, TTB also requested public comments on the temporary rule via a notice of proposed rulemaking, Notice No. 137 (78 FR 38646). TTB received one comment in response to Notice No. 137 by the close of the comment period on August 26, 2013. That comment is discussed in more detail below.

    Notice No. 137 and the Comment Received

    TTB received one comment in response to Notice No. 137, submitted by a Washington, DC law firm on behalf of an individual who imports cigars.

    The comment regards the amendment in the temporary rule, in which TTB inserted the words “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in 27 CFR 41.39, Determination of Sale Price of Large Cigars. Under 26 U.S.C. 5701(a)(2), the Federal excise tax on large cigars manufactured in or imported into the United States is a percentage of the “price for which sold” but not more than a maximum. Currently, the tax is 52.75 percent of the price for which sold but not more than 40.26 cents per cigar. The commenter objects to the “price for which sold” being the price for which the cigars are sold by the importer, and concludes by requesting that TTB not insert “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39, Determination of Sale Price of Large Cigars, and, instead, adopt a regulation to authorize importers of large cigars to base their Federal excise tax calculations on the foreign manufacturer's sales price.

    TTB Response

    In the temporary rule, T.D. TTB-115, TTB did not propose to change its interpretation regarding the Federal excise tax determination of large cigars. Rather, the addition of “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39 is a technical correction intended to bring § 41.39 more clearly into conformity with other regulatory provisions in parts 40 and 41 which already reflect the interpretation by TTB and TTB's predecessor agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), of the text of section 5701(a)(2), that is, that the Federal excise tax for large cigars is based on the sale price at which the cigars are sold by the importer or the United States manufacturer. This interpretation dates to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388), which changed the basis of taxation on large cigars, from the “wholesale price” (generally, the manufacturer's or importer's suggested delivered price at which the cigars are sold to retailers) to the “price for which sold.”

    In T.D. ATF-307 (December 21, 1990; 55 FR 52742), ATF amended its regulations to reflect the new text of section 5701(a)(2). On March 19, 1991, ATF issued Industry Circular 91-3, which provided guidance concerning the implementation of the tax on large cigars and included specific guidance regarding the tax on imported large cigars. The Industry Circular explains how an importer determines the tax on large cigars when the release from customs custody (the taxable event) occurs before the sale of the cigars. In T.D. TTB-78 (June 22, 2009; 74 FR 29401), TTB clarified the definition of “sale price” in § 41.11 by adding the words “United States” before “manufacturer.” (That temporary rule was finalized by T.D. TTB-104 (June 21, 2012, 77 FR 37287).) However, when this change was made, TTB inadvertently failed to make a corresponding change to the operative regulation in § 41.39. Therefore in T.D. TTB-115, TTB made the necessary technical change by adding “United States” before the word “manufacturer” in § 41.39.

    As stated above, the temporary rule did not introduce a substantive change to the TTB regulations regarding the application of the sale price but, rather, made a technical correction to bring § 41.39 more clearly into conformity with other TTB regulatory provisions and with the position stated in Industry Circular 91-3. Thus, the request of the commenter is beyond the scope of the rulemaking.

    Adoption of Final Rule

    TTB adopts as a final rule, without change, the temporary regulatory amendments contained in T.D. TTB-115, effective 30 days from the publication of this document. As a result, TTB is permanently amending its regulations in 27 CFR parts 40, 41, and 44 pertaining to permits for importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco by extending the duration of new permits from three years to five years. In addition, TTB is permanently amending the definition of “Manufacturer of tobacco products” to reflect a recent statutory change, and is amending a reference to the sale price of large cigars to incorporate a clarification published in a prior TTB temporary rule that was finalized in 2012. Finally, this final rule makes permanent regulatory changes pertaining to importer permit requirements for tobacco products, and minimum manufacturing and marking requirements for tobacco products and cigarette papers and tubes.

    Please see T.D. TTB-115 for a detailed discussion of the temporary regulatory amendments finalized by this document, as well as a detailed discussion of the various statutory changes and court actions necessitating regulatory amendments, the earlier related temporary rules and notices of proposed rulemaking issued by ATF (T.D. ATF-421, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71918; Notice No. 887, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71927; T.D. ATF-422, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71947; and Notice No. 888, December 22, 1999, 64 FR 71955), the comments received by ATF on its temporary rules, and other ATF and TTB regulatory documents related to this rulemaking.

    Public Disclosure

    On the Federal e-rulemaking portal, “Regulations.gov,” within Docket No. TTB-2013-0006, you may view copies of this final rule, the related temporary and proposed rules, the comment received in response to the proposed rule, and all other related final and temporary rules and notices of proposed rulemaking issued by ATF and TTB related to this matter. A direct link to that docket is posted on the TTB Web site at https://www.ttb.gov/tobacco/tobacco-rulemaking.shtml under Notice No. 137. You may also reach that docket through the Regulations.gov search page at https://www.regulations.gov.

    You also may view copies of those documents at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- x 11-inch page. Contact TTB's information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-453-2270 to schedule a viewing appointment or to request copies.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), we certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Any effects of this rulemaking on small businesses flow directly from the underlying statutes. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. These regulations also reduce the administrative burden on importers of tobacco products and processed tobacco by requiring that they renew their permits only every five years rather than every three years. Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(f), TTB submitted the temporary regulations and notice of proposed rulemaking to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on the impact of the regulations on small businesses; TTB received no comment in reply.

    Executive Order 12866

    Certain regulations issued pursuant to the IRC, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The collections of information in the regulations contained in this final rule have been previously reviewed and approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)) and assigned control numbers 1513-0002, 1513-0068, 1513-0070, 1513-0078, 1513-0106, and 1513-0107. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The temporary rule did not impose a new collection of information, and this final rule makes no changes to the temporary rule.

    The list of collections of information in the regulations contained in the temporary rule inadvertently omitted control number 1513-0002, which authorizes the collection of information on TTB Form 5000.9, the Personnel Questionnaire. The changes made in the temporary rule increased the paperwork burden associated with the control number by requiring additional submissions of the form. TTB requested comment on the increased number of respondents and total annual burden hours in a document published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2015 (Comment Request No. 51, 80 FR 13072). Based on a comment on TTB Form 5000.9, TTB proposed revisions to the form in a document published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (Comment Request No. 57, 81 FR 1679); comments on this notice were due on March 14, 2016.

    TTB will submit the information collection requirements described in the notice to the Office of Management and Budget for approval. When OMB takes action on the changes, TTB will publish a document in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    Michael D. Hoover of the Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, drafted this document.

    List of Subjects 27 CFR Part 40

    Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Electronic funds transfers, Excise taxes Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Tobacco.

    27 CFR Part 41

    Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Electronic fund transfers, Excise taxes, Imports, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Tobacco, Virgin Islands, Warehouses.

    27 CFR Part 44

    Aircraft, Armed forces, Cigars and cigarettes, Claims, Customs duties and inspection, Excise taxes, Exports, Foreign trade zones, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds, Tobacco, Vessels, Warehouses.

    Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, the temporary rule that amended 27 CFR, chapter I, parts 40, 41, and 44, and published as T.D. TTB-115 at 78 FR 38555 on June 27, 2013, is adopted as a final rule without change.

    Signed: March 28, 2016. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: April 12, 2016. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary. (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2016-14358 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0010] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, on July 9, 2016 and July 10, 2016. This special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and the general public during the event. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from July 9, 2016 through July 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0010 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant John Downing, Sector Charleston Office of Waterways Management, Coast Guard; telephone (843) 740-3184, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    On December 27, 2015, the Bucksport Marina notified the Coast Guard that it will sponsor a series of drag boat races from noon to 7 p.m. on July 9, 2016 and July 10, 2016. In response, on April 6, 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking titled Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC. There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this special local regulation. During the comment period that ended May 6, 2016, we received no comments.

    Under good cause provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), we are making this rule effective less than 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register. The Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective starting July 9, 2016 because this special local regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of life and property during the Bucksport Summer Extravaganza and it would be contrary to public interest not to make this rule effective by July 9, 2016.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233. The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable waters of the United States during the two days of drag boat races.

    IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published April 6, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    From July 9, 2016 through July 10, 2016, Bucksport Marina will host a series of drag boat races on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina during the Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza. Approximately 75 powerboats are anticipated to participate in the races and approximately 35 spectator vessels are expected to attend the event. This rule establishes a special local regulation on certain waters on the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway in Bucksport, South Carolina. The special local regulation will be enforced daily from noon until 7 p.m. on July 9, 2016 and July 10, 2016.

    Except for those persons and vessels participating in the drag boat races, persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the race areas unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within any of the race areas may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the race areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the following reasons: (1) Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement periods if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative; (2) vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas during the enforcement period; (3) the Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the special local regulation to the local maritime community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners; and (4) the safety zone will impact only a small designated area of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway for the 2 days of July 9, and 10, from noon to 7 p.m., and thus is limited in time and scope.

    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 received no comments from the Small Business Administration on this rulemaking. 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 may be small entities: The owner or operators of vessels intending to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the enforcement period. For the reasons discussed in Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a special local regulation issued in conjunction with a regatta or marine parade. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction.

    An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add a temporary § 100.35T07-0010 to read as follows:
    § 100.35T07-0010 Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza, Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway; Bucksport, SC.

    (a) Regulated Area. All waters of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway encompassed by a line connecting the following points: Point 1 in position 33°39′13″ N, 079°05′36″ W; thence west to point 2 in position 33°39′17″ N, 079°05′46″ W; thence south to point 3 in position 33°38′53″ N, 079°05′39″ W; thence east to point 4 in position 33°38′54″ N, 079°05′31″ W; thence north back to point 1. All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.

    (b) Definition. As used in this section, “designated representative” means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Charleston in the enforcement of the regulated areas.

    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area, except persons and vessels participating in Bucksport/Southeastern Drag Boat Summer Extravaganza or serving as safety vessels. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the Port Charleston by telephone at (843) 740-7050, or a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative.

    (2) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area by Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

    (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced daily on July 9 and July 10, 2016, from noon until 7 p.m.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. G.L. Tomasulo, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Charleston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14541 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0004] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Misery Challenge, Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of Manchester Bay to be enforced during the Misery Challenge marine event, which will involve swimmers, kayakers, and stand-up paddlers. This safety zone ensures the protection of the event participants, support vessels, and the maritime public from the hazards associated with the event. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or anchoring within this safety zone during periods of enforcement unless authorized by the Coast Guard Sector Boston Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on July 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0004 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email, call or email Mr. Mark Cutter, Sector Boston Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 617-223-4000, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations DHS Department of Homeland Security U.S.C. United States Code CFR Code of Federal Regulations FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 § Section II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 23, 2015, the Coast Guard was notified of a swimming and stand up paddling event from 7:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. on July 23, 2016 with a weather date on July 24, 2016 named the Misery Challenge. The participants will launch from Tucks Point in Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA and continue around Greater Misery Island returning to Tucks Point. In response, on March 2, 2016, the Coast Guard published an NPRM titled Safety Zone; Misery Challenge, Manchester Bay, Manchester, MA (81 FR 10820). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this event. During the comment period that ended April 1, 2016, we received no comments.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP Boston has determined that potential hazards associated with the event on July 23, 2016 will be a safety concern for the participants and support vessels. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of participants, vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    IV. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published on March 2, 2016. There are no changes in the regulatory text of this rule from the proposed rule in the NPRM.

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on July 23, 2016 with a weather date on July 24, 2016. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within specific geographic locations specified in the regulatory text on the navigable waters of Manchester Bay, Manchester, Massachusetts. Vessels not associated with the event shall maintain a distance of at least 100 yards from the participants. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of event participants, support vessels, and the maritime public before, during, and after the event scheduled from 7:30 a.m. to 12 p.m. 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 appears at the end of this document.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be minimal. This regulation may have some impact on the public, but that potential impact will likely be minimal for several reasons. First, this safety zone will be in effect for only 5 and 1/2 hours in the morning when vessel traffic is expected to be light. Second, vessels may enter or pass through the safety zone during an enforcement period with the permission of the COTP or the designated representative. Finally, the Coast Guard will provide notification to the public through Broadcast Notice to Mariners well in advance of the event.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    For all of the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section, this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it 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 rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting 5 and 1/2 hours that would prohibit entry within 100 yards of the participants and vessels in support of the event. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add a new § 165.T01-0188 to read as follows:
    § 165.T01-0188 Safety Zone—Misery Challenge—Manchester Bay, Manchester, Massachusetts.

    (a) General. Establish a temporary safety zone:

    (1) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters, from surface to bottom, within 100 yards from the participants and vessels in support of events in Manchester Bay, Manchester, Massachusetts, and enclosed by a line connecting the following points (NAD 83):

    Latitude   Longitude 42°34′03″ N. 70°46′42″ W.; thence to 42°33′58″ N. 70°46′33″ W.; thence to 42°32′30″ N. 70°47′43″ W.; thence to 42°32′58″ N. 70°48′40″ W.; thence to point of origin.

    (2) Effective and Enforcement Period. This rule will be effective on July 23, 2016, from 7:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. with a weather date on July 24, 2016.

    (b) Regulations. While this safety zone is being enforced, the following regulations, along with those contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply:

    (1) No person or vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's representatives. However, any vessel that is granted permission by the COTP or the COTP's representatives must proceed through the area with caution and operate at a speed no faster than that speed necessary to maintain a safe course, unless otherwise required by the Navigation Rules.

    (2) Any person or vessel permitted to enter the safety zone shall comply with the directions and orders of the COTP or the COTP's representatives. Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing lights, or other means, the operator of a vessel within the zone shall proceed as directed. Any person or vessel within the safety zone shall exit the zone when directed by the COTP or the COTP's representatives.

    (3) To obtain permissions required by this regulation, individuals may reach the COTP or a COTP representative via VHF channel 16 or 617-223-5757 (Sector Boston Command Center).

    (c) Penalties. Those who violate this section are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 1226.

    (d) Notification. Coast Guard Sector Boston will give notice through the Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners for the purpose of enforcement of this temporary safety zone. Sector Boston will also notify the public to the greatest extent possible of any period in which the Coast Guard will suspend enforcement of this safety zone.

    (e) COTP Representative. The COTP's representative may be any Coast Guard commissioned, or petty officer or any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer who has been designated by the COTP to act on the COTP's behalf. The COTP's representative may be on a Coast Guard vessel, a Coast Guard Auxiliary vessel, a state or local law enforcement vessel, or a location on shore.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. C.C. Gelzer, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14642 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 370 [Docket No. RM 2008-7] Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges published in the Federal Register of May 19, 2016, a document amending regulations that govern reporting requirements for noncommercial educational webcasters that pay no more than the minimum fee for their use of sound recordings under the applicable statutory licenses. Inadvertently, the amendments did not remove a superseded definition and did not include a new defined term in the operative regulations. This document corrects those inadvertent omissions.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: June 21, 2016.

    Applicability Date: May 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Introduction

    The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a final rule in the Federal Register of May 19, 2014, (81 FR 31506) that added a new term, Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster, to the definition section of 37 CFR 370.4. In doing so, the Judges intended to expand relaxed reporting requirements to certain noncommercial educational webcasters that previously had been excluded from such relaxed requirements. The Judges added those webcasters to the group and renamed the group to more precisely describe the members. The new term for the group is “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster.” The new definition includes all entities that qualified under the previous “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” definition and certain noncommercial educational webcasters.

    The amended regulation inadvertently did not reference the new term “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” in the relevant sections of part 370, namely, 37 CFR 370.4(d)(2)(vi) and (vii) and 370.4(d)(3)(i) and (ii). The amended regulation also should have removed the “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” definition, which is no longer necessary.

    The Judges now make the necessary changes to clarify that the reporting requirements in Part 370 that applied to “Minimum Fee Broadcasters” now apply to the more inclusive group, “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters.”

    Final Regulations

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

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

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

    2. In § 370.4: a. In paragraph (b), remove the definition of “Minimum Fee Broadcaster”; b. Revise paragraphs (d)(2)(vi) and (vii) and (d)(3)(i) and (ii).

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 370.4 Reports of use of sound recordings under statutory license for nonsubscription transmission services, preexisting satellite digital audio radio services, new subscription services and business establishment services.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (vi) For a nonsubscription transmission service except those qualifying as eligible minimum fee webcasters: The actual total performances of the sound recording during the reporting period.

    (vii) For a preexisting satellite digital audio radio service, a new subscription service, a business establishment service or a nonsubscription service qualifying as an eligible minimum fee webcaster: The actual total performances of the sound recording during the reporting period or, alternatively, the

    (A) Aggregate Tuning Hours;

    (B) Channel or program name; and

    (C) Play frequency.

    (3) * * *

    (i) For each calendar month of the year by all services other than a nonsubscription service qualifying as an eligible minimum fee webcaster; or

    (ii) For a two-week period (two periods of 7 consecutive days) for each calendar quarter of the year by a nonsubscription service qualifying as an eligible minimum fee webcaster and the two-week period need not consist of consecutive weeks, but both weeks must be completely within the calendar quarter.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge. Approved by: David S. Mao, Acting Librarian of Congress.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14572 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    POSTAL SERVICE 39 CFR Parts 952, 953, 954, 955, 958, 959, 962, 963, 964, 965 Rules of Procedure Before the Judicial Officer AGENCY:

    Postal Service.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This document amends the rules of practice prescribed by the Judicial Officer to implement an electronic filing system and to clarify the assigning judge in matters governed by the Administrative Procedure Act.

    DATES:

    Effective date: July 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Diane Mego, (703) 812-1900, Postal Service Judicial Officer Department, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    Changes to the rules of practice are necessary to accommodate the Judicial Officer Department's electronic filing system and establish rules relative to that system; for the Chief Administrative Law Judge to assign the presiding judge in cases governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.; and to delete the automatic scheduling of a hearing upon receipt of a mailability appeal. Changes to the authority citations are necessary to identify the authority for adjudicating each type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating them under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    B. Explanation of Changes Amendments to 39 CFR Part 952

    The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 952.4, the heading is revised to Office business hours; electronic filing, and the text is amended as follows:

    • The existing paragraph is designated paragraph (a), and is amended to clarify the office hours.

    • Paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    In § 952.9, the heading is revised to Filing; docketing and serving documents, and the text is amended as follows:

    • Paragraph (a) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required and when documents submitted by parties are considered received.

    • Paragraph (b) is amended to include electronic filing and when service of documents on the opposing party is required.

    • Paragraphs (c) and (d) are deleted.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 953

    The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 953.2, concerning initiation, the text is amended to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system. In § 953.4, the heading is revised to Filing, docketing and serving documents; service of notice; reply; motion for summary judgment. The text of § 953.4 is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required, delete the automatic scheduling of a hearing, indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received, provide for service on appellant by the Postal Service, and indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    In § 953.10, concerning presiding officers, the text is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 954

    The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 954.4, the heading is revised to Office business hours; electronic filing and the text is amended as follows:

    • The existing paragraph is designated paragraph (a) and is amended to clarify the office hours.

    • Paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    In § 954.8, concerning pleading, paragraph (a) is amended to indicate electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 955

    In § 955.1, concerning jurisdiction, procedure, and service of documents in proceedings before the Board, paragraph (b)(1) is amended to update the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 958

    The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this type of case under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 958.2, concerning definitions, paragraph (g) is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

    In § 958.19, concerning form and filing of documents, paragraph (b) is amended to indicate electronic filing is required, identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system, and indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

    In § 958.20, the heading is revised to Service, and the text is revised to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 959

    The authority citation is revised to identify the authority for adjudicating this type of case, as well as the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating it under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 959.3, the heading is revised to Office address and business hours; electronic filing. The text is revised to clarify the office hours and new paragraph (b) is added to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    In § 959.9, concerning filing documents for the record, the following paragraphs are amended:

    • Paragraph (a) is amended to require electronic filing and indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    • Paragraph (b) is deleted.

    • Paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph (b) and revised to include when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 962

    The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this case type under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 962.2, concerning definitions, paragraph (i) is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

    In § 962.22, concerning form and filing of documents:

    • Paragraph (a) is amended to require electronic filing and identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    • Paragraph (b) is amended to indicate when documents submitted by the parties are considered received.

    In § 962.23, the heading is revised to Service, and the text is revised to indicate when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 963

    In § 963.3, the heading is revised to Petition; notice of hearing; answer; filing of documents; summary judgment, and the text is revised as follows:

    • The last sentence of paragraph (a) is amended to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    • Paragraph (d) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 964

    The authority citation is revised to identify the Chief Administrative Law Judge's authority for adjudicating this type of case under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    In § 964.3, the heading is revised to Customer petitions, notice of hearing; answer; summary judgment; filing and service, and the text is revised as follows:

    • Paragraph (a) is amended to indicate that electronic filing is required and identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system

    • Paragraph (e), Filing and service, is added to indicate that electronic filing is required, when documents submitted by parties are considered received, and when service of documents on the opposing party is required for purposes of the electronic filing system.

    In § 964.7, concerning presiding officers, the text is amended to have the Chief Administrative Law Judge assign cases.

    Amendments to 39 CFR Part 965

    In § 965.5, concerning initial submissions by parties, the text is revised to indicate that electronic filing is required, and to identify the Internet address for the electronic filing system.

    List of Subjects 39 CFR Part 952

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Lotteries, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 953

    Administrative practice and procedure, Mailability, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 954

    Administrative practice and procedure, Periodicals, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 955

    Administrative practice and procedure, government contracts, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 958

    Administrative practice and procedure, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 959

    Administrative practice and procedure, Privacy, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 962

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fraud, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 963

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 964

    Administrative practice and procedure, Fictitious names or addresses, Fraud, Postal Service.

    39 CFR Part 965

    Administrative practice and procedure, Mail Disputes, Postal Service.

    Accordingly, for the reasons stated, the Postal Service amends 39 CFR parts 952, 953, 954, 955, 958, 959, 962, 963, 964, and 965 as follows:

    PART 952—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO FALSE REPRESENTATION AND LOTTERY ORDERS 1. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR Part 952 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3001, 3005, 3012, 3016; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    2. Revise § 952.4 to read as follows:
    § 952.4 Office business hours; electronic filing.

    (a) The offices of the officials identified in these rules are located at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.

    (b) The Judicial Officer electronic filing system Web site is accessible 24 hours a day at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb.

    3. Revise § 952.9 to read as follows:
    § 952.9 Filing; docketing and serving documents.

    (a) Unless the presiding officer permits otherwise, all documents must be filed using the electronic filing system. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Discovery need not be filed except as may be sought to be included in the record, or as may be ordered by the presiding officer.

    (b) Documents shall be dated and state the docket number and title of the proceeding. Any pleading or other document required by order of the presiding officer to be filed by a specified date must be received in the electronic filing system or by the Recorder on or before such date. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    PART 953—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO MAILABILITY 4. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR Part 953 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3001; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    5. Revise § 953.2 to read as follows:
    § 953.2 Initiation.

    Mailability proceedings are initiated upon the filing of an appeal in the Judicial Officer electronic filing system at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb or with the Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, U.S. Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078.

    6. Revise § 953.4 to read as follows:
    § 953.4 Filing, docketing and serving documents; service of notice; reply; motion for summary judgment.

    (a) Filing. Unless the presiding officer permits otherwise, all documents must be filed using the electronic filing system. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    (b) Service of notice. (1) Upon receiving the appeal, the Recorder shall issue a notice specifying that the Postal Service General Counsel's or Chief Postal Inspector or his or her designee's reply shall be filed within 15 days of receipt of the notice.

    (2) The Recorder shall promptly serve this notice on the parties as follows:

    (i) The notice, with a copy of the appeal, shall be sent to the General Counsel or the Chief Postal Inspector or his or her designee.

    (ii) When the appellant's address is within the United States, the notice, with a copy of the appeal, shall be sent to the postmaster at the office that delivers mail to the appellant's address. The postmaster shall be instructed that, acting personally or through a supervisory employee or a postal inspector, he or she is to serve these documents on the appellant. If the appellant cannot be found within 3 days, the postmaster shall send these documents to the appellant by ordinary mail and forward a statement to the Recorder that is signed by the delivering employee and that specifies the time and place of delivery.

    (iii) When the appellant's address is outside the United States, the notice, with a copy of the appeal, shall be sent to the appellant by registered mail, return receipt requested. A written statement by the Recorder, noting the time and place of mailing, shall be accepted as proof of service in the event a signed and dated return receipt is not received.

    (c) Reply. The General Counsel, the Chief Postal Inspector, or that officer's designee shall file a reply within the aforementioned 15-day period or any period granted by the presiding officer for good cause shown. If the reply so filed fails to address any additional allegation in the appeal, that allegation shall be deemed admitted.

    (d) Motion for summary judgment. Upon motion of the General Counsel, the Chief Postal Inspector, that officer's designee, or the appellant, or on the presiding officer's own initiative, the presiding officer may find that the appeal and answer present no genuine and material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing, and thereupon may render an initial decision upholding or reversing the determination or ruling. The initial decision shall become the final Agency decision if a timely appeal is not taken.

    7. Revise § 953.10 to read as follows:
    § 953.10 Presiding Officers.

    The presiding officer at any hearing shall be an Administrative Law Judge qualified in accordance with law or the Judicial Officer (39 U.S.C. 204). The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall assign cases. The Judicial Officer may preside at the hearing if an Administrative Law Judge is unavailable.

    PART 954—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE DENIAL, SUSPENSION, OR REVOCATON OF PERIODICALS MAIL PRIVILEGES 8. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR part 954 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3685; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    9. Revise § 954.4 to read as follows:
    § 954.4 Office business hours; electronic filing.

    (a) The offices of the officials identified in these rules are located at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. Normal Business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.

    (b) The Judicial Officer electronic filing system Web site is accessible 24 hours a day at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb.

    10. In § 954.8, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 954.8 Pleading.

    (a) Filing and service. All documents required under this part must be filed using the electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished. The Recorder shall maintain a docket and the files in all proceedings.

    PART 955—RULES OF PRACTICE BEFORE THE POSTAL SERVICE BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 11. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 955 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401; 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109.

    12. In § 955.1, revise the final sentence of paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 955.1 Jurisdiction, procedure, service of documents.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * * The Web site for electronic filing is https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb.

    PART 958—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO CIVIL PENALTIES, CLEAN-UP COSTS AND DAMAGES FOR VIOLATION OF HAZARDOUS MATERIAL REGULATIONS 13. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR part 958 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3001, 3018; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    14. In § 958.2, revise paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 958.2 Definitions.

    (g) Presiding Officer refers to an Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing, or to the Judicial Officer, if an Administrative Law Judge is not available.

    15. In § 958.19, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 958.19 Form and Filing of documents.

    (b) All pleadings and documents required under this part must be filed using the Judicial Officer electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. The Judicial Officer electronic filing system Web site is accessible 24 hours a day at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.

    16. Revise § 958.20 to read as follows:
    § 958.20 Service.

    If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    PART 959—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE PRIVATE EXPRESS STATUTES 17. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR part 959 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401; 601-606; 18 U.S.C. 1693-1699; 5 U.S.C. 554; 39 CFR 310, 320.

    18. Revise § 959.3 to read as follows:
    § 959.3 Office address and business hours; electronic filing

    (a) The offices of the officials identified in these rules are located at 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. Normal Business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.

    (b) The Judicial Officer electronic filing system Web site is accessible 24 hours a day at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb.

    19. Revise § 959.9 to read as follows:
    § 959.9 Filing documents for the record.

    (a) All documents required under this part must be filed using the electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    (b) Documents shall be dated and state the title of the proceeding and, except initial petitions, the docket number. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours.

    PART 962—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES ACT 20. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR part 962 to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 3801-12; 39 U.S.C. 401; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    21. In § 962.2, revise paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 962.2 Definitions.

    (i) Presiding Officer refers to an Administrative Law Judge designated by the Chief Administrative Law Judge to conduct a hearing authorized by 31 U.S.C. 3803.

    22. In § 962.22, revise the introductory text of paragraph (a) and revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 962.22 Form and filing of documents.

    (a) All pleadings and documents required under this part must be filed using the Judicial Officer electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. The Judicial Officer electronic filing system Web site is accessible 24 hours a day at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb. Every pleading filed in a proceeding under this part must:

    (b) Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays.

    23. Revise § 962.23 to read as follows:
    § 962.23 Service.

    If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    PART 963—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO VIOLATIONS OF THE PANDERING ADVERTISEMENTS STATUTE, 39 U.S.C. 3008 24. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 963 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3008.

    25. In § 963.3, the final sentence of paragraph (a) is revised and paragraph (d) is revised to read as follows:
    § 963.3 Petition; notice of hearing; answer; filing; summary judgment.

    (a) * * * The Manager will forward each timely petition to the Recorder through the Judicial Officer Department electronic filing system at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb.

    (d) Filing. All documents required under this part must be filed using the electronic filing system (https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb) unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished. The Recorder shall maintain a docket and the files in all proceedings.

    PART 964—RULES OF PRACTICE GOVERNING DISPOSITION OF MAIL WITHHELD FROM DELIVERY PURSUANT TO 39 U.S.C. 3003, 3004 26. Revise the authority citation for 39 CFR part 964 to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401, 3003, 3004; 5 U.S.C. 554.

    27. In § 964.3, revise the second and third sentences of paragraph (a), and add paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 964.3 Customer petitions; notice of hearing; answer; summary judgment; filing and service.

    (a) Petition. * * * The Petition, signed by the Petitioner or his or her attorney, shall be filed via the Judicial Officer Electronic filing system at https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb or via certified mail to the Recorder, Judicial Officer Department, United States Postal Service, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22201-3078. The Petition must be filed within 14 days of the date upon which the Petitioner received the notice. * * *

    (e) Filing and service. All documents required under this part must be filed using the electronic filing system unless the presiding officer permits otherwise. Documents submitted using the electronic filing system are considered filed as of the date/time (Eastern Time) reflected in the system. Documents mailed to the Recorder are considered filed on the date mailed as evidenced by a United States Postal Service postmark. Filings by any other means are considered filed upon receipt by the Recorder of a complete copy of the filing during normal business hours. Normal business hours are between 8:45 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. (Eastern Time), Monday through Friday except holidays. If both parties are participating in the electronic filing system, separate service upon the opposing party is not required. Otherwise, documents shall be served personally or by mail on the opposing party, noting on the document filed, or on the transmitting letter, that a copy has been so furnished.

    28. In § 964.7, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 964.7 Presiding officers.

    (a) The presiding officer shall be an Administrative Law Judge qualified in accordance with law or the Judicial Officer. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall assign cases. The Judicial Officer may preside at the hearing if an Administrative Law Judge is unavailable.

    PART 965—RULES OF PRACTICE IN PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO MAIL DISPUTES 29. The authority citation for 39 CFR part 965 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    39 U.S.C. 204, 401.

    30. Revise § 965.5 to read as follows:
    § 965.5 Initial submissions by parties.

    Within 15 days after receipt of the Recorder's notice, each party shall file via the Judicial Officer electronic filing system (https://uspsjoe.justware.com/justiceweb) a sworn statement of the facts supporting its claim to receipt of the mail together with a copy of each document on which it relies in making such claim, and any arguments supporting its claim. Unless the presiding officer otherwise permits, all documents relative to this proceeding must be filed using the electronic filing system.

    Stanley F. Mires, Attorney, Federal Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14553 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No. 150903814-5999-02] RIN 0648-XE679 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Summer Flounder Fishery; Quota Transfer AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; quota transfer.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2016 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. These quota adjustments are necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provision. This announcement informs the public of the revised commercial quotas for Virginia and North Carolina.

    DATES:

    Effective June 20, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Scheimer, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9236.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. The regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described in § 648.102.

    The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan, as published in the Federal Register on December 17, 1993 (58 FR 65936), provided a mechanism for transferring summer flounder commercial quota from one state to another. Two or more states, under mutual agreement and with the concurrence of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Administrator, can transfer or combine summer flounder commercial quota under § 648.102(c)(2). The Regional Administrator is required to consider the criteria in § 648.102(c)(2)(i)(A) through (C) in the evaluation of requests for quota transfers or combinations.

    North Carolina is transferring 3,732 lb (1,693 kg) of summer flounder commercial quota to Virginia. This transfer was requested by North Carolina to repay landings by a North Carolina-permitted vessel that landed in Virginia under a safe harbor agreement.

    The revised summer flounder quotas for calendar year 2016 are now: Virginia, 1,759,561 lb (798,123 kg); and North Carolina, 2,143,714 lb (972,372 kg) based on the initial quotas published in the 2016-2018 Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass Specifications and previous 2016 quota transfers as referenced in Table 1.

    Table 1—2016 Summer Flounder Quota Transfers 2016 Specifications Initial Quota Transfer No. 1 Transfer No. 2 Transfer No. 3 Quota Transfer NC to MA, RI, NJ, and VA NC to NJ and MA VA to MA. Federal Register 80 FR 80689 81 FR 12030 81 FR 22032 81 FR 24714. Effective Date January 1, 2016 March 7, 2016 April 13, 2016 April 26, 2016. Publication Date December 28, 2015 March 8, 2016 April 14, 2016 April 27, 2016. Classification

    This action is taken under 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: June 16, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14650 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 119 Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Part 431 [Docket Number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040] RIN 1904-AC83 Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Compressors; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Extension of public comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 19, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for compressor energy conservation standards. This document announces an extension of the public comment period for submitting comments on the NOPR or any other aspect of the energy conservation standards rulemaking for compressors. The comment period is extended to August 17, 2016.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the proposed rule published on May 19, 2016 (81 FR 31679), is extended. DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this rulemaking received no later than August 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 1904-AC83, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040 and/or RIN 1904-AC83 in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. [Please note that comments and CDs sent by mail are often delayed and may be damaged by mail screening processes.]

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone (202) 586-2945. If possible, please submit all items on CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Docket: The docket is available for review at www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, framework documents, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

    The rulemaking Web page can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/78. The Web page contains a link to the docket for this document on the www.regulations.gov site. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains instructions on how to access all documents in the docket, including public comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8654. Email: [email protected]

    For legal issues, please contact Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On May 19, 2016, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for compressors. 81 FR 31679. The document provided for submitting written comments, data, and information by July 18, 2016. DOE has received a request from the Compressed Air & Gas Institute (CAGI), dated May 25, 2016, to provide additional time in which to submit comments pertaining to the rulemaking for compressors. This request can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0039. An extension of the comment period would allow additional time for CAGI and other interested parties to examine the data, information, and analysis presented in the compressors Technical Support Document (TSD), gather any additional data and information to address the proposed standards, and submit comments to DOE. The TSD can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0040-0037. In view of the request from CAGI, DOE has determined that a 30-day extension of the public comment period is appropriate. The comment period is extended to August 17, 2016.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 13, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14480 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Part 705 RIN 3133-AE58 Community Development Revolving Loan Fund AGENCY:

    National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The NCUA Board (Board) proposes to make several technical amendments to NCUA's rule governing the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund (CDRLF). The proposed amendments would make the rule more succinct and update it to improve its transparency, organization, and ease of use by credit unions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (Please send comments by one method only):

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

    NCUA Web site: https://www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/Pages/rules/proposed.aspx. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Email: Address to [email protected] Include “[Your name] Comments on Proposed Rule 705, CDRLF Amendments” in the email subject line.

    Fax: (703) 518-6319. Use the subject line described above for email.

    Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board, National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as mail address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Geetha Valiyil, Manager, Grants and Loans, Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives, or Justin Anderson, Senior Staff Attorney, Office of General Counsel, at 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 or telephone (703) 518-6645 (Ms. Valiyil) or (703) 518-6540 (Mr. Anderson).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Background

    Congress created the CDRLF in 1979 with an initial appropriation of $6 million and transferred its exclusive administration to NCUA in 1986. The CDRLF is a source of financial support, in the form of loans and technical assistance grants, for credit unions serving predominantly low-income members. It also serves as a source of funding to help low-income credit unions respond to emergencies arising in their communities. The Board has delegated authority to the Office of Small Credit Union Initiatives to determine how to allocate the finite resources of the CDRLF among qualifying credit unions. Awards provided through the CDRLF have strengthened credit unions by enabling them to increase their capacity to support the communities in which they operate. This increased capacity has allowed credit unions to provide basic financial services to low-income residents in those communities, resulting in more opportunities for residents to improve their financial circumstances.

    In 2011, the Board substantially revised Part 705 to make the rule clearer and more user friendly, as well as to eliminate outdated and unnecessary provisions.1 The proposed amendments in this rule are largely technical in nature or help to clarify NCUA's practices with respect to disbursing money from the CDRLF.

    1 76 FR 67583 (Nov. 2, 2011).

    B. Section by Section Analysis

    § 705.1. Authority, Purpose and Scope. The Board proposes to reorganize this section to make it clearer, including deleting unnecessary provisions. These proposed amendments do not include any substantive changes.

    § 705.2. Definitions. The Board proposes to remove the definitions of the terms “Board,” “Credit Union,” and “Fund” from this section as these terms are defined elsewhere in part 705 or in part 700 of NCUA's regulations.2 The Board also proposes to remove the cross-reference to § 705.6 in the definition of the term “Notice of Funding Opportunity” as unnecessary.

    2 12 CFR part 700.

    § 705.5. Terms and Conditions. The Board proposes to add the words “for loans” to the title of this section to clarify that it only applies to CDRLF loans, and not technical assistance grants. As discussed in more detail below, the Board also proposes to add a separate “terms and conditions” section for technical assistance grants. This will improve the usability of the rule.

    Section 705.5(b) includes a maximum aggregate loan amount of $300,000 for CDRLF loans. The Board proposes to remove the dollar amount from this section, as it is unnecessary and inaccurate. NCUA may grant loans in any amount it sees fit. The dollar amount of individual CDRLF loans may continue to rise in connection with need and economic conditions. Rather than maintaining an outdated reference to a specific dollar amount in the rule, the Board proposes to amend the rule by providing that any CDRLF loan limits will be published in NCUA's Notice of Funding Opportunity.3 This approach is more practical than having to update the rule each time the loan funding limit changes. The Board proposes to make a similar amendment with respect to technical assistance grants.

    3Notice of Funding Opportunity, as more fully defined in § 705.6 of NCUA's regulations, means the notice NCUA publishes describing one or more loan or technical assistance grant programs or initiatives being supported by the CDRLF and inviting interested qualifying credit unions to submit applications to participate in the program or initiative.

    The Board proposes to amend § 705.5(h) by adding “security agreements” to the list of terms and conditions that the section provides will be addressed in the related Notice of Funding Opportunity or applicable loan documents. The Board notes that this is not a substantive change, but rather reflects NCUA's current practice of including other terms and conditions related to loans in a Notice of Funding Opportunity or loan documents, including security agreements.

    Current § 705.10. Technical assistance grants. Current § 705.10 contains some provisions detailing the terms and conditions that apply to technical assistance grants. The Board, proposes to simplify and condense this provision and to include most of that information in the Notice of Funding Opportunity. The amended regulatory language will then be redesignated as proposed § 705.6. This proposed amendment is not a substantive change. Rather, it is a reorganization that reflects NCUA's preference to provide such pertinent information in a Notice of Funding Opportunity. The Board notes that these amendments preserve NCUA's flexibility to issue grants based on the needs of credit unions.

    Current § 705.6. Application and award processes. In conformity with the above amendment regarding terms and conditions for technical assistance grants, the Board proposes to redesignate current § 705.6 as proposed § 705.7. Further, the Board proposes to amend the application and award processes provisions of current § 705.6 to more accurately reflect NCUA's actual practices as follows.

    The Board proposes to remove any reference to NCUA publishing a Notice of Funding Opportunity on other government Web sites. NCUA is not legally required to do so and it currently does not do so. NCUA currently publishes a Notice of Funding Opportunity on its Web site and in the Federal Register. The Board also proposes to provide that NCUA uses press releases as one method of supplementing information in a Notice of Funding Opportunity. This amendment only clarifies current NCUA practice.

    The current rule states that NCUA will only provide a CDRLF loan or technical assistance grant with the concurrence of the applicable regional director.4 NCUA's practice, however, is to only require regional director concurrence for loans, not technical assistance grants. Accordingly, the Board proposes to remove from the rule the current requirement for regional director concurrence for technical assistance grants.

    4 12 CFR 705.6(c)(4).

    With respect to CDRLF loan approval for federally insured, state-chartered credit unions (FISCUs), the Board proposes to make the concurrence process more efficient. Specifically, rather than requiring a FISCU to obtain concurrence from its state supervisory authority (SSA) before NCUA considers the FISCU's loan application, the Board proposes to clarify that, while SSA concurrence is still required, a FISCU is not required to obtain such concurrence before applying for a loan. Under this proposed rule, NCUA would obtain concurrence directly from the SSA rather than through the FISCU. However, the Board encourages a FISCU applying for a loan to notify its SSA of its application. This amendment will make the overall application process less burdensome for FISCUs.

    The Board proposes to reorganize and consolidate the disbursement provisions for loans (current § 705.6(g)) and technical assistance grants (current § 705.10) to better organize the rule. The Board also proposes to reorganize the appeals provisions and consolidate them into proposed § 705.10 (appeals).

    § 705.9. Reporting and Monitoring. This section requires all participating credit unions to report to their members their progress in providing community support. Credit unions are also required to submit a copy of any such report to NCUA. The Board notes, however, that NCUA's current practice is only to monitor reports relating to CDRLF loans, not technical assistance grants. While the Board believes all credit unions should be as transparent as possible to members, the Board also wants to eliminate unnecessary burdens on participating credit unions. Therefore, the Board proposes to clarify that NCUA encourages rather than mandates credit union reporting to members with respect to technical assistance grants. This does not change the reporting requirement related to CDRLF loans. The Board notes that a credit union may satisfy the requirements of this section by using any method that results in all members receiving a copy of the written report, including emailing a copy of the report to members that have access to email.

    Regulatory Procedures Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires NCUA to prepare an analysis to describe any significant economic impact any proposed regulation may have on a substantial number of small entities. NCUA considers credit unions having less than ten million dollars in assets to be small for purposes of RFA. The proposed revisions to part 705 are designed to update and streamline the rule, thereby reducing the burden for credit unions that are seeking financial awards, whether in the form of a technical assistance grant or a loan. NCUA has determined and certifies that this proposed rule, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small credit unions. Accordingly, the NCUA has determined that an RFA analysis is not required.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) applies to rulemakings in which an agency by rule creates a new paperwork burden or increases an existing burden. For purposes of the PRA, a paperwork burden may take the form of a reporting or recordkeeping requirement, both referred to as information collections. The proposed changes in this rulemaking are technical in nature and will not create new paperwork burdens or modify any existing paperwork burdens.

    Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 encourages independent regulatory agencies to consider the impact of their actions on state and local interests. In adherence to fundamental federalism principles, NCUA, an independent regulatory agency as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5), voluntarily complies with the executive order. This rulemaking will not have a substantial direct effect on the states, on the connection between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. NCUA has determined that this proposal does not constitute a policy that has federalism implications for purposes of the executive order.

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999—Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families

    The NCUA has determined that this proposed rule will not affect family well-being within the meaning of section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (1998).

    List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 705

    Community programs, Credit unions, Grants, Loans, Low income, Revolving fund.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on June 16, 2016. Gerard Poliquin, Secretary of the Board.

    For the reasons stated above, NCUA proposes to amend 12 CFR part 705 as follows:

    PART 705—COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REVOLVING LOAN FUND FOR CREDIT UNIONS 1. The authority citation for part 705 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1756, 1757(5)(D), and (7)(I), 1766, 1782, 1784, 1785 and 1786.

    2. Revise § 705.1(c) through (e) to read as follows:
    § 705.1 Authority, purpose, and scope.

    (c) NCUA's policy is to revolve the loan funds to credit unions as often as practical in order to achieve maximum economic impact on as many credit unions as possible.

    (d) The financial awards provided to credit unions through the Fund will better enable them to support the communities in which they operate; provide basic financial services to low-income residents of these communities, and result in more opportunities for the residents of those communities to improve their financial circumstances.

    (e) The Fund is intended to support the efforts of credit unions through loans and technical assistance grants needed for:

    (1) Providing basic financial and related services to residents in their communities;

    (2) Enhancing their capacity to better serve their members and the communities in which they operate; and

    (3) Responding to emergencies.

    3. Revise § 705.2 to read as follows:
    § 705.2 Definitions.

    For purposes of this part, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them in this section.

    Application means a form supplied by the NCUA by which a Qualifying Credit Union may apply for a loan or a technical assistance grant from the Fund.

    Loan is an award in the form of an extension of credit from the Fund to a Participating Credit Union that must be repaid, with interest.

    Low-income Members are those members defined in § 701.34 of this chapter.

    Notice of Funding Opportunity means the Notice NCUA publishes describing one or more loan or technical assistance grant programs or initiatives currently being supported by the Fund and inviting Qualifying Credit Unions to submit applications to participate in the program(s) or initiatives(s).

    Participating Credit Union refers to a Qualifying Credit Union that has submitted an application for a loan or a technical assistance grant from the Fund which has been approved by NCUA. A Participating Credit Union shall not be deemed to be an agency, department, or instrumentality of the United States because of its receipt of a financial award from the Fund.

    Program means the Community Development Revolving Loan Fund Program under which NCUA makes loans and technical assistance grants available to credit unions.

    Qualifying Credit Union means a credit union that may be, or has agreed to be, examined by NCUA, with a current low-income designation pursuant to § 701.34(a)(1) or § 741.204 of this chapter or, in the case of a non-federally insured, state-chartered credit union, a low-income designation from a state regulator, made under appropriate state standards with the concurrence of NCUA. Services to low-income members must include, at a minimum, offering share accounts and loans.

    Technical Assistance Grant means an award of money from the Fund to a Participating Credit Union that does not have to be repaid.

    4. Amend § 705.5 by: a. Revising the section heading and paragraph (b); and b. In paragraph (h) adding the words “security agreements (if any),” between the words “repayment obligations,” and “and covenants”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    § 705.5 Terms and conditions for loans.

    (b) Funding limits. NCUA will publish any applicable loan funding limits in the applicable Notice of Funding Opportunity.

    §§ 705.6 and 705.7 [Redesignated as §§ 705.7 and 705.8]
    5. Redesignate §§ 705.6 and 705.7 as §§ 705.7 and 705.8, respectively. 6. Add new § 705.6 to read as follows:
    § 705.6 Terms and conditions for technical assistance grants.

    (a) Participating Credit Unions must comply with the terms and conditions for technical assistance grants specified for each funding opportunity offered under a Notice of Funding Opportunity.

    (b) NCUA will establish applicable funding limits for technical assistance grants in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.

    7. Amend newly redesignated § 705.7 by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(4), (f), and (g) to read as follows:
    § 705.7 Application and award processes.

    (a) Notice of Funding Opportunity. NCUA will publish a Notice of Funding Opportunity in the Federal Register and on its Web site. The Notice of Funding Opportunity will describe the loan and technical assistance grant programs for the period in which funds are available. It also will announce special initiatives, the amount of funds available, funding priorities, permissible uses of funds, funding limits, deadlines, and other pertinent details. The Notice of Funding Opportunity will also advise potential applicants on how to obtain an Application and related materials. NCUA may supplement the information contained in the Notice of Funding Opportunity through such other media as it determines appropriate, including Letters to Credit Unions, press releases, direct notices to Qualifying Credit Unions, and announcements on its Web site.

    (c) * * *

    (4) Examination information and applicable concurrence. In evaluating a Qualifying Credit Union, NCUA will consider all information provided by NCUA staff or state supervisory authority staff that performed the Qualifying Credit Union's most recent examination. In addition:

    (i) NCUA will only provide a loan to a qualifying federal credit union with the concurrence of that credit union's supervising Regional Director; and

    (ii) NCUA will only provide a loan to a qualifying state-charted credit union with the written concurrence of the applicable Regional Director and the credit union's state supervisory authority. A qualifying state-chartered credit union should notify its state supervisory authority that it is applying for a loan from the Fund before submitting its application to NCUA. However, a qualifying state-chartered credit union is not required to obtain concurrence before applying for a loan. NCUA will obtain the concurrence directly from the state supervisory authority rather than through the qualifying state-chartered credit union. Additionally, before NCUA will provide a loan to a qualifying state-charted credit union the credit union must make copies of its state examination reports available to NCUA and agree to examination by NCUA.

    (f) Notice of award. NCUA will determine whether an application meets NCUA's standards established by this part and the related Notice of Funding Opportunity. NCUA will provide written notice to a Qualifying Credit Union as to whether or not it has qualified for a loan or technical assistance grant under this part. A Qualifying Credit Union whose application has been denied for failure of a qualification may appeal that decision in accordance with § 705.10.

    (g) Disbursement—(1) Loans. Before NCUA will disburse a loan, the Participating Credit Union must sign the loan agreement, promissory note, and any other loan related documents. NCUA may, in its discretion, choose not to disburse the entire amount of the loan at once.

    (2) Technical assistance grants. NCUA will disburse technical assistance grants in such amounts, and in accordance with such terms and conditions, as NCUA may establish. In general, technical assistance grants are provided on a reimbursement basis, to cover expenditures approved in advance by NCUA and supported by receipts evidencing payment by the Participating Credit Union.

    8. Revise § 705.9(b) to read as follows:
    § 705.9 Reporting and monitoring.

    (b) Reporting—(1) Reporting to NCUA. A Participating Credit Union must complete and submit to NCUA all required reports, at such times and in such formats as NCUA will direct. Such reports must describe how the Participating Credit Union has used the loan or technical assistance grant proceeds and the results it has obtained, in relation to the programs, policies, or initiatives identified by the Participating Credit Union in its application. NCUA may request additional information as it determines appropriate.

    (2) Reporting to members.—(i) Loans. A Participating Credit Union that receives a loan under this part must report on the progress of providing needed community services to the Participating Credit Union's members once a year, either at the annual meeting or in a written report sent to all members. The Participating Credit Union must also submit to NCUA the written report or a summary of the report provided to members.

    (ii) Technical assistance grants. A Participating Credit Union that receives a technical assistance grant under this part should report on the progress of providing needed community services to the Participating Credit Union's members once a year, either at the annual meeting or in a written report sent to all members.

    9. Revise § 705.10 to read as follows:
    § 705.10 Appeals.

    (a) Appeals of non-qualification. A Qualifying Credit Union whose application for a loan or technical assistance grant has been denied, under § 705.7(f), for failure of a qualification may appeal that decision to the NCUA Board in accordance with the following:

    (1) Within thirty days of its receipt of a notice of non-qualification, a credit union may appeal the decision to the NCUA Board. The scope of the NCUA Board's review is limited to the threshold question of qualification and not the issue of whether, among qualified applicants, a particular loan or technical assistance grant is funded.

    (2) The foregoing procedure shall apply only with respect to Applications received by NCUA during an open period in which funds are available and NCUA has called for Applications. Any Application submitted by an applicant during a period in which NCUA has not called for Applications will be rejected, except for those Applications submitted under § 705.8. Any such rejection shall not be subject to appeal or review by the NCUA Board.

    (b) Appeals of technical assistance grant reimbursement denials. Pursuant to NCUA Interpretative Ruling and Policy Statement 11-1, any Participating Credit Union may appeal a denial of a technical assistance grant reimbursement to NCUA's Supervisory Review Committee. All appeals of technical assistance grant reimbursements must be submitted to the Supervisory Review Committee within 30 days from the date of the denial. The decisions of the Supervisory Review Committee are final and may not be appealed to the NCUA Board.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14718 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. This proposed AD would require a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    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-2016-7264; 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:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    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-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0206, dated October 12, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly line, it was discovered that wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the structural integrity of the aeroplane.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued Service Bulletin (SB) A330-53-3261, SB A330-53-3262, and SB A340-53-5072, as applicable to aeroplane type, to provide instructions to identify the affected parts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) [eddy current conductivity measurements] of certain cabin and/or cargo compartment parts for material identification and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

    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-2016-7264.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated June 23, 2015.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    • Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. 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 these same type designs.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 11 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 $34,595, or $935 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any on-condition repairs would take about 45 work-hours and would require parts costing $0, for a cost of $3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these repairs.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, having manufacturer serial numbers identified in Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, dated June 23, 2015; and/or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, dated June 23, 2015.

    (2) Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, manufacturer serial numbers 1030, 1040, 1079, 1091, 1102, and 1122.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture several structural parts. We are issuing this AD to detect and replace structural parts made of incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) One-time Measurement

    Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness: Do a one-time eddy current conductivity measurement of the cabin and cargo compartment structural parts identified in the “Affected Part Number” column of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, including Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated June 23, 2015.

    (2) For cabin structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin

    A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    (3) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A340 airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

    Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD—Parts To Be Inspected/Installed Affected part No. Acceptable
  • replacement
  • part No.
  • Area
    F5347126620600 F5347126620000 Cabin F5347126621000 F5347126620400 Cabin F5347170420400 F5347170420400 Cargo F5347170420600 F5347170420600 Cargo F5377004320300 F5377004320051 Cargo F5397096620200 F5397096620200 Cargo G5367131300000 G5367131300000 Cargo G5367173700000 G5367173700000 Cargo G5367173800000 G5367173800000 Cargo
    (h) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, any affected part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD is found to have a measured value greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02, “Inspection Flowchart,” of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD: Before further flight, replace with an acceptable replacement part having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.

    (i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0206, dated October 12, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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 June 9, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14430 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7415; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-076-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH (Airbus Helicopters) Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters. This proposed AD would require repetitive visual inspections and a one-time torque of each hydraulic module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This proposed AD is prompted by a design reassessment showing the current attachment point design is insufficient in preventing an attachment point failure. The proposed actions are intended to prevent failure of an attachment point, loss of the hydraulic module plate, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7415; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed rule, contact Airbus Helicopters, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX 75052; telephone (972) 641-0000 or (800) 232-0323; fax (972) 641-3775; or at http://www.airbushelicopters.com/techpub. You may review the referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy, Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28, 2015, to correct an unsafe condition for Airbus Helicopters Model MBB-BK117 C-2, MBB-BK117 C-2e, MBB-BK117 D-2, and MBB-BK117 D-2m helicopters. EASA advises that the hydraulic plate assembly on certain MBB-BK117 models has four attachment points on the fuselage secured by a single locking mechanism. According to EASA, a design reassessment revealed stiffness of the hydraulic plate may be insufficient in the event one of the four single locking attachment points fails. EASA states that if this condition is not detected and corrected, it may lead to loss of the hydraulic module plate and possible loss of control of the helicopter. Therefore, the EASA AD requires a repetitive inspection and one-time torque tightening of the attachment points in accordance with Airbus Helicopters' service information. EASA considers its AD an interim action and states further AD action may follow.

    FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Germany and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA, its technical representative, has notified us of the unsafe condition described in its AD. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all known relevant information and determined that an unsafe condition is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 and Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, both Revision 0, and both dated October 12, 2015. This service information specifies a repetitive visual inspection for condition and correct installation of the attachment points, and if there is a crack, replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support. This service information also specifies a tightening torque check after the initial inspection and, if torque cannot be applied, replacing the affected parts and contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support.

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

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require, within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS, performing a visual inspection of each attachment point of the hydraulic module plate assembly for a crack and proper installation. This proposed AD would also require, within 100 hours TIS, applying torque to the nuts of each attachment point.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires contacting Airbus Helicopters customer support when replacing affected parts, and this proposed AD would not.

    Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD to be an interim action. Airbus Helicopters is currently developing a modification that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once this modification is developed, approved, and available, we might consider additional rulemaking.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 134 helicopters of U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order to comply with this AD. We estimate the cost of labor at $85 per work-hour.

    Visually inspecting the four attachment points would take about 0.75 work-hour for an estimated cost of $64 per helicopter and $8,576 for the U.S. fleet per inspection cycle. Inspecting the torque of the four attachment points would take about 0.25 work-hour an estimated cost of $21 per helicopter and $2,814 for the U.S. fleet. Replacing any of the attachment point parts would take a minimal amount of time and parts would cost about $48 per attachment point.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

    For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2016-7415; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-076-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model MBB-BK 117 C-2 and MBB-BK 117 D-2 helicopters with a hydraulic module plate assembly part number B291M0003103 with a single locking attachment point installed, certificated in any category.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as failure of a hydraulic module plate assembly attachment point (attachment point). This condition could result in loss of the hydraulic module plate and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 22, 2016.

    (d) Compliance

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

    (e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS):

    (i) Visually inspect the split pins, castellated nuts, plugs, nuts, and hexagon bolts of each attachment point for a crack and for proper installation by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.B.1.2.a. through 3.B.1.2.e., of Airbus Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003), or Airbus Helicopters ASB No. ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, Revision 0, dated October 12, 2015 (ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001), as applicable to your model helicopter. Replace any part that has a crack before further flight. If the split pins, castellated nuts, or hexagon bolts are not as depicted in Figure 2 of ASB MBB-BK117 C-2-29A-003 or ASB MBB-BK117 D-2-29A-001, before further flight, properly install them.

    (ii) Apply a torque of 9 to 10 Nm to the left-hand and right-hand nuts of each attachment point. If a torque of 9 to 10 Nm cannot be applied, replace the affected nut before further flight.

    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS, perform the inspection in paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this AD.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Safety Management Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5110; email [email protected]

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

    (g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2015-0210R1, Revision 1, dated October 28, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in the AD Docket.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 2900, Hydraulic Power System.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 9, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14470 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer spring beam support fitting. This proposed AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections for cracking in the strut side skin; an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions; and a fastener installation modification. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the strut side skin; such cracking could result in the failure of the outer spring beam support fitting, which could cause separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7261.

    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-2016-7261; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    We have received a report indicating cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and CRES outer spring beam support fitting. This condition, if not corrected, could result in the failure of the outer spring beam support fitting, which could cause separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015. The service information describes procedures for repetitive high HFEC inspections for cracking in the strut side skin, an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.” For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7261.

    The phrase “related investigative actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Related investigative actions” are follow-on actions that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an AD could include, for example, inspections.

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this proposed AD. “Corrective actions” correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods, modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 320 airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspection 291 work-hours × $85 per hour = $24,735 per inspection cycle $0 $24,735 per inspection cycle $7,915,200 per inspection cycle. Modification Up to 490 work-hours × $85 per hour = $41,650 56,414 Up to $98,064 Up to $31,380,480. Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80 series engines or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines; as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54; Nacelles/pylons.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer spring beam support fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the strut side skin; such cracking could result in the failure of the outer spring beam support fitting, which could cause separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during flight.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracking of the strut side skin, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, until the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD are done. If any cracking is found, do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (h) Terminating Actions

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Do a fastener hole open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation modification, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight. Doing the actions required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) The Condition column in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, refers to total flight cycles “at the original issue date of this service bulletin.” This AD, however, applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as of the effective date of this AD.

    (3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions, and specifies that action as “RC” (Required for Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, for service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6428; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, 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 June 3, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14293 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-192-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the aft pressure bulkhead web for any cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion; and corrective actions if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax 206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6901.

    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-2016-6901; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-192-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

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

    Discussion

    Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as widespread fatigue damage. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.

    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that DAHs establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.

    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness directives through separate rulemaking actions. In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.

    Analysis by the DAH has determined that the aft pressure bulkhead web at the Y chord is susceptible to WFD for certain Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This analysis indicates that the repetitive inspection intervals mandated by AD 2005-21-06, Amendment 39-14344 (70 FR 61226, October 21, 2005), should be reduced at the WFD threshold to detect cracking due to WFD. This cracking, if left undetected, could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015. The service information describes procedures for low frequency eddy current, or high frequency eddy current, and detailed inspections of the bulkhead web for cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of these same type designs.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information described previously, except as discussed under “Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information.”

    The phrase “corrective actions” is used in this NPRM. Corrective actions correct or address any condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015, specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:

    • In accordance with a method that we approve; or

    • Using data that meet the certification basis of the airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have authorized to make those findings.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 680 airplanes of U.S. registry.

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

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Inspections 34 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,890 per inspection cycle $2,890 per inspection cycle $1,965,200 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-6901; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-192-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    Certain requirements of this AD terminate certain requirements of AD 2005-21-06, Amendment 39-14344 (70 FR 61226, October 21, 2005) (“AD 2005-21-06”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, line number 1 through 1755, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the aft pressure bulkhead is subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in the aft pressure bulkhead web, which could result in an uncontrolled decompression of the fuselage.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Repetitive Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015, or within 18 months after November 25, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-21-06), whichever occurs later: Do a low frequency eddy current (LFEC) or high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection, and a detailed inspection, of the aft and forward sides, as applicable, of the aft pressure bulkhead web at the Y chord, above and below stringer S-15L and stringer S-15R, to detect discrepancies (including cracking, crack indications, discrepant fastener holes, and corrosion), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015. Access and restoration procedures specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015, are not required by this AD. Operators may do those procedures following their maintenance practices.

    (1) If no discrepancy is found: Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

    (2) If any discrepancy is found: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Repair the discrepancy before further flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (ii) On areas that are not repaired, repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 2, dated October 14, 2015.

    (h) Terminating Action for AD 2005-21-06

    Accomplishment of the initial inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of AD 2005-21-06.

    (i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, dated September 9, 2004; or Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1248, Revision 1, dated September 10, 2007; which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

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

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

    (k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Pohl, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6450; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 3, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14295 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 98-13-14, for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. AD 98-13-14 currently requires repetitive rotating probe inspections of fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole of a former junction of the aft fuselage, as applicable, and corrective action, if necessary. AD 98-13-14 also provides for an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. Since we issued AD 98-13-14, an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicates that the former junction of the aft fuselage is subject to fatigue damage. This proposed AD would continue to require the actions in AD 98-13-14, with revised inspection compliance times. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracks in the former junction of the aft fuselage; fatigue cracking could propagate and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425 227-1221.

    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-2016-7262; 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:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    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-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-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 June 11, 1998, we issued AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998) (“AD 98-13-14”). AD 98-13-14 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on certain Airbus Model A320 series airplanes. AD 98-13-14 was prompted by a report that four cracks were identified in the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5, which occurred during a full scale fatigue test. AD 98-13-14 requires repetitive rotating probe inspections of fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole of a former junction of the aft fuselage, and corrective action, if necessary. AD 98-13-14 also provides for an optional terminating action for the repetitive inspections. We issued AD 98-13-14 to prevent reduced structural integrity of the aft fuselage caused by fatigue cracking of the former junction at FR 68.

    Since we issued AD 98-13-14, an evaluation by the DAH indicates that the former junction of the aft fuselage is subject to fatigue damage.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During a fatigue test campaign, four cracks were identified in the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to crack propagation, possibly resulting in reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

    To address this unsafe condition, DGAC [Direction générale de l'aviation civile] France issued * * * [an AD, which corresponds to FAA AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998)] to require repetitive inspections and, depending on findings, the accomplishment of an applicable repair solution.

    That [DGAC] AD also provided modification of FR 68 [cold working of fastener and tooling holes] in accordance with Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A320-53-1090 as optional terminating action.

    Following new analyses, the thresholds and inspection intervals have been reviewed and adjusted.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of DGAC France AD 96-298-093(B)R2 [http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/F-1996-298R2], which is superseded, and requires those actions within the new thresholds and intervals.

    This [EASA] AD was republished to correct a typographical error in the Reason.

    Repairs include doing applicable related investigative actions (i.e., rotating probe inspection of the hole to make sure the crack is removed and eddy current inspection of the cold expanded holes). 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-2016-7262.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued the following service information:

    • Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015. This service information describes procedures for a rotating probe inspection for fatigue cracking of the frame junction holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, and repair, including doing applicable related investigative actions.

    • Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998. This service information describes procedures for modifying the airplane (cold working of fastener and tooling holes).

    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 10 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 98-13-14 and retained in this proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 98-13-14 is $680 per product, per inspection cycle.

    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $3,400, or $340 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on repairs would take about 52 work-hours and require parts costing $3,800, for a cost of $8,220 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions.

    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) 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998), and adding the following new AD: Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7262; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-079-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998) (“AD 98-13-14”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Model A320-211, -212, and -231 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial numbers (S/Ns) 0001 through 0123 inclusive, except those that have embodied Airbus Modifications 21780 and 21781 in production.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by identification of four cracks in the fastener holes of the former junction at frame (FR) 68 between stringers 4 and 5, which occurred during a fatigue test campaign, and a determination that certain compliance times specified in AD 98-13-14 must be reduced. We are issuing this AD to prevent fatigue cracks from occurring or propagating in certain structure which could adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Repetitive Inspections and Repair With Revised Compliance Language, and Additional Methods of Approving Repairs

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (a) of AD 98-13-14, with revised compliance language; and adds additional methods of approving repairs. For Model A320 series airplanes, as listed in Airbus Service Bulletins A320-53-1089 and A320-53-1090, both dated November 22, 1995: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or within 500 flight cycles after July 30, 1998 (the effective date of AD 98-13-14), whichever occurs later, perform a rotating probe inspection for fatigue cracking of the fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, dated November 22, 1995. Accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the actions required by this paragraph.

    (1) If no crack is detected, accomplish either paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 20,000 flight cycles; or

    (ii) Prior to further flight following the accomplishment of the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, cold work the fastener holes and/or the adjacent tooling hole of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995. Accomplishment of this cold working constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD.

    (2) If any crack is detected, prior to further flight, repair it in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA).

    (h) New Repetitive Inspection Requirement

    Within the compliance time specified in paragraph (h)(1), (h)(2), or (h)(3) of this AD, whichever occurs latest: Accomplish a rotating probe inspection for fatigue cracking of the frame junction holes and the adjacent tooling hole, as applicable, of the right- and left-hand former junctions at FR 68, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015. Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, until a repair required by paragraph (i) of this AD is done or a modification specified in paragraph (j) of this AD is done. Accomplishing an inspection required by this paragraph terminates the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (1) Within 28,700 flight cycles or 57,400 flight hours since airplane first flight, whichever occurs first; or

    (2) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours, whichever occurs first, since the most recent inspection done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015; or

    (3) Within 3,800 flight cycles or 7,600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, without exceeding 20,000 flight cycles since the most recent inspection done in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015.

    (i) New Repair Requirement

    If any crack is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, repair, including doing all applicable related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015. Do all applicable related investigative actions before further flight. Repair of an airplane in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 03, dated March 18, 2015, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (j) New Optional Modification

    Modification of an airplane, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 02, dated December 22, 1998, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided the modification is accomplished before further flight after accomplishing an inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD and no cracks were detected.

    (k) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) and (k)(1)(ii) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 01, dated June 4, 1998;

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1089, Revision 02, dated February 3, 2003.

    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD in accordance with the service information identified in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) and (k)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, dated November 22, 1995, which was incorporated by reference in AD 98-13-14, Amendment 39-10602 (63 FR 34556, June 25, 1998).

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-53-1090, Revision 1, dated November 22, 1995, dated June 10, 1998, which is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0084, dated May 13, 2015; corrected May 18, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7262.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office- EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.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 June 3, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14301 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2014-0726; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-9] Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, and Revocation of Class E Airspace; Troy, AL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class D and E airspace, and remove Class E airspace designated as an extension at Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field (formerly Troy Municipal Airport), Troy, AL. The Troy VHF Omnidirectional Radio Range (VOR) has been decommissioned, therefore Class E extension airspace is no longer needed, and new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed for Class D airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the airport. This action would enhance the safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport and recognize the name change of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2014-0726; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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 on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 proposed 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 amend Class E airspace at Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field, Troy, AL.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0726; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-9) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2014-0726; Airspace Docket No. 14-ASO-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through 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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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 for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, at Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field, formerly Troy Municipal Airport, Troy, AL, as new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have been developed requiring airspace redesign. Additionally, Class E airspace designated as an extension to Class D surface area would be removed due to the decommissioning of the Troy VOR and cancellation of the VOR approaches. For the Class D and E airspace areas above the geographic coordinates of the airport would be amended to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. This action is necessary for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004 and 6005, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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 would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5.6.5a, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace ASO AL D Troy, AL [Amended] Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field, AL (Lat. 31°51′36″ N., long. 86°00′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field. This Class D airspace area is effective during specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ASO AL E4 Troy, AL [Removed] Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO AL E5 Troy, AL [Amended] Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field, AL (Lat. 31°51′36″ N., long. 86°00′50″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.6-mile radius of Troy Municipal Airport at N. Kenneth Campbell Field and within 2-miles each side of a 070° bearing from the airport to 11.5-miles northeast of the airport, and within 2-miles each side of a 253° bearing from the airport to 11.3-miles southwest of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 9, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operation Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14374 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1] Proposed Amendment of Class D and E Airspace, Falmouth, MA AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, (formerly Otis ANGB), Falmouth, MA, as the Otis TACAN has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport in the existing Class D and E airspace areas, as well as Falmouth Airpark, Barnstable Municipal Airport-Boardman/Polando Field, Chatham Municipal Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, (formerly Martha's Vineyard Municipal Airport), and the BOGEY LOM.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20591-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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 on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 proposed 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 amend Class D airspace and Class E airspace at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule 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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5444; Airspace Docket No. 16-ANE-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through 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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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 for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace designated as an extension at Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, Falmouth, MA. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Otis TACAN, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. Additionally, this action would note adjustment of the geographic coordinates of the above airport, as well as Falmouth Airpark, Barnstable Municipal Airport-Boardman/Polando Field, Chatham Municipal Airport, Martha's Vineyard Airport, and the BOGEY LOM navigation aid, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database. Also, this action would recognize the name change of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, (formerly OTIS ANGB), and Martha's Vineyard Airport, (formerly Martha's Vineyard Municipal Airport).

    Class D airspace and Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005 respectively, 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 D and Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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 would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5.6.5a, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. ANE MA D Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.) Falmouth Airpark (Lat. 41°35′08″ N., long. 70°32′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Falmouth Airpark.

    Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a Class D Surface Area. ANE MA E4 Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.) Falmouth Airpark (Lat. 41°35′08″ N., long. 70°32′25″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.8 miles each side of the 55° bearing from the Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, extending from the 4.4-mile radius of the airport to 6 miles northeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 143° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 6 miles southeast of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 234° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 7 miles southwest of the airport, excluding that airspace within a 1-mile radius of the Falmouth Airpark, and within 1.8 miles each side of the 323° bearing from the airport, extending from the 4.4-mile radius to 6 miles northwest of the airport.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ANE MA E5 Falmouth, MA [Amended] Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, MA (Lat. 41°39′33″ N., long. 70°31′22″ W.) Barnstable Municipal Airport Boardman/Polando Field (Lat. 41°40′10″ N., long. 70°16′49″ W.) Chatham Municipal Airport (Lat. 41°41′18″ N., long. 69°59′23″ W.) Martha's Vineyard Airport (Lat. 41°23′36″ N., long.70°36′50″ W.) Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME (Lat. 41°23′46″ N., long.70°36′46″ W.) BOGEY LOM (Lat. 41°42′56″ W., long. 70°12′8″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 12.2-mile radius of Cape Cod Coast Guard Air Station, and within a 6.7-mile radius of Barnstable Municipal Airport, and within 3 miles each side of the BOGEY LOM 050° bearing extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of the BOGEY LOM, and within a 6.3-mile radius of Chatham Municipal Airport, and within a 6.5-mile radius of Martha's Vineyard Airport, and within 5.1 miles on each side of the 052° radial of Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 14 miles northeast of Martha's Vineyard VOR/DME.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 9, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14376 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6134; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-8] Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace, Glasgow, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Glasgow, KY as the Beaver Creek Non-Directional Beacon (NDB) has been decommissioned, requiring airspace reconfiguration at Glasgow Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport. This action also would update the geographic coordinates of the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 5, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20591-0001; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527; Fax: 202-493-2251. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2016-6134; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-8, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received 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 on line at http://www.faa.gov/airtraffic/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:

    John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone (404) 305-6364.

    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 proposed 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 amend Class E airspace at Glasgow Municipal Airport, Glasgow, KY.

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposal 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 (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6134; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-8) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6134; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through 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 the 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 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's 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 for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to 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 considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Glasgow Municipal Airport, Glasgow, KY. Airspace reconfiguration to within a 7.4-mile radius of the airport is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Beaver Creek NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach, and for continued safety and management of IFR operations at the airport. The geographic coordinates of the airport would be adjusted to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 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 proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. 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 proposed rule, when promulgated, will 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 would be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5.6.5a, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    Lists 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 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 Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Glasgow, KY [Amended] Glasgow Municipal Airport, KY (Lat. 37°01′54″ N., long. 85°57′14″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.4-mile radius of Glasgow Municipal Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 9, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14382 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs 25 CFR Part 48 [Docket ID: BIA-2014-0007/167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] RIN 1076-AF14 Use of Bureau-Operated Schools by Third Parties Under Lease Agreements and Fundraising Activity by Bureau-Operated School Personnel AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Education, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Congress authorized the Director of the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) to enter into agreements with third parties to lease the land or facilities of a Bureau-operated school in exchange for funding that benefits the school. This proposed rule establishes standards for the appropriate use of lands and facilities under a lease agreement, provisions for establishment and administration of mechanisms for the acceptance of consideration for the use and benefit of a school, accountability standards to ensure ethical conduct, and provisions for monitoring the amount and terms of consideration received, the manner in which the consideration is used, and any results achieved by such use.

    DATES:

    Please submit written comments by August 22, 2016. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice for dates of Tribal consultation sessions.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed rule by any of the following methods:

    Federal rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. The proposed rule is listed under the agency name “Bureau of Indian Affairs” and has been assigned Docket ID: BIA-2014-0007. If you would like to submit comments through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, go to www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions. Email: [email protected] Include the number 1076-AF14 in the subject line of the message. Mail or hand-delivery: Elizabeth Appel, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., MS 3642, Washington, DC 20240. Include the number 1076-AF14 on the envelope. Please note, email or www.regulations.gov are the preferred methods for submitting comments; there is no need to submit a hard copy if you have submitted the comments through either of these electronic methods.

    Comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collections contained in this rule are separate from comments on the substance of the rule. Submit comments on the information collection requirements in this rule to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at [email protected] or by facsimile at (202) 395-5806. Please also send a copy of your comments to [email protected]

    We cannot ensure that comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) will be included in the docket for this rulemaking and considered. Comments sent to an address other than those listed above will not be included in the docket for this rulemaking.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vicki Forrest, Deputy Director for School Operations, Bureau of Indian Education, (202) 208-6123.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary of Proposed Rule III. Tribal Consultation IV. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866) B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act E. Takings (E.O. 12630) F. Federalism (E.O. 13132) G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175) I. Paperwork Reduction Act J. National Environmental Policy Act K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211) L. Clarity of This Regulation M. Public Availability of Comments I. Background

    Public Laws 112-74 and 113-235 authorize the Director of BIE, or the Director's designee, to enter into agreements with public and private persons and entities allowing them to lease the land or facilities of a Bureau-operated school in exchange for consideration (in the form of funds) that benefits the school. The head of the school is to determine the manner in which the consideration will be used to benefit the school, as long as they are for school purposes otherwise authorized by law. Congress provided that any funds under this section will not affect or diminish appropriations for the operation and maintenance of Bureau-operated schools, and that no funds will be withheld from distribution to the budget of a school due to receipt of such funds.

    These public laws also allow personnel of Bureau-operated schools to participate in fundraising activity for the benefit of a Bureau-operated school in their official capacity, as part of their official duties.

    To carry out these public law provisions, the Acts require the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations. The Acts provide that the regulations must include standards for the appropriate use of Bureau-operated school lands and facilities by third parties under a rental or lease agreement; provisions for the establishment and administration of mechanisms for the acceptance of consideration for the use and benefit of a school; accountability standards to ensure ethical conduct; and provisions for monitoring the amount and terms of consideration received, the manner in which the consideration is used, and any results achieved by such use.

    II. Summary of Proposed Rule

    This rule would establish a new Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part to implement the leasing and fundraising authority that Congress granted to BIA under Public Laws 112-74 and 113-235. The leasing provisions of this rule would apply only to facilities and land operated by the BIE. This proposed rule would not apply to public schools, Public Law 100-297 Tribally controlled grant schools, or Public Law 93-638 contract schools. This rule would implement statutory leasing authority specific to leasing of Bureau-operated facilities and land and be separate from the general statutory authority for leasing. To obtain approval of a lease of a Bureau-operated facility or land, one would need to comply with this new regulation, rather than the more generally applicable regulations at 25 CFR part 162. We note that nothing in this rule affects 25 CFR 31.2, which allows for use of Bureau-operated school facilities or land for community activities and adult education activities upon approval by the superintendent or officer-in-charge, where no consideration is received in exchange for the use of the facilities. The fundraising provisions of this proposed rule would apply only to employees of schools operated by the BIE.

    Subpart A of the proposed rule would set forth the purpose, definitions, and other general provisions applicable to both leasing and fundraising.

    Subpart B would establish the mechanisms and standards by which the Bureau may lease Bureau-operated school facilities and land to third parties. The proposed rule allows only the BIE Director or his or her designee to enter into leases and sets forth the standards the BIE Director (or designee) will use to determine whether to enter into a lease, including that the lease provides a net financial benefit to the school, that it meets certain standards (e.g., complies with the mission of the school, conforms to principles of good order and discipline), and ensures the lease does not compromise the safety and security of students and staff or damage facilities. This subpart also establishes what provisions a lease must include, what actions are necessary if permanent improvements are to be constructed under the lease, and how the Bureau will ensure compliance with the lease. This subpart provides that the Bureau may only accept funds (as opposed to in-kind consideration) as consideration for a lease and may only use the funds for school purposes. It establishes how the Director will determine what amount is proper for lease consideration, and establishes the mechanics for lessees to pay consideration and how the Bureau will process the funds. Bureau-operated school personnel would be required to report quarterly on any active leases to the Director and others, including an accounting of all expenditures and supporting documentation showing expenditures were made for school purposes.

    Subpart C of the proposed rule addresses fundraising activities by Bureau personnel on behalf of Bureau-operated schools. (Nothing in this proposed rule affects fundraising activities by students.) This subpart allows authorized personnel to spend a reasonable portion of his or her official duties fundraising, and allows unlimited fundraising in a personal capacity when not on duty. This subpart limits the types of fundraising an employee may conduct to ensure fundraising maintains the school's integrity, the Bureau's impartiality, and public confidence in the school. Certain approvals would be required before personnel may accept a donation on behalf of a school, and each Bureau-operated school that has received donations would be required to report quarterly to the Director and others, including an accounting of all expenditures and supporting documentation showing expenditures were made for school purposes.

    III. Tribal Consultation

    The Department is hosting a listening session on the proposed rule at 3 p.m. (local time) on Monday, June 27, 2016 in Spokane, Washington, in conjunction with the National Congress of American Indians mid-year conference.

    The Department will also be hosting the following consultation sessions on this proposed rule:

    Date Time Location Monday, July 25, 2016 2 p.m. ET-4 p.m. ET Teleconference: Call-In Number (877) 924-1752; passcode 1484699. Friday, July 29, 2016 2 p.m. ET-4 p.m. ET Teleconference: Call-In Number (877) 324-8525; passcode 7359354. IV. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Planning and Review (E.O. 12866)

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this rule is not significant.

    E.O. 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 E.O. 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 rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). It does not change current funding requirements and any economic effects on small entities would be fees charged for the use of the facilities, which would not have a significant economic effect on them. Small entities would rent the facilities only if the fees charged are reasonable.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This proposed rule:

    (a) Will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of the U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The proposed rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or Tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is not required.

    E. Takings (E.O. 12630)

    This proposed rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.

    F. Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    G. Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    This proposed rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. Consultation With Indian Tribes (E.O. 13175)

    The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian Tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and Tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this proposed rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have identified substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes that will result from this rulemaking. The Department acknowledges that Tribes with children attending Bureau-operated schools have an interest in this proposed rule because it provides for consideration for the leasing of Bureau-operated schools and fundraising standards for school employees. As such, the Department engaged Tribal government representatives by distributing a letter, dated June 19, 2014, with a copy of the draft rule and requesting comment on the draft rule by July 31, 2014. The Department received no comments on the draft rule, but has scheduled consultation sessions with Tribal officials on this proposed rule. (See Section III of this preamble for details on the dates and locations of the Tribal consultation sessions).

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule contains information collections that require approval by OMB. The Department is seeking approval of a new information collection and a revision to an existing regulation, as follows.

    OMB Control Number: 1076-NEW.

    Title: Use of Bureau-Operated Schools by Third Parties.

    Brief Description of Collection: The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is proposing to establish standards for the appropriate use of lands and facilities by third parties. These standards address the following: the execution of lease agreements; the establishment and administration of mechanisms for the acceptance of consideration for the use and benefit of a Bureau-operated school; the assurance of ethical conduct; and monitoring the amount and terms of consideration received, the manner in which the consideration is used, and any results achieved by such use. The paperwork burden associated with the proposed rule results from lease provisions; lease violations; and assignments, subleases, or mortgages of leases.

    Type of Review: New collection.

    Respondents: Individuals and Private Sector.

    Number of Respondents: 24.

    Number of Responses: 24.

    Frequency of Response: Annually.

    Estimated Time per Response: One to three hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 68 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Cost Burden: $0.

    CFR Cite Description Number
  • respondents
  • Annual
  • responses
  • Burden
  • hours per
  • response
  • Total annual
  • burden hours
  • 48.105, 48.106 Provisions of leases and the construction of permanent improvements under the lease (businesses) 17 17 3 51 48.105, 48.106 Provisions of leases and the construction of permanent improvements under the lease
  • (individuals)
  • 3 3 3 9
    48.116 Violations of leases (businesses) 1 1 1 1 48.116 Violations of leases (individuals) 1 1 1 1 48.118 Assignments, subleases, and mortgages of leases (businesses) 1 1 3 3 48.118 Assignments, subleases, and mortgages of leases (individuals) 1 1 3 3 Total 24 24 68

    OMB Control Number: 1090-0009.

    Title: Donor Certification Form.

    Brief Description of Collection: This information will provide Department staff with the basis for beginning the evaluation as to whether the Department will accept the proposed donation. The authorized employee will receive the donor certification form in advance of accepting the proposed donation. The employee will then review the totality of circumstances surrounding the proposed donation to determine whether the Department can accept the donation and maintain its integrity, impartiality, and public confidence. We expect to receive 25 responses to this information collection annually. The burden associated with this information collection is already reflected in the approval of OMB Control Number 1090-0009.

    J. National Environmental Policy Act

    This proposed rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the environmental effects of this proposed rule are too speculative to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, unless covered by a categorical exclusion. (For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i)). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.

    K. Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    This proposed rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.

    L. Clarity of This Regulation

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    a. Be logically organized;

    b. Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    c. Use clear language rather than jargon;

    d. Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    e. Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you believe lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    M. Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    List of Subjects in 25 CFR Part 48

    Educational facilities, Indians—education.

    For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior proposes to amend 25 CFR chapter I, subchapter E, to add part 48 to read as follows:

    PART 48—LEASES COVERING BUREAU-OPERATED SCHOOLS AND FUNDRAISING ACTIVITIES AT BUREAU-OPERATED SCHOOLS Subpart A—General Provisions Sec. 48.1 What is the purpose of this part? 48.2 What is the scope of this part? 48.3 What terms do I need to know? 48.4 What is considered unethical conduct in the context of this part? 48.5 What accounting standards will the Bureau use in monitoring the receipt, holding, and use of funds? 48.6 How long will the funds be available? 48.7 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part? Subpart B—Leasing of Bureau-Operated Facilities 48.101 Who may enter into a lease on behalf of a Bureau-operated school? 48.102 With whom may the Director enter into a lease? 48.103 What facilities may be leased? 48.104 What standards will the Director use in determining whether to enter into a lease? 48.105 What provisions must a lease contain? 48.106 May a lessee construct permanent improvements under a lease? 48.107 What consideration may a Bureau-operated school accept in exchange for a lease? 48.108 How will the Bureau determine appropriate consideration for a lease? 48.109 Who may use the funds? 48.110 For what purposes may a Bureau-operated school use the funds? 48.111 How does a lessee pay the Bureau-operated school under a lease? 48.112 How are lease payments processed? 48.113 Will late payment charges or special fees apply to delinquent lease payments? 48.114 How will the Bureau monitor the results achieved by the use of funds received from leases? 48.115 Who may investigate compliance with a lease? 48.116 What will the Bureau do about a violation of a lease? 48.117 What will the Bureau do if a lessee does not cure a lease violation on time? 48.118 May a lease be assigned, subleased, or mortgaged? Subpart C—Fundraising Activities 48.201 To whom does this subpart apply? 48.202 May employees fundraise? 48.203 How much time may employees spend fundraising? 48.204 For what school purposes may employees fundraise? 48.205 What are the limitations on fundraising? 48.206 What approvals are necessary to accept a donation? 48.207 How may the donations solicited under this subpart be used? Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9; Pub. L. 112-74; Pub. L. 113-235.

    Subpart A—General Provisions
    § 48.1 What is the purpose of this part?

    (a) The purpose of this part is to set forth processes and procedures to:

    (1) Implement authorization for the Director to lease or rent Bureau-operated school facilities in exchange for consideration in the form of funds;

    (2) Establish mechanisms and standards for leasing or renting of Bureau-operated facilities, and management and use of the funds received as consideration;

    (3) Describe allowable fundraising activities by the employees of Bureau-operated schools;

    (4) Set accountability standards to ensure ethical conduct; and

    (5) Establish provisions for monitoring the amount and terms of consideration received, the manner in which the consideration is used, and any results achieved by such use.

    (b) Nothing in this part affects:

    (1) 25 CFR 31.2, allowing for use of Federal Indian school facilities for community activities and adult education activities upon approval by the superintendent or officer-in-charge, where no consideration is received in exchange for the use of the facilities;

    (2) 26 CFR 31.7 and 36.43(g), establishing guidelines for student fundraising; or

    (3) The implementing regulations for the Federal Employees Quarters Facilities Act, 5 U.S.C. 5911, at 41 CFR part 114-51 and policies at Departmental Manual part 400, chapter 3; or

    (4) The use of Bureau-operated school facilities or lands by other Federal agencies so long as the use is memorialized in a written agreement between the BIE and the other Federal agency.

    § 48.2 What is the scope of this part?

    The leasing provisions of this part apply only to facilities operated by the BIE and the fundraising provisions of this part apply only to employees of schools operated by the BIE. This part does not apply to public schools, Public Law 100-297 Tribally controlled schools, or Public Law 93-638 contract or grant schools.

    § 48.3 What terms do I need to know?

    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs or his or her designee.

    Bureau means the Bureau of Indian Education.

    Bureau official means the official in charge of administrative functions for the Bureau under this part.

    Bureau-operated school means a day or boarding school, or a dormitory for students attending a school other than a Bureau school, an institution of higher learning and associated facilities operated by the Bureau. This term does not include public schools, Public Law 100-297 Tribally controlled schools, or Public Law 93-638 contract or grant schools.

    Construction means construction of new facilities, modification, or alteration of existing grounds or building structures.

    Designee means a supervisory contracting specialist the Director designates to act on his or her behalf.

    Director means the Director, Bureau of Indian Education.

    Department means the Department of the Interior.

    Donation means something of value (e.g., funds, land, personal property) received from a non-Federal source without consideration or an exchange of value.

    Employee means an employee of the Bureau working with or at a Bureau-operated school.

    Facilities means land or facilities authorized for use by a Bureau-operated school.

    Funds means money.

    Fundraising means requesting donations, selling items, or providing a service, activity, or event to raise funds, except that writing a grant proposal to secure resources to support school purposes is not fundraising. Fundraising does not include requests for donated supplies, materials, in-kind services, or funds (e.g., fees for school activities) that schools traditionally require or request parents and guardians of students to provide.

    Head of the School means the Principal, President, School Supervisor, Residential Life Director, Superintendent of the School, or equivalent head of a Bureau-operated school where facilities are being leased under this Part.

    Lease means a written contract or rental agreement executed in accordance with this part, granting the possession and use of facilities at a Bureau-operated school to a private or public person or entity in return for funds.

    Private person or entity means an individual who is not acting on behalf of a public person or entity and includes, but is not limited to, private companies, nonprofit organizations and any other entity not included in the definition of public person or entity.

    Public person or entity means a State, local, Federal or Tribal governmental agency or unit thereof.

    School purposes means lawful activities and purchases for the benefit of students and school operations including, but not limited to: Academic, residential, and extra-curricular programs during or outside of the normal school day and year; books, supplies or equipment for school use; building construction, maintenance and/or operations; landscape construction, modifications, or maintenance on the school grounds.

    § 48.4 What is considered unethical conduct in the context of this part?

    Violation or the appearance of violation of any applicable ethics statute or regulation by an employee may be considered unethical conduct.

    § 48.5 What accounting standards will the Bureau use in monitoring the receipt, holding, and use of funds?

    The Bureau will use applicable Federal financial accounting rules in monitoring the receipt, holding, and use of funds.

    § 48.6 How long will the funds be available?

    Funds generated under these regulations remain available to the recipient school until expended, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302.

    § 48.7 How does the Paperwork Reduction Act affect this part?

    The collections of information in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB Control Number 1076-NEW and OMB Control Number 1090-0009. Response is required to obtain a benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.

    Subpart B—Leasing of Bureau-Operated Facilities
    § 48.101 Who may enter into a lease on behalf of a Bureau-operated school?

    Only the Director or a designee may enter into leases.

    § 48.102 With whom may the Director enter into a lease?

    The Director or designee may lease to public or private persons or entities who meet the requirements of this part that are applicable to leasing activities.

    § 48.103 What facilities may be leased?

    Any portion of a Bureau-operated school facility may be leased as long as the lease does not interfere with the normal operations of the Bureau-operated school, student body, or staff, and otherwise meets applicable requirements of this part.

    § 48.104 What standards will the Director use in determining whether to enter into a lease?

    (a) The Director or designee will make the final decision regarding approval of a proposed lease. The Director or designee must ensure that the lease provides a net financial benefit to the school and that the Head of the School has certified, after consultation with the school board or board of regents, that the lease meets the standards in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (b) The lease must:

    (1) Comply with the mission of the school;

    (2) Conform to principles of good order and discipline;

    (3) Not interfere with existing or planned school activities or programs;

    (4) Not interfere with school board staff and/or community access to the school;

    (5) Not allow contact or access to students inconsistent with applicable law;

    (6) Not result in any Bureau commitments after the lease expires; and

    (7) Not compromise the safety and security of students and staff or damage facilities.

    (c) The Director's or designee's decision on a proposed lease is discretionary and is not subject to review or appeal under part 2 of this chapter or otherwise.

    § 48.105 What provisions must a lease contain?

    (a) All leases of Bureau-operated facilities must identify:

    (1) The facility, or portion thereof, being leased;

    (2) The purpose of the lease and authorized uses of the leased facility;

    (3) The parties to the lease;

    (4) The term of the lease, and any renewal term, if applicable;

    (5) The ownership of permanent improvements and the responsibility for constructing, operating, maintaining, and managing permanent improvements, and meeting due diligence requirements under § 48.106;

    (6) Payment requirements and late payment charges, including interest;

    (7) That lessee will maintain insurance sufficient to cover negligence or intentional misconduct occurring on the leasehold; and

    (8) Any bonding requirements, as required in the discretion of the Director. If a performance bond is required, the lease must state that the lessee must obtain the consent of the surety for any legal instrument that directly affects their obligations and liabilities.

    (b) All leases of Bureau-operated facilities must include the following provisions:

    (1) There must not be any unlawful conduct, creation of a nuisance, illegal activity, or negligent use or waste of the leased premises;

    (2) The lessee must comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and other legal requirements;

    (3) The Bureau has the right, at any reasonable time during the term of the lease and upon reasonable notice to enter the leased premises for inspection and to ensure compliance; and

    (4) The Bureau may, at its discretion, treat as a lease violation any failure by the lessee to cooperate with a request to make appropriate records, reports, or information available for inspection and duplication.

    (c) Unless the lessee would be prohibited by law from doing so, the lease must also contain the following provisions:

    (1) The lessee holds the United States harmless from any loss, liability, or damages resulting from the lessee's, its invitees', and licensees' use or occupation of the leased facility; and

    (2) The lessee indemnifies the United States against all liabilities or costs relating to the use, handling, treatment, removal, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials, or the release or discharge of any hazardous material from the leased premises that occurs during the lease term, regardless of fault, with the exception that the lessee is not required to indemnify the Indian landowners for liability or cost arising from the Indian landowners' negligence or willful misconduct.

    § 48.106 May a lessee construct permanent improvements under a lease?

    (a) The lessee may construct permanent improvements under a lease of a Bureau-operated facility only if the lease contains the following provisions.

    (1) A description of the type and location of any permanent improvements to be constructed by the lessee and a general schedule for construction of the permanent improvements, including dates for commencement and completion of construction;

    (2) Specification of who owns the permanent improvements the lessee constructs during the lease term and specifies whether each specific permanent improvement the lessee constructs will:

    (i) Remain on the leased premises, upon the expiration, cancellation, or termination of the lease, in a condition satisfactory to the Director, and become the property of the Bureau-operated school;

    (ii) Be removed within a time period specified in the lease, at the lessee's expense, with the leased premises to be restored as closely as possible to their condition before construction of the permanent improvements; or

    (iii) Be disposed of by other specified means.

    (3) Due diligence requirements that require the lessee to complete construction of any permanent improvements within the schedule specified in the lease or general schedule of construction, and a process for changing the schedule by mutual consent of the parties.

    (i) If construction does not occur, or is not expected to be completed, within the time period specified in the lease, the lessee must provide the Director with an explanation of good cause as to the nature of any delay, the anticipated date of construction of facilities, and evidence of progress toward commencement of construction.

    (ii) Failure of the lessee to comply with the due diligence requirements of the lease is a violation of the lease and may lead to cancellation of the lease.

    (b) The lessee must prepare the required information and analyses, including information to facilitate the Bureau's analysis under applicable environmental and cultural resource requirements.

    (c) The Bureau may take appropriate enforcement action to ensure removal of the permanent improvements and restoration of the premises at the lessee's expense before or after expiration, termination, or cancellation of the lease. The Bureau may collect and hold the performance bond or alternative form of security until removal and restoration are completed.

    (d) The due diligence requirements of this section do not apply to leases for religious, educational, recreational, cultural, or other public purposes.

    § 48.107 What consideration may a Bureau-operated school accept in exchange for a lease?

    A Bureau-operated school may accept only funds as consideration for a lease.

    § 48.108 How will the Bureau determine appropriate consideration for a lease?

    The Bureau will determine what consideration is appropriate for a lease by considering, at a minimum, the following factors:

    (a) The indirect and direct costs of the lease; and

    (b) Whether there will be a net financial benefit to the school.

    § 48.109 Who may use the funds?

    The Bureau-operated school may use funds, including late payment charges, received as compensation for leasing that school's facilities. The funds must first be sent to the Bureau official as provided for in the subject lease for processing in accordance with § 48.112.

    § 48.110 For what purposes may a Bureau-operated school use the funds?

    The Bureau-operated school must first use the funds to pay for indirect and direct costs of the lease. The Bureau-operated school must use the remaining funds for any school purposes.

    § 48.111 How does a lessee pay the Bureau-operated school under a lease?

    A lessee must pay consideration and any late payment charges due under the lease to the Bureau-operated school by certified check, money order, or electronic funds transfer made out to the Bureau and containing identifying information as provided for in the lease.

    § 48.112 How are lease payments processed?

    The Bureau official must deposit funds received as lease consideration or late payment charge into the Treasury account set up to receive the proceeds from the Bureau-operated school's lease.

    § 48.113 Will late payment charges or special fees apply to delinquent lease payments?

    (a) Late payment charges will apply as specified in the lease. The failure to pay these amounts will be treated as a lease violation.

    (b) We may assess the following special fees to cover administrative costs incurred by the United States in the collection of the debt, if rent is not paid in the time and manner required, in addition to late payment charges that must be paid under the terms of the lease:

    The lessee will pay . . . For . . . (1) $50.00 Any dishonored check. (2) $15.00 Processing of each notice or demand letter. (3) 18 percent of balance due Treasury processing following referral for collection of delinquent debt.
    § 48.114 How will the Bureau monitor the results achieved by the use of funds received from leases?

    The Head of the School for each Bureau-operated school that has active leases under this part must submit a quarterly report to the Director, the designee, and the Office of Facilities Management and Construction. The report must contain the following information:

    (a) A list of leases and the facilities covered by each lease;

    (b) An accounting of receipts from each lease;

    (c) An accounting of all expenditures and the supporting documentation showing that expenditures were made for school purposes;

    (d) A report of the benefits provided by the leasing program as a whole;

    (e) A certification that the terms of each lease were met or, if the terms of a lease were not met, the actions taken as a result of the noncompliance; and

    (f) Any unexpected expenses incurred.

    § 48.115 Who may investigate compliance with a lease?

    The Head of the School or his designee or any Bureau official may enter the leased facility at any reasonable time, upon reasonable notice, and consistent with any notice requirements under the lease to determine if the lessee is in compliance with the requirements of the lease.

    § 48.116 What will the Bureau do about a violation of a lease?

    (a) If the Bureau determines there has been a violation of the conditions of a lease, it will promptly send the lessee and any surety and mortgagee a notice of violation, by certified mail, return receipt requested.

    (1) The notice of violation will advise the lessee that, within 10 business days of the receipt of a notice of violation, the lessee must:

    (i) Cure the violation and notify the Bureau in writing that the violation has been cured;

    (ii) Dispute the determination that a violation has occurred; or

    (iii) Request additional time to cure the violation.

    (2) The notice of violation may order the lessee to cease operations under the lease.

    (b) A lessee's failure to pay compensation in the time and manner required by the lease is a violation of the lease, and the Bureau will issue a notice of violation in accordance with this section requiring the lessee to provide adequate proof of payment.

    (c) The lessee and its sureties will continue to be responsible for the obligations in the lease until the lease expires, or is terminated or cancelled.

    § 48.117 What will the Bureau do if a lessee does not cure a lease violation on time?

    (a) If the lessee does not cure a violation of a lease within the required time period, or provide adequate proof of payment as required in the notice of violation, the Bureau will take one or more of the following actions:

    (1) Cancel the lease;

    (2) Invoke other remedies available under the lease or applicable law, including collection on any available performance bond or, for failure to pay compensation, referral of the debt to the Department of the Treasury for collection; or

    (3) Grant the lessee additional time in which to cure the violation.

    (b) The Bureau may take action to recover unpaid compensation and any associated late payment charges, and does not have to cancel the lease or give any further notice to the lessee before taking action to recover unpaid compensation. The Bureau may still take action to recover any unpaid compensation if it cancels the lease.

    (c) If the Bureau decides to cancel the lease, it will send the lessee and any surety and mortgagee a cancellation letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, within 5 business days of our decision. The cancellation letter will:

    (1) Explain the grounds for cancellation;

    (2) If applicable, notify the lessee of the amount of any unpaid compensation or late payment charges due under the lease;

    (3) Notify the lessee of the lessee's right to appeal under part 2 of this chapter, including the possibility that the official to whom the appeal is made may require the lessee to post an appeal bond;

    (4) Order the lessee to vacate the property within 31 days of the date of receipt of the cancellation letter, if an appeal is not filed by that time; and

    (5) Order the lessee to take any other action the Bureau deems necessary to protect the facility.

    (d) The Bureau may invoke any other remedies available to us under the lease, including collecting on any available performance bond.

    § 48.118 May a lease be assigned, subleased, or mortgaged?

    A lessee may assign, sublease, or mortgage a lease only with the approval of the Director.

    Subpart C—Fundraising Activities
    § 48.201 To whom does this subpart apply?

    This subpart applies to employees under the direction and supervision of the Director that fundraise for a Bureau-operated school. This subpart does not apply to students who fundraise.

    § 48.202 May employees fundraise?

    (a) Employees may fundraise for school purposes as part of their official duties using their official title, position and authority, or in a personal capacity, so long as:

    (1) The Bureau official approves the fundraising in advance and certifies that it complies with this subpart; and

    (2) The employees ensure the fundraising conforms to the requirements of this subpart.

    (b) Nothing in this part allows participation in political or other activities prohibited by law.

    § 48.203 How much time may employees spend fundraising?

    (a) Each authorized employee may spend no more than a reasonable portion of his or her official duties as an employee in any calendar year fundraising.

    (b) There is no limit to the time employees may spend fundraising in a personal capacity when not on duty, as long as other requirements of this subpart are met.

    § 48.204 For what school purposes may employees fundraise?

    Employees may fundraise for school purposes as defined in § 48.3.

    § 48.205 What are the limitations on fundraising?

    (a) Fundraising may not include any gaming or gambling activity.

    (b) Fundraising may not violate, or create an appearance of violating, any applicable ethical statutes or regulations.

    (c) Fundraising and donations must maintain the integrity of the Bureau-operated school programs and operations, including but not limited to the following considerations:

    (1) The donation may not, and may not appear, to be an attempt to influence the exercise of any regulatory or other authority of the Bureau;

    (2) The donation may not require commitment of current or future funding that is not planned or available;

    (3) The donation must be consistent with, and may not otherwise circumvent, law, regulation, or policy;

    (4) The Bureau-operated school must be able to properly utilize or manage any donated real or personal property within policy, programmatic, and management goals;

    (5) Any conditions on the donation must be consistent with authorized school purposes and any relevant policy or planning documents;

    (6) The donation may not be used by the donor to state or imply endorsement by the Bureau or Bureau-operated school of the donor or the donor's products or services;

    (7) The donation, if it consists of personnel or funding to hire personnel, must be structured such that the donated or funded personnel do not inappropriately influence any Bureau regulatory action or other significant decision.

    (d) The fundraising and donation must maintain the impartiality, and appearance of impartiality, of the Bureau, Bureau-operated school, and its employees, including but not limited to the following considerations:

    (1) The proposed donation may be only in an amount that would not influence or appear to influence any pending Bureau decision or action involving the donor's interests;

    (2) There may be no actual or implied commitment to take an action favorable to the donor in exchange for the donation;

    (3) The donor may not obtain or appear to obtain special treatment dealing with the Bureau or Bureau-operated school.

    (e) The fundraising and donation must maintain public confidence in the Bureau and Bureau-operated school, its programs, and its personnel, including but not limited to the following considerations:

    (1) The fundraising and acceptance of the donation would not likely result in public controversy;

    (2) Any conditions on donations must be consistent with the Bureau and Bureau-operated school's policy, goals, and programs; and

    (3) The fundraising and donation may not involve any inappropriate goods or services.

    (f) Participation in fundraising is voluntary. No student, community member, or organization shall be forced, coerced or otherwise unduly pressured to participate in fundraising. No reprimand, condemnation, nor criticism shall be made of, nor any retaliatory action taken against, any student, community member, or organization for failure to participate or succeed in fundraising.

    § 48.206 What approvals are necessary to accept a donation?

    (a) Prior to accepting a donation, the Bureau official must approve the acceptance and certify that it complies with this subpart, including the considerations of § 48.205, Departmental policy, and any applicable statute or regulation.

    (b) Prior to accepting a donation that consists of volunteer services, the Bureau official must approve the acceptance and certify that it complies with this subpart, including the considerations of § 48.205, 25 CFR 38.14, Departmental policy, and any applicable statute or regulation.

    § 48.207 How may donations solicited under this subpart be used?

    (a) The Bureau official must deposit all income from the fundraising into the Treasury account set up to receive the proceeds from the fundraising activities authorized under this part. The Bureau-operated school must first use the funds to pay documented costs of the fundraising activity and must use the remaining funds in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section.

    (b) Funds and in-kind donations solicited under this subpart may be used for the school purposes identified in the solicitation. If the solicitation did not identify the school purposes, the funds and in-kind donations may be used for any school purposes defined in § 48.3.

    (c) Each Bureau-operated school that has received donations must submit a quarterly report to the Director containing the following information:

    (1) A list of donors, donation amounts, and estimated values of donated goods and services;

    (2) An accounting of all costs of fundraising activities;

    (3) Supporting documentation showing the donations were used for school purposes; and

    (4) A report of the results achieved by use of donations.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14665 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-108060-15] RIN 1545-BN40 Treatment of a Certain Interests in Corporations as Stock or Indebtedness; Hearing AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public hearing on notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations under section 385 of the Internal Revenue Code that would authorize the Commissioner to treat certain related-party interests in a corporation as indebtedness in part and stock in part for federal tax purposes, and establish threshold documentation requirements that must be satisfied in order for certain related-party interests in a corporation to be treated as indebtedness for federal tax purposes. The proposed regulations also would treat as stock certain related-party interests that otherwise would be treated as indebtedness for federal tax purposes.

    DATES:

    The public hearing is being held on Thursday, July 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. Written or electronic comments and outlines of the topics to be discussed at the public hearing are still being accepted and must be received by July 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public hearing is being held in the IRS Auditorium, Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Due to building security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present photo identification to enter the building.

    Send Submissions to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108060-15), Room 5205, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday to CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-108060-15), Couriers Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224 or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-108060-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Austin M. Diamond-Jones at (202) 317-5363, and Raymond J. Stahl at (202) 317-6938; concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the hearing Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-108060-15) that was published in the Federal Register on Friday, April 8, 2016 (81 FR 20912).

    The rules of 26 CFR 601.601(a)(3) apply to the hearing. Persons who wish to present oral comments at the hearing must submit an outline of the topics to be addressed and the amount of time to be devoted to each topic by Thursday, July 7, 2016.

    A period of 10 minutes is allotted to each person for presenting oral comments. After the deadline for receiving outlines has passed, the IRS will prepare an agenda containing the schedule of speakers. Copies of the agenda will be made available, free of charge, at the hearing or by contacting the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not a toll-free number).

    Because of access restrictions, the IRS will not admit visitors beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. For information about having your name placed on the building access list to attend the hearing, see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel, (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-14734 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2015-0492] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lower Niagara River at Niagara Falls, New York AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish regulations for a permanent safety zone within the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo on the Lower Niagara River, Niagara Falls, NY.

    This proposed rule is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of the Lower Niagara River considered not navigable as listed in the United States Coast Pilot Book 6—Great Lakes: Lake Ontario, Erie, Huron, Michigan and Superior and St. Lawrence River and more specifically as described below. The safety zone to be established by this proposed rule is necessary to protect the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the heavy rapids in the narrow waterway of the Lower Niagara River.

    DATES:

    Comments and related materials must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2015-0492 using any one of the following methods:

    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    (2) Fax: 202-493-2251.

    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    (4) Delivery: At the 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” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email LTJG Amanda Garcia, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone 716-843-9322, email [email protected]. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Acronyms DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking TFR Temporary Final Rule A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided.

    1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2015-0492), 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 at http://www.regulations.gov or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is successfully transmitted. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when the comment is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number [USCG-2015-0492] in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on “Submit a Comment” on the line associated with this rulemaking.

    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. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period and may change the rule based on your comments.

    2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number (USCG-2015-0492) in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

    4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a separate public meeting on this subject. You may submit a request for an additional and/or separate meeting using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES. Any subsequent meetings held where public comment is sought to aid this rulemaking will be held at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

    B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard has already established a permanent safety zone in the Upper Niagara River per 33 CFR 165.902(a) to protect the boating public from the dangers of the waters above and at Niagara Falls. These waters include the United States waters of the Niagara River from the crest of the American and Horseshoe Falls, Niagara Falls, New York to a line drawn across the Niagara River from the downstream side of the mouth of Gill Creek to the upstream end of the breakwater at the mouth of the Welland River.

    The heavy rapids in the section of the Lower Niagara River downstream of Niagara Falls have not historically been subject to regular navigation of vessels. In early 2014, the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo received reports of vessels transiting this section of the Niagara River. These reports prompted further evaluation of the safety of the entire waterway. This NPRM was not preceded by an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), and thus no public comments have yet to be received.

    C. Basis and Purpose

    Due to the reports of vessels transiting this section of the Lower Niagara River an evaluation of the safety of navigation on the heavy rapids was undertaken by federal, state, and local agencies that have cognizance over the waterway. These agencies include the United States Coast Guard, the New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), and the New York State Park Police (NYSPP).

    The purpose of the evaluation was to determine what, if any, rescue capability exists that would be able to respond to vessels and/or passengers in distress in the heavy rapids of the river south of the whirlpool rapids to the International Railroad Bridge.

    Currently, the only agencies that could possibly provide response capabilities include the United States Coast Guard and the New York State Park Police (NYSPP). The NYSPP, per a Memorandum of Agreement between the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), the NYSPP, and the Coast Guard, is the Search and Rescue Mission Coordinator (SMC) in the proposed area.

    The NYSPP does not have search and rescue capabilities in these waters beyond shore-based rescue and recovery. Additionally, applicable New York state law prohibits launching a vessel in these areas. The United States Coast Guard similarly is limited in its ability to respond to any vessel casualty that may occur in these waters, as there are neither vessel capabilities nor adequate air support in the area.

    Accordingly, the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo has determined that no feasible rescue capability exists for vessels in distress or persons in the water in the heavy rapids south of the whirlpool rapids to the International Railroad Bridge. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231

    D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards and lack of adequate rescue capability, the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo proposes to establish a permanent safety zone that will ensure the safety of the public.

    (a) The proposed safety zone will encompass all waters of the Lower Niagara River, Niagara Falls, NY from a straight line drawn from position 43°07′10.70″ N., 079°04′02.32″ W. (NAD 83) and 43°07′09.41″ N., 079°04′05.41″ W. (NAD 83) just south of the whirlpool rapids from the east side of the river to the international border of the United States, to a straight line drawn from position 43°06′34.01″ N., 079°03′28.04″ W. (NAD 83) and 43°06′33.52″ N., 079°03′30.42″ W. (NAD 83) at the International Railroad Bridge. Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the proposed safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Zone Buffalo.

    E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

    1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this proposed rule will be relatively small and is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.

    2. 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 certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule may affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit in the portion of American waters at the whirlpool rapids.

    This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: There have not been a substantial number of small entities attempting navigation on this section of the river.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed 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 proposed rule would economically affect it.

    3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), the Coast Guard wants 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, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that comment on this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    4. Collection of Information

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

    5. Federalism

    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 determined that this rulemaking does not have implications for federalism.

    6. 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.

    7. 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 proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

    11. Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

    12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    14. 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 (NEPA) (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 is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of the Commandant Instruction because it involves the establishment of a safety zone.

    A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and a preliminary 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.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.902(b) to read as follows:
    § 165.902 Niagara River at Niagara Falls, New York—safety zone.

    (b) The following is a safety zone—The United States waters of the Lower Niagara River, Niagara Falls, NY from a straight line drawn from position 43°07′10.70″ N., 079°04′02.32″ W. (NAD 83) and 43°07′09.41″ N., 079°04′05.41″ W. (NAD 83) just south of the whirlpool rapids from the east side of the river to the international border of the United States, to a straight line drawn from position 43°06′34.01″ N., 079°03′28.04″ W. (NAD 83) and 43°06′33.52″ N., 079°03′30.42″ W. (NAD 83) at the International Railroad Bridge.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14620 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0320; FRL-9947-96-Region 2] Disapproval of Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; New York AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove elements of New York's State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements concerning interstate transport provisions.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before July 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0320 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:

    Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3702, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. EPA's Review III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Section 110(a) of the CAA imposes an obligation upon states to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of that NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the “infrastructure” SIP because the SIP ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an “interstate transport SIP.” This rulemaking proposes action on the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements of these submissions. In particular, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (commonly referred to as prong 1), or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality (prong 3) and to protect visibility (prong 4) in another state.

    On March 12, 2008, EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. EPA also revised the secondary 8-hour standard to the level of 0.075 ppm making it identical to the revised primary standard. Infrastructure SIPs addressing the revised standard, including the interstate transport requirements, were due March 12, 2011. On April 4, 2013 the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a revision to its SIP to address requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (the infrastructure requirements) related to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including interstate transport.

    This proposed action pertains only to the portion of the SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(prongs 1 and 2), and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 4). EPA will address the other portions of the April 4, 2013 infrastructure SIP submittal, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prong 3), in another action.

    II. EPA's Review

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act is divided into two subsections: 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii). The first of these, 110(a)(2)(D)(i), in turn, contains four “prongs” the first two of which appear in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the second two of which appear in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) require New York's SIP to contain adequate provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS (prong 1), or interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to any primary or secondary NAAQS (prong 2). The two prongs in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from emitting any air pollutants in amounts which will interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (prong 3) or to protect visibility (prong 4).

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)—Prongs 1and 2

    In its SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, New York cited various state rules including its nitrogen oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) regulations to reduce emissions of NOX from its major stationary sources; NOX RACT Rules for Cement Plants, Glass Plants, Asphalt Production, and other general emission sources; volatile organic carbon (VOC) regulations that limit emissions from major and area sources; and the California low emission vehicle program provisions under CAA Section 177.

    In its submittal, New York indicated that, based on preliminary emissions inventory work, the state would achieve significant NOX and VOC reductions from existing emission reduction programs. New York estimated that, between 2007 and 2020, it will reduce NOX emissions by 46.6% (from 579,471 tons to 328,457 tons). Specifically, New York estimated that NOX RACT limitations will result in NOX emission reductions of 28,796 tons per year, or 78.9 tons per day from 2007 levels. With regard to VOCs, New York estimates that, between 2007 and 2020, it will reduce VOC emissions by 20.8% (from 484,440 tons in 2007 down to 368,784 tons in 2020).

    New York further cited preliminary screening modeling performed for the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) Modeling Committee that assumed a 48-68% decrease in NOX emissions and a 30% reduction in VOC emissions in New York by 2020. The modeling showed that the only monitors “predicted” to be nonattainment (outside the New York metropolitan nonattainment area) were located in the Philadelphia metropolitan area. New York asserted that the Philadelphia monitors would be most significantly affected by emissions from within Pennsylvania and other upwind states. New York indicated that they used the Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) and the California Photochemical Grid (CALGRID) models for their analysis.

    New York also noted that its participation in the NOX trading programs promulgated in EPA's Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) addressed interstate transport requirements with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Although the State acknowledges that CAIR was remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (2008), the State indicated that it could rely on CAIR emission reductions to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS because EPA had not yet (at the time of the submittal) developed a valid replacement rule. New York notes that EPA's Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR),1 which EPA intended to replace CAIR, was vacated by the D.C. Circuit in August 2012, and that court instructed EPA to continue implementation of CAIR until the EPA promulgates a valid replacement.2 New York notes that CAIR imposed an effective emissions rate of 0.094 lbs NOX/mmBTU on New York sources. New York also compares its 2011 ozone season emission NOX rates with NOX rates achieved in other states, noting that New York electric generating units (EGUs) operated at an actual NOX rate of 0.088 lbs NOX/mmBTU. For these reasons, New York concluded that it has satisfied its obligations pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    1 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).

    2 CSAPR was promulgated by EPA to help states reduce air pollution and attain and maintain CAA standards, including the 1997 ozone NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. On August 21, 2012, the D.C. Circuit vacated CASPR. See EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7, 38 (D.C. Circuit 2012). The Court ordered EPA to continue administering CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement for CSAPR. Id. at 60.

    Finally, New York's SIP submission acknowledges that the state has contributed to downwind nonattainment and maintenance problems in New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, citing contribution analysis conducted when the EPA promulgated CSAPR. New York contends that because it shares nonattainment areas with New Jersey and Connecticut, and because the other states to which it has been linked are members of the Ozone Transport Commission, the state will address its obligations with respect to its contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the NAAQS in these states through the other statutory processes.

    Although New York's analysis claims that there will be substantial emission reductions from existing programs from 2007 to 2020, New York admits that those reductions are based on preliminary estimates that have not been updated since New York's March 2013 submission. Nor has the state demonstrated that the emission rates at which EGUs in the state operated are the result of enforceable emission limits or other mandatory programs such that the emission rates will not increase. Moreover, while the State asserts that it will achieve a 46.6% NOX reduction, and 20.8% VOC reduction during that time period, New York's modeling used higher levels of assumed reductions, assuming 48% NOX reductions and 30% VOC reductions without demonstrating how it will achieve those higher levels of emissions reductions. Even assuming these projected emissions reductions were reliable, New York's modeling shows “predicted” nonattainment in Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. New York does not adequately explain how it concludes that New York emissions do not significantly contribute to these predicted exceedances. The fact that the State might have certain planning obligations with respect to areas in these states under other statutory provisions does not absolve the State of its obligation to address the planning requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

    By only evaluating areas with predicted nonattainment in 2020, New York has also failed to address the State's potential interference with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states. In remanding CAIR to the EPA in the North Carolina decision, the D.C. Circuit explained that the regulating authority must give the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) “independent significance” by evaluating the impact of upwind state emissions on downwind areas that, while currently in attainment, are at risk of future nonattainment, considering historic variability. 531 F.3d at 910-911. New York's analysis does not give the “interfere with maintenance” clause of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) independent significance because its analysis did not attempt to evaluate the potential impact of New York emissions on areas that are currently measuring clean data, but that may have issues maintaining that air quality.

    Furthermore, the 2020 projection year New York chose for its modeling and by which the State asserts it will achieve substantial NOX reductions is two years later than the moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, which is July 11, 2018. Among other things, the court's decision in North Carolina, clarified that, to the extent possible, upwind emissions reductions necessary to address the interstate transport of air pollution should be aligned with the attainment dates for downwind nonattainment areas. 531 F.3d at 912. New York has not demonstrated either that the State's SIP is adequate to address interstate transport by the downwind attainment date for the 2008 ozone NAAQS or that emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport are not practically feasible until 2020.

    Among the emissions reductions cited by New York in its SIP, the State cites its participation in CAIR as a control measure that results in control of NOX emissions within the State. New York notes that under CAIR, New York EGUs were subject to both the ozone season NOX emissions trading program and the annual NOX emissions trading program. The CAIR ozone season NOX emissions trading program was intended to address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The CAIR annual NOX emissions trading program, along with the annual sulfur dioxide (SO2) trading program, was intended to address interstate transport of air pollution for the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS.

    Although New York correctly notes that the North Carolina decision kept CAIR in place temporarily while EPA developed a replacement, and that the D.C. Circuit later issued a decision vacating that replacement, CSAPR, and requiring continued implementation of CAIR, the EPA does not agree that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR for purposes of addressing interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. First, EPA designed CAIR to address the 1997 ozone NAAQS, but not the more stringent 2008 ozone standard at issue here. It is not sufficient to merely cite evidence of compliance with older programs such as CAIR or measures implemented for prior ozone NAAQS as a means for satisfying interstate transport obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    More importantly, in North Carolina, the D.C. Circuit held that CAIR was “fundamentally flawed,” 531 F.3d at 929, in part because CAIR did not satisfy the statutory requirement to “achieve something measurable towards the goal of prohibiting sources `within the State' from contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in `any other State.' ” Id. at 908. Accordingly, the D.C. Circuit held in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, “when our decision in North Carolina deemed CAIR to be an invalid effort to implement the requirements of the good neighbor provision, that ruling meant that the initial approval of the CAIR SIPs was in error at the time it was done.” 795 F.3d 118, 133 (2015). For these reasons, the EPA cannot now approve an interstate transport SIP addressing any NAAQS based on the state's participation in CAIR.

    Regardless of CAIR's infirmities, the rule is no longer being implemented. Subsequent to New York's submission of its SIP, on April 29, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that D.C. Circuit decision vacating CSAPR and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit for further proceedings. EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted our motion to lift the judicial stay on CSAPR and delay compliance deadlines by three years. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, No. 11-1302 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 23, 2014), Order at 3. Consistent with the Court's order we issued an interim final rule amending CSAPR so that compliance could begin in an orderly manner on January 1, 2015 (79 FR 71663, December 3, 2014), replacing CAIR. On July 28, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision on the issues raised on remand from the Supreme Court. The court denied all of petitioners' facial challenges to CSAPR, but remanded several emissions budgets to the EPA for reconsideration. EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). A final rule making the revised CSAPR implementation schedule permanent was issued on March 14, 2016. 81 FR 13275. Accordingly, CAIR implementation ended in 2014 and CSAPR implementation began in 2015. States and the EPA are no longer implementing the CAIR trading programs. Thus, it is no longer appropriate for states to rely on the emissions reductions achieved by compliance with CAIR to satisfy emission reduction obligations.

    EPA has recently shared technical information with states to facilitate their efforts to address interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA developed this technical information following the same approach used to evaluate interstate contribution in CSAPR in order to support the recently proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS, 80 FR 75706 (Dec. 3, 2015) (“CSAPR Update Rule”). In CSAPR, EPA used detailed air quality analyses to determine whether an eastern state's contribution to downwind air quality problems was at or above specific thresholds. If a state's contribution did not exceed the specified air quality screening threshold, the state was not considered “linked” to identified downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors and was therefore not considered to significantly contribute or interfere with maintenance of the standard in those downwind areas. If a state exceeded that threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated, taking into account both air quality and cost considerations, to determine what, if any, emissions reductions might be necessary. For the reasons stated below, we believe it is appropriate to use the same approach we used in CSAPR to establish an air quality screening threshold for the evaluation of interstate transport requirements for the 2008 ozone standard.

    In CSAPR, EPA proposed an air quality screening threshold of one percent of the applicable NAAQS and requested comment on whether one percent was appropriate. EPA evaluated the comments received and ultimately determined that one percent was an appropriately low threshold because there were important, even if relatively small, contributions to identified nonattainment and maintenance receptors from multiple upwind states. In response to commenters who advocated a higher or lower threshold than one percent, EPA compiled the contribution modeling results for CSAPR to analyze the impact of different possible thresholds for the eastern United States. EPA's analysis showed that the one-percent threshold captures a high percentage of the total pollution transport affecting downwind states, while the use of higher thresholds would exclude increasingly larger percentages of total transport. For example, at a five percent threshold, the majority of interstate pollution transport affecting downwind receptors would be excluded. In addition, EPA determined that it was important to use a relatively lower one-percent threshold because there are adverse health impacts associated with ambient ozone even at low levels. EPA also determined that a lower threshold such as 0.5 percent would result in relatively modest increases in the overall percentages of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution transport captured relative to the amounts captured at the one-percent level. EPA determined that a “0.5 percent threshold could lead to emission reduction responsibilities in additional states that individually have a very small impact on those receptors—an indicator that emission controls in those states are likely to have a smaller air quality impact at the downwind receptor. We are not convinced that selecting a threshold below one percent is necessary or desirable.”

    In the final CSAPR, EPA determined that one percent was a reasonable choice considering the combined downwind impact of multiple upwind states in the eastern United States, the health effects of low levels of fine particulate matter and ozone pollution, and EPA's previous use of a one-percent threshold in CAIR. EPA used a single “bright line” air quality threshold equal to one percent of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, or 0.08 ppm. The projected contribution from each state was averaged over multiple days with projected high modeled ozone, and then compared to the one-percent threshold. We concluded that this approach for setting and applying the air quality threshold for ozone was appropriate because it provided a robust metric, was consistent with the approach for fine particulate matter used in CSAPR, and because it took into account, and would be applicable to, any future ozone standards below 0.08 ppm. EPA has subsequently proposed to use the same threshold for purposes of evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone standard in the CSAPR Update Rule.

    On August 4, 2015, EPA issued a Notice of Data Availability (NODA) containing air quality modeling data that applies the CSAPR approach to contribution projections for the year 2017 for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.3 The modeling data released in this NODA was also used to support the proposed CSAPR Update Rule. The moderate area attainment date for the 2008 ozone standard is July 11, 2018. In order to demonstrate attainment by this attainment deadline, states will use 2015 through 2017 ambient ozone data. Therefore, EPA proposed that 2017 is an appropriate future year to model for the purpose of examining interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA used photochemical air quality modeling to project ozone concentrations at air quality monitoring sites to 2017 and estimated state-by-state ozone contributions to those 2017 concentrations. This modeling used the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions (CAMx version 6.11) to model the 2011 base year and the 2017 future base case emissions scenarios to identify projected nonattainment and maintenance sites with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017. EPA used nationwide state-level ozone source apportionment modeling (CAMx Ozone Source Apportionment Technology/Anthropogenic Precursor Culpability Analysis technique) to quantify the contribution of 2017 base case NOX and VOC emissions from all sources in each state to the 2017 projected receptors. The air quality model runs were performed for a modeling domain that covers the 48 contiguous United States and adjacent portions of Canada and Mexico. The NODA and the supporting technical support documents have been included in the docket for this SIP action. The modeling data released in the NODA on August 4, 2015 and the CSAPR Update are the most up-to-date information EPA has developed to inform our analysis of upwind state linkages to downwind air quality problems. As discussed in the CSAPR Update proposal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the air quality modeling (1) identified locations in the U.S. where EPA expects nonattainment or maintenance problems in 2017 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., nonattainment or maintenance receptors), and (2) quantified the projected contributions of emissions from upwind states to downwind ozone concentrations at those receptors in 2017 (80 FR 75706, 75720-30, December 3, 2015). Consistent with CSAPR, EPA proposed to use a threshold of 1 percent of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (0.75 parts per billion) to identify linkages between upwind states and downwind nonattainment or maintenance receptors. EPA proposed that eastern states with contributions to a specific receptor that meet or exceed this screening threshold are considered “linked” to that receptor, and were analyzed further to quantify available emissions reductions necessary to address interstate transport to these receptors.

    3 Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection Agency's Updated Ozone Transport Modeling Data for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 80 FR 46271 (August 4, 2015).

    The results of EPA's air quality modeling with respect to New York is summarized in Table 1 below.4 That modeling indicates that emissions from New York are linked to both nonattainment and maintenance receptors in downwind states.

    4 These data also appear in Table V.D-1 of the CSAPR Update proposal. See 80 FR at 75727.

    Table 1—CSAPR Update Proposal Contributions to Downwind Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas State Largest contribution to nonattainment Largest contribution to maintenance Downwind nonattainment receptors
  • located in states
  • Downwind maintenance
  • receptors located
  • in states
  • New York 16.96 ppb 17.21 ppb Connecticut Connecticut and New Jersey.

    As noted above, New York provided information documenting significant emission reductions that have been made throughout the state beginning in 1995 and additional emission reductions expected to occur by 2020. These controls have resulted in significant reductions in NOX emissions in New York and undoubtedly have reduced the amount of transported pollution to other states. However, many of the emission reductions achieved through these measures were accounted for in the EPA's modeling baseline of 2011 used to evaluate interstate transport with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and further accounted for in EPA's modeling projections to 2017. Accordingly, the most recent technical analysis available to the EPA contradicts New York's conclusion that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions to address interstate transport as to the 2008 ozone standard. Furthermore, New York did not demonstrate how these rules and data developed for different purposes provide sufficient controls on emissions to address interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Despite the substantial emissions reductions achieved by New York, we have subsequently published information and proposed an update to CSAPR that addresses the 2008 ozone NAAQS that demonstrates New York emissions still have an impact on other states.

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the 2008 ozone New York Infrastructure SIP submission for both the prong 1 and prong 2 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). As explained above, the SIP submission does not provide an adequate technical analysis demonstrating that the state's SIP contains adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with the 2008 ozone NAAQS in any other state. Moreover, EPA's most recent modeling indicates that emissions from New York are projected to significantly contribute to downwind nonattainment and maintenance receptors in other states.5

    5 New York and others interested parties have provided comments on both the NODA and proposed CSAPR Update Rule. See Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500 at http://www.regulations.gov. We will consider these comments in final rulemaking on the CSAPR Update Rule. Even absent this data, New York's SIP failed to adequately address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)—Prong 4

    In this action, EPA is proposing that New York satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (or prong 4). New York addresses visibility protection requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA approved New York's Regional Haze SIP submittal (August 28, 2012, 77 FR 51915) as part of New York's SIP. The regional haze rule requires 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. Thus, New York's approved Regional Haze SIP ensures that emissions from sources within the State are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states.

    EPA's notes that New York's Regional Haze SIP was supplemented with a FIP by EPA for three units at two sources where EPA disapproved the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for those units. In our August 2012 rulemaking, EPA promulgated a FIP to address our disapproval of BART determinations for Roseton Generating Station Units 1 and 2 and Danskammer Generating Station's Unit 4. 77 FR 51915 (Aug. 28, 2012). The additional emission reductions under the FIP were, however, not necessary to demonstrate that New York met its share of the emissions reductions sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals (found at 40 CFR 51.308 (d)(1)) at Class I areas affected by New York's emissions. EPA fully approved that aspect of New York's Regional Haze SIP. EPA's analysis demonstrating that New York had met its share of its regional emissions reductions can be found in the Regional Haze Technical Support document, which is available in the docket for the rule.

    Since EPA's action on New York's Regional Haze Plan, the Title V permits for Danskammer and Roseton have been updated by New York to incorporate the FIP limits established by EPA. The Title V permit for Danskammer was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on August 20, 2015.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the April 4, 2013 New York SIP submittal pertaining to the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding interstate transport of air pollution that will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS (i.e., CAA section 110 (a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2)) in other states. Disapproval will establish a 2-year deadline for EPA to promulgate a FIP to address New York's CAA interstate transport requirements pertaining to significant contribution to nonattainment and interference with maintenance unless the State submits, and EPA approves a SIP that meets these requirements (per section 110(c)(1) of the CAA). Disapproval does not start a mandatory sanctions clock pursuant to CAA section 179 because this action does not pertain to either a part D plan for nonattainment areas required under CAA section 110(a)(2)(I) or a SIP call pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5).

    EPA is proposing approval of the portion of the April 4, 2013 New York SIP submittal pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (or prong 4).

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews a. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O.

    b. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., because this proposed partial approval and partial disapproval of SIP revisions under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    c. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule, we certify that this proposed action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed partial SIP approval and partial SIP disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply proposes to approve certain State requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed partial approval and partial disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve certain pre-existing requirements, and to disapprove certain other pre-existing requirements, under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed action.

    e. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.”

    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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to approve certain state requirements, and to disapprove certain other State requirements, for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

    f. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP on which EPA is proposing action would not apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed action.

    g. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval under CAA section 110 will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply proposes to approve certain state requirements, and to disapprove certain other state requirements, for inclusion into the SIP.

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

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

    i. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

    EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110(a) of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14523 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 28 [Docket No. USCG-2003-16158] RIN 1625-AA77 Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of withdrawal of advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the withdrawal of this regulatory project, which involved possible amendments to Coast Guard regulations affecting uninspected United States commercial fishing, fish processing, and fish tender vessels. The possible amendments involved vessel stability and watertight integrity, risk awareness and minimization, personnel instruction and drill requirements, safety and survival equipment, and compliance documentation. Withdrawal of this regulatory project will allow the Coast Guard to focus on a new rulemaking project implementing 2010 and 2012 legislation that affects the commercial fishing industry.

    DATES:

    The advance notice of proposed rulemaking on Commercial Fishing Industry Vessels, published on March 31, 2008, at 73 FR 16815, is withdrawn as of June 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice, call or email Mr. Jack Kemerer, Chief, Fishing Vessel Safety Division (CG-CVC-3), Office of Vessel Activities (CG-CVC); telephone 202-372-1249, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    This is one of two Coast Guard publications that appear in today's Federal Register and that address uninspected commercial fishing industry vessels (CFVs).

    • This document, announcing the withdrawal of an older rulemaking project that we began prior to 2010.

    • A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a newer rulemaking project, implementing the 2010 and 2012 statutory mandates.

    We opened this older project in 2002. Its purpose was to improve safety in the commercial fishing industry, which remains one of the most hazardous occupations in the United States. As we discussed in our March 31, 2008, advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM; 73 FR 16815),1 although existing Coast Guard regulations had resulted in improved safety on CFVs, the improvements in safety had leveled off and we concluded that additional regulatory action was needed to achieve further fatality and vessel loss reductions. We further concluded that safety could be improved significantly through new regulations for vessel stability and watertight integrity, risk awareness and minimization, personnel instruction and drill requirements, safety and survival equipment, and compliance documentation.

    1 The ANPRM public comment period originally closed on July 29, 2008, but was reopened until December 15, 2008 (see notice, 73 FR 46912, Aug. 12, 2008). Two public meetings were held in Seattle, WA, Nov. 21 and 22, 2008.

    Public comments on our withdrawal of the older project are welcome, but should be submitted to the docket for the newer project. In particular, we encourage comments on whether any of the regulatory ideas discussed in our March 31, 2008 ANPRM (73 FR 16815) should be the subject of future Coast Guard regulatory action. Please see Part I of the new NPRM's preamble for information on how to submit comments, and see Part VI of that preamble for a discussion of the comments we received on the ANPRM.

    Legislation enacted in 2010 and 2012 has provided the Coast Guard with additional regulatory authority over CFVs. The new legislation appears in Title VI of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010, Pubic Law 111-281, 124 Stat. 2959 and in sections 303 and 305 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-213, 126 Stat. 1563-1534. The new legislation significantly changes the Coast Guard's regulatory authority over CFVs and mandates some safety provisions that were proposed in this older project. For example, the new legislation—

    • Mandates new equipment requirements for many vessels, or extends existing requirements to wider vessel populations;

    • Extends Coast Guard authority over Aleutian Trade fish tenders and CFVs that operate more than 3 nautical miles offshore or that carry more than 16 individuals onboard—the vessels regulated under 46 CFR part 28, subpart C;

    • Requires the Coast Guard to conduct periodic mandatory dockside examinations of vessels regulated under subpart C;

    • Requires new-built, smaller CFVs regulated under subpart C to meet recreational vessel safety standards;

    • Requires CFVs regulated under subpart C to document maintenance, instruction, and drills;

    • Requires new-built, larger, CFVs to meet loadline and vessel classification requirements, and phases in alternate safety compliance requirements for older, larger CFVs; and

    • Expands the Coast Guard's authority to terminate a vessel's operation under unsafe conditions.

    These requirements are discussed at greater length in the newer project's NPRM. We have decided to focus our regulatory attention on the effective implementation of the 2010 and 2012 legislation, and we therefore withdraw this older project. This notice is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552.

    Dated: June 10, 2016. Paul F. Zukunft, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14400 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 14-259; FCC 16-64] Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certification, Rural Broadband Experiments AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on several specific procedures that will apply in the Phase II auction. Pursuant to the Commission's existing rules for competitive bidding for universal service support, “[d]etailed competitive bidding procedures shall be established by public notice prior to the commencement of competitive bidding. With this Further Notice, the Commission begins the process of seeking comment. The Commission seeks comment on three discrete sets of issues relating to the process for determining winning bidders: How to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the Order above; measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states; and measures to achieve the public interest objective of expanding broadband on Tribal lands.

    DATES:

    Comments are due on or before July 21, 2016 and reply comments are due on or before August 5, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 10-90, WC Docket No. 14-58 and WC Docket No. 14-259, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.

    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alexander Minard, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400 or TTY: (202) 418-0484.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58 and 14-259; FCC 16-64, adopted on May 25, 2016 and released on May 26, 2016. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th St. SW., Washington, DC 20554 or at the following Internet address: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0526/FCC-16-64A1.pdf. The Report and Order that was adopted concurrently with the FNPRM is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

    I. Introduction

    1. Over the last several years, the Commission has engaged in a modernization of its universal service regime to support networks capable of providing voice and broadband, including developing a new forward-looking cost model to calculate the cost of providing service in rural and high-cost areas. In 2015, 10 price cap carriers accepted an offer of Phase II support calculated by a cost model in exchange for a state-level commitment to deploy and maintain voice and broadband service in the high-cost areas in their respective states.

    2. In the Further Notice, the Commission begins the process of seeking comment on several specific procedures that will apply in the Phase II auction, including how to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the concurrently adopted Order, measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states, and measures to achieve the public interest objective of expanding broadband on Tribal lands. The forthcoming Auction Comment PN will seek comment on other auction procedures that must be resolved in order to conduct the auction, such as the number of rounds during which bids may be submitted, package bidding, and what information will be disclosed to participants during the bidding process.

    II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    3. Pursuant to the Commission's existing rules for competitive bidding for universal service support, “[d]etailed competitive bidding procedures shall be established by public notice prior to the commencement of competitive bidding.” With this Further Notice, the Commission begins the process of seeking comment on several specific procedures that will apply in the Phase II auction. The Commission seeks comment on three discrete sets of issues relating to the process for determining winning bidders: (1) How to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the concurrently adopted Order; (2) measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states; and (3) measures to achieve the public interest objective of expanding broadband on Tribal lands. The forthcoming Auction Comment PN will seek comment on other auction procedures that must be resolved in order to conduct the auction, such as the number of rounds during which bids may be submitted, package bidding, and what information will be disclosed to participants during the bidding process. The Commission also seeks comment on issues relating to interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations.

    A. Comparing Bids of Differing Performance Levels

    4. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission adopts four technology-neutral performance tiers with varying speed and usage allowances, and for each tier permit bidders to designate either low or high latency. The Commission also concludes that all bids will be considered simultaneously, so that bidders that propose to meet one set of performance standards will be directly competing against bidders that commit to meet other performance standards. To implement this framework, the Commission has decided to use weights to take into account the differing attributes of different types of service performance.

    5. In light of the decisions reached in the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission now seeks to further develop the record on how bids should be weighted in order to achieve its overarching goal of providing households in the relevant high-cost areas with access to high quality broadband services, while making the most efficient use of finite universal service funds. The Commission recognizes that setting appropriate weights is of crucial importance to achieving this goal as well as having a successful Phase II auction. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on weights today in order to expedite its ability to adopt auction procedures regarding the comparison of bids.

    6. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission concludes that it sees the value to consumers in rural markets of having access to service during the 10-year term of support that exceeds its baseline requirements. The Commission wants to ensure that rural America is not left behind, and the consumers in those areas benefit from innovation and advances in technology. All things considered, the Commission values higher speeds over lower speeds, higher usage allowances over lower usage allowances, and lower latency over higher latency. The Commission also sees the benefits to achieving its other universal service objectives if a Phase II service provider will be able to provide broadband adequate to meet the needs of the entire community, including schools, libraries and rural health care providers.

    7. The concurrently adopted Order concludes that the Commission will use the Connect America Cost Model (CAM) to establish reserve prices, and that bids will be scored relative to the reserve price for the areas subject to the bid, with lower bids selected first, taking into account the weights on which the Commission is seeking comment. Specifically, the Commission will divide the annual amount of support per location requested per bid by the model-based support amount per location to determine an initial cost-effectiveness score for a particular bid, i.e., a numeral that represents the relationship of the bid to the reserve price set for the geographic area that is subject to the bid.

    8. The Commission proposes procedures to assign a weight to each service tier as well as the high and low latency designations that would alter the initial cost-effectiveness score of each bid. As described below, the Commission proposes to adopt procedures for weights that would take into account the relative benefits to consumers of the various service tiers. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and any other alternatives. Are there other ways to compare bids, given the Commission's stated goals for this auction?

    9. The Commission thus proposes to establish weights for specific types of bids that represent the relative benefits of service that provides higher speeds, higher usage allowances, and/or lower latency over service that meets lower requirements for participation in the Phase II auction. Under such a scheme, a bid closer to the reserve price but for higher performance levels could be selected based on its “weighted score”—its score that will be compared to other bids once weights are applied to its “cost-effective score”—even if another bidder seeks less actual support to provide the minimum level of service.

    10. The Commission seeks comment on what specific value of weights should be applied to each of the four tiers of service. The Commission seeks comment on whether weights should be set relative to the baseline service tier, or relative to the minimum requirements for this auction. The Commission also seeks comment on what specific value of weights should be applied to low and high latency designations for each of the four tiers. In particular, how should those tier weights be adjusted in light of low and high latency designations? Should a weight for latency be applied in the same fashion across all of the speed/usage tiers? Ultimately, the Commission seeks to establish weights that provide rural consumers with the highest quality service while making efficient use of universal service funds. In designing weights to achieve this goal, the Commission does not predetermine which bidder will win if competing head to head with another bidder for a given area. The Commission instead intends to provide a means for numerically comparing the bids received based on the value to rural consumers of having access to different service levels using the finite budget of this auction.

    11. The Commission seeks comment on whether, and, if so, how, the Commission should consider subscribership data for broadband services of varying performance levels and expected costs per subscribed location in establishing weights for the Phase II auction. For example, the Commission seeks comment on potentially using the Commission's Form 477 data to inform its decision regarding weights in the Phase II auction. Should national market share data, based on the Commission's Form 477 data, inform the Commission's setting of weights?

    12. The Commission recognizes, however, that these national market shares are a function of both availability and consumer preferences for certain services, and that more recent data may show different trends. For that reason, national shares would not necessarily reflect subscribership of these services where they are actually the only broadband choice deployed. Of course, the eligible areas in the Phase II auction are, by definition, those areas lacking 10 Mbps/1 Mbps service. The Commission seeks comment on whether, and, if so, how, to account for both variation in deployment across geographic areas and consumer tastes in setting procedures for weights used to compare bids. For example, could analysis be performed using FCC Form 477 subscription and deployment data or other data sources to predict the expected subscribership rate for a particular performance level offering of speed, usage, and latency in a given geographic area if that were the only offering available to every household? How could such analysis inform the weights adopted for the Phase II auction? The Commission is also guided by the statutory goal of ensuring consumers in rural and high-cost areas have access to services “that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas.” How should this objective inform the Commission's weights? Could the Commission analyze its Form 477 data on broadband deployment and subscription in urban areas in setting weights for different performance tiers? Are there other objective metrics or data sources the Commission can rely on to inform the specific numerical weights it will apply to bids?

    13. A number of parties have submitted various proposals for how to weigh bids with differing performance obligations. For example, WISPA proposed that “[b]idders would begin the auction process with 100 points” and “could gain additional points, or bidding credits” by exceeding baseline performance criteria. Hughes suggested specific weights for different services levels, with no weight applied to a 10/1 speed tier, and higher weights for faster speeds and usage that exceeded baseline requirements. It proposed a 25 percent weight for low-latency offerings. The Utilities Technology Council and National Rural Electric Cooperative Association proposed weights that would translate into a weight of 50 for the gigabit service tier, a weight of 35 for the above-baseline service tier, no weight for the baseline service tier, and a negative 25 weight for the minimum service tier, as well as a negative 25 weight for high-latency offerings. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals in light of the specific performance obligation tiers and latency framework the Commission adopts in the concurrently adopted Order and its decision to use weights to adjust the cost-effectiveness score of individual bids. The Commission also seeks comment on any alternative weighting proposals.

    14. The Commission does not intend to adopt auction procedures that would apply an additional weight to the bid depending on the percentage of available funds bid in a census block, as suggested by one commenter. The Commission already has decided that bids will be compared in the first instance based on the ratio of the bid amount divided by the reserve price. The weighting system that the Commission seeks comment on today would effectively adjust that bid price for purposes of comparison.

    B. Access to Appropriate Phase II Levels for All States

    15. In this Further Notice, the Commission next seeks comment on measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission recognizes the concerns raised by those states where significant amounts of Phase II funding were declined (declined states). Specifically, the Commission recognizes that it is making available $2.15 billion in support in the Phase II auction, of which approximately $1.05 billion was originally offered to particular states as part of the Phase II state-wide election process. And the Commission recognizes that where incumbent carriers declined the offer of support does not diminish its universal service obligation to connect consumers in areas that would have been reached had the offer been accepted and to provide sufficient universal service funds to do so. The Commission seeks to design a Phase II auction that achieves an efficient and equitable distribution across the states for Phase II Connect America funding, recognizing the relative characteristics of individual states. The Commission seeks comment generally on how to address these concerns in line with its universal service objectives. The Commission seeks comment on the ideas set forth below and also invite commenters to identify any additional or alternative measures it could take to address these concerns.

    16. To begin with, the Commission recognizes and applauds state initiatives to advance broadband deployment and access to unserved and underserved consumers. The Commission seeks further comment on how best to coordinate with such initiatives to achieve its universal service goals.

    17. With respect to equitable distribution among states, the Commission first seeks comment on establishing weights that would provide a preference to such declined states or other auction design procedures for the comparison of bids to ensure equitable funding to such states. The Commission also seeks comment on adopting weights to provide a preference for those states that have made a meaningful commitment to advance broadband, such as the state initiatives mentioned above. If the Commission were to adopt such weights for either purpose, at what value should such weights be set? Are there other auction procedures that could be used that would be simple to administer and help achieve the Commission's objectives?

    18. Second, the Commission seeks comment on creating a `backstop' of funds that could be used, if necessary, to ensure an equitable distribution of funding to declined states. For example, the Commission could conduct the Phase II auction initially with $1.75 billion of the total $2.15 billion Phase II budget. If a state falls short of winning aggregate bids that total to a set percentage of the amount previously declined in the state by the incumbent price cap carrier, the remaining $400 million could be allocated to the remaining next-in-line bidders in just those states, on a lowest bid score basis. If the Commission were to adopt such an approach, what percentage of the declined amount should be used as the trigger amount? Should the Commission adopt an 80 percent trigger? Or a higher or lower trigger? Alternatively, should next-in-line bidders in those specific states be selected on a lowest cost basis?

    19. Third, the Commission seeks comment on viewing the problem of ensuring adequate service to all rural Americans holistically, so any state allocated less funding in the Phase II auction will almost certainly need more support from the Remote Areas Fund. The Commission could, for example, reserve funding in the Remote Areas Fund in direct proportion to any shortfall between the funding declined in the statewide election process and the amount allocated in the Phase II auction. A holistic approach may balance the concerns for efficiency in the Phase II auction with the Commission's concern for ensuring that every state's rural residents are given the opportunity to access broadband at reasonably comparable speeds to urban areas. If the Commission adopted this approach, should it guarantees all the funding declined for a state is allocated there between the Phase II auction and the Remote Areas Fund, or only some proportion? If the latter, how should the Commission choose that amount?

    20. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on setting a ceiling for the aggregate total of winning bids in any given state to prevent a substantial redistribution of Phase II funds among states. For example, the Commission could adopt auction procedures that would help ensure that winning bids in a given state do not exceed more than 125 percent of the amount declined by the incumbent price cap carriers in that state. If the Commission were to adopt such a ceiling, what would be the right level for such a ceiling?

    21. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on adopting alternative auction procedures designed to help ensure that declined states receive all or substantially all of the funds declined by the incumbent carrier. Such procedures would help ensure that, following the Phase II auction, declined states would be in the same or substantially the same position they would have been in had the incumbent carrier accepted support. For example, the Commission could establish procedures to prioritize selection of bids for declined states until a specified floor is met, assuming sufficient bidding in the declined state. If the Commission were to adopt such a floor, should the floor be set at 100 percent of the declined amount? Or should it be set at 95 or 90 percent or some other percentage of declined support?

    22. The Commission seeks comment on advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives as well as any other alternatives commenters suggest. Commenters should explain how each of the approaches they advocate would affect the efficiency of the Phase II auction. Which mechanism or combination of mechanisms might best advance the Commission's objective of ensuring that all states have access to appropriate levels of Phase II funding overall? In considering mechanisms to ensure appropriate support to all of the states, should the Commission focus on the amount of funding that was declined by the incumbent carriers, the number of locations that would have been served had the incumbent carrier accepted the Phase II offer of support, or the overall amount of Phase II support provided to the state?

    C. Access to Service on Tribal Lands

    23. The Commission also seeks to further develop the record on how to advance its policy objective of extending broadband to unserved Tribal lands through the Phase II auction. The Commission recognizes the historic challenges of serving Tribal lands and the low level of broadband service deployment on Tribal lands. Here, the Commission seeks comment on several possible auction procedures that could advance its goal of expanding access to broadband on Tribal lands.

    24. In prior universal service competitive bidding processes, the Commission adopted a Tribal bidding credit. In Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, Tribal bidders could apply a 25 percent credit to bids. In the rural broadband experiments, bids proposing to serve only Tribal lands could apply a 25 percent credit.

    25. The Commission seeks comment on adopting such a Tribal-specific weight in the Phase II auction and how such a weight should be designed to further its objective of advancing broadband deployment on Tribal lands. Should the Commission adopt a weight that would lower the effective score of Tribal entities that bid (thereby making their bids more like to succeed)? Or should the Commission adopts a weight that would apply to any bid seeking to serve Tribal lands? If a bid is seeking to serve a combination of Tribal lands and non-Tribal lands, should the Commission applies a Tribal weight? If so, how would that weight be applied across the bid so as not to benefit bids that seek to serve only a de minimis number of Tribal locations? To the extent that a weight is applied to a bid that contains both Tribal and non-Tribal census blocks, should the weight be apportioned by number of locations in the relevant areas or by the geography (square miles) of the relevant areas? Is there some other procedure for Tribal weights that would be simple to administer?

    26. One goal of a Tribal-specific weight could be to make it more likely a bidder proposing to serve Tribal lands would be selected by lowering its bid score. Another goal could be to make it more likely that the Commission has bidders willing to bid on Tribal lands. A score-lowering weight alone may not achieve the goal of incentivizing providers to bid on Tribal lands. As the Commission has noted in the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, greater financial support may be necessary in order to ensure the availability of broadband on Tribal lands. The Commission therefore also seeks comment on any alternative auction procedures that could be adopted to further its goals of advancing deployment on Tribal lands.

    D. Limited Adjustments to Interim Deployment Milestones

    27. Finally, as noted in the concurrently adopted Order, the interim deployment milestones adopted above may not be appropriate for non-terrestrial providers or other providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations. Here, the Commission seeks comment on how to address this issue. Some parties have made proposals in the record to address this issue. For instance, a satellite provider may already have launched the satellite on which it will rely to provide the broadband service and need only to deploy customer premises equipment. In that circumstance, the interim deployment milestones would provide more time than needed to begin offering service to consumers. The Commission seeks comment on the proposal in the record and any alternative ways to address the issue. How should interim deployment milestones be modified, if at all, for providers that have already deployed significant amounts of infrastructure necessary to meet the service commitments? What specific milestones should the Commission adopt in the alternative so as to be able to monitor compliance with deployment obligations? As the Commission evaluates such alternatives, it remains mindful of its goals of promoting universal service efficiently while maintaining the financial integrity of the fund.

    III. Procedural Matters A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    28. The FNPRM contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Commission as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    29. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities from the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice). The Commission requests written public comment on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Further Notice provided on the concurrently adopted Report and Order (Order). The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    1. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    30. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission adopts public interest obligations for recipients of support awarded through the Phase II competitive bidding process that will be known in advance of the auction and that will continue for the duration of the term of support, recognizing that competitive bidding is likely to be more efficient if potential bidders know what their performance standards will be before bids are made. In particular, the Commission establishes four technology-neutral tiers of bids available for bidding with varying speed and usage allowances, all at reasonably comparable rates, and for each tier will differentiate between bids that would commit to either lower or higher latency. The concurrently adopted Order provides general guidance on auction design, with certain details to be determined by the Commission at a future date in the Auction Procedures Public Notice, after further opportunity for comment.

    31. Separately, with the Further Notice, the Commission begins the process of seeking comment on several specific procedures that will apply to the Phase II auction. The Commission seeks comment on three discrete sets of issues relating to the process for determining winning bidders: (1) How to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the concurrently adopted Order; (2) measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states; and (3) measures to achieve the public interest objective of expanding broadband on Tribal lands. The Commission also seeks comment on issues relating to interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations.

    a. Comparing Bids of Differing Performance Levels

    32. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission adopts four technology-neutral performance tiers with varying speed and usage allowances, and for each tier permit bidders to designate either low or high latency. The Commission also concludes that all bids will be considered simultaneously, so that bidders that propose to meet one set of performance standards will be directly competing against bidders that propose to meet other performance standards. To implement this framework, the Commission has decided to use weights to take into account the differing attributes of different types of service performance.

    33. The Further Notice seeks comment on how bids should be weighted in order to achieve its overarching goal of providing households in the relevant high-cost areas with access to high quality broadband services, while making the most efficient use of limited universal service funds. The Commission recognizes that setting appropriate weights is of crucial importance to achieving this goal and implementing a successful Phase II auction. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on weights in the Further Notice in order to expedite its ability to adopt auction procedures regarding the comparison of bids. A number of parties have submitted various proposals for how to weigh bids with differing performance obligations. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on these proposals and how it should consider them in light of the performance obligation tiers and latency framework it adopts in the concurrently adopted Order. The Commission also seeks comment on any alternative weighting proposals.

    34. The Further Notice proposes to adopt procedures that would assign a weight to each service tier as well as the high and low latency designations that would alter the initial cost-effectiveness score of each bid. The Further Notice proposes to adopt procedures for weights that would take into account the relative benefits to consumers of higher speeds, higher usage allowances, and lower latency. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals and any other alternatives. The Further Notice also seeks comment on what specific value of weights should be applied to each tier of service, and whether any of the different service tiers should be valued equivalently. The Commission also seeks comment on whether weights should be set relative to the baseline service tier, relative to the minimum requirements for this auction, or other approaches. The Commission also seeks comment on potentially using the Commission's Form 477 data or other subscribership data including costs per subscriber location in setting weights.

    b. Access to Appropriate Phase II Levels for All States

    35. The Further Notice also seeks comment on measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states. In the concurrently adopted Order, the Commission recognizes the concerns raised by those states where significant amounts of Phase II funding were declined (declined states). The Commission seeks comment in the Further Notice generally on how to address these concerns in line with its universal service objectives.

    36. The Commission first seeks comment in the Further Notice on establishing weights that would provide a preference to declined states or other auction design procedures for the comparison of bids to ensure equitable funding to such states. The Commission also seeks comment on adopting weights to provide a preference for those states that have made a meaningful commitment to advance broadband. The Commission seeks comment on creating a funding `backstop' that could be used, if necessary, to ensure an equitable distribution of funding to declined states. The Commission also seeks comment on putting in place additional or subsequent measures to make up any shortfall from the declined amounts that remain following the Phase II auction. The Commission seeks comment on adopting an auction procedure that sets a ceiling for the aggregate total of winning bids in any given state to prevent a substantial redistribution of Phase II funds among states. If the Commission were to adopt such a ceiling, what would be the appropriate level? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on adopting auction procedures intended to ensure that declined states receive all or substantially all of the funds declined by the incumbent carrier.

    c. Access to Service on Tribal Lands

    37. In the Further Notice, the Commission acts to further develop the record on how to advance its policy objective of extending broadband to unserved Tribal lands. The Commission recognizes the historic challenges of serving Tribal lands and the low deployment of broadband service on Tribal lands. The Commission seeks comment on several auction procedures that could advance its goal of expanding access to broadband on Tribal lands.

    38. The Commission seeks comment on adopting a Tribal-specific weight in the Phase II auction and how such a weighting should be designed to further its objective of advancing broadband deployment on Tribal lands. The Commission seeks comment on whether to provide a weight to the bids of all or a subset of entities bidding on Tribal lands and it seeks comment whether all or part of the area bid on must be Tribal lands for the bidder to receive a Tribal-specific weight. The Commission also seeks comment in the Further Notice on any alternative auction procedures that could be adopted to further its goals of advancing broadband deployment on Tribal lands.

    d. Limited Adjustments to Interim Deployment Milestones

    39. In the Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on how to address interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or other providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations. The Commission seeks comment on how interim deployment milestones should be modified, if at all, for providers that have already deployed significant amounts of infrastructure necessary to meet the service commitments and on what specific milestones should the Commission adopt in the alternative so as to be able to monitor compliance with deployment obligations.

    2. Legal Basis

    40. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to the Notice is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 10, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 1302, and sections 1.1, 1.3, 1.421, 1.427, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.3, 1.421, 1.427, and 1.429.

    3. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Would Apply

    41. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small-business concern” is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

    a. Total Small Entities

    42. The Commission's proposed action, if implemented, may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million small businesses, according to the SBA, which represents 99.7% of all businesses in the United States. In addition, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations. Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of this total, as many as 89,327 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.” Thus, the Commission estimates that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

    b. Broadband Internet Access Service Providers

    43. Any rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice will apply to broadband Internet access service providers. The Economic Census places these firms, whose services might include Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), in either of two categories, depending on whether the service is provided over the provider's own telecommunications facilities (e.g., cable and DSL ISPs), or over client-supplied telecommunications connections (e.g., dial-up ISPs). The former are within the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers, which has an SBA small business size standard of 1,500 or fewer employees. These are also labeled “broadband.” The latter are within the category of All Other Telecommunications, which has a size standard of annual receipts of $32.5 million or less. These are labeled non-broadband. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in the first category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 3144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. For the second category, the data show that 2,383 firms operated for the entire year. Of those, 2,346 had annual receipts below $32.5 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of broadband Internet access service provider firms are small entities.

    44. The broadband Internet access service provider industry has changed since this definition was introduced in 2007. The data cited above may therefore include entities that no longer provide broadband Internet access service, and may exclude entities that now provide such service. To ensure that this IRFA describes the universe of small entities that the Commission's action might affect, the Commission discusses in turn several different types of entities that might be providing broadband Internet access service. The Commission notes that, although it has no specific information on the number of small entities that provide broadband Internet access service over unlicensed spectrum, it includes these entities in its Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.

    c. Wireline Providers

    45. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent LEC services. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent LEC providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent LEC service are small businesses that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    46. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and other local service providers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    47. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although it emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

    48. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 359 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 317 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 42 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    49. Operator Service Providers (OSPs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 33 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator services. Of these, an estimated 31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    50. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 193 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these, an estimated all 193 have 1,500 or fewer employees and none have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    51. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    52. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 881 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 857 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    53. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to Other Toll Carriers. This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 284 companies reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of other toll carriage. Of these, an estimated 279 have 1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most Other Toll Carriers are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    54. 800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for 800 and 800-like service (toll free) subscribers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The most reliable source of information regarding the number of these service subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800, 888, 877, and 866 numbers in use. According to the Commission's data, as of September 2009, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,860,000; the number of 888 numbers assigned was 5,588,687; the number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,721,866; and the number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,867,736. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are 7,860,000 or fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 5,588,687 or fewer small entity 888 subscribers; 4,721,866 or fewer small entity 877 subscribers; and 7,867,736 or fewer small entity 866 subscribers.

    d. Wireless Providers—Fixed and Mobile

    55. The broadband Internet access service provider category covered by this Further Notice may cover multiple wireless firms and categories of regulated wireless services. Thus, to the extent the wireless services listed below are used by wireless firms for broadband Internet access service, the proposed actions may have an impact on those small businesses as set forth above and further below. In addition, for those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that claim to qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments and transfers or reportable eligibility events, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

    56. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new, broad, economic census category. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Since all firms with fewer than 1,500 employees are considered small, given the total employment in the sector, the Commission estimates that the vast majority of wireless firms are small.

    57. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions.

    58. 218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the small business size standard was an entity that, together with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years. In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 64 FR 59656, November 3, 1999, the Commission established a small business size standard for a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

    59. 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (“WCS”) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the auction, which was conducted in 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity.

    60. 1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. One license was awarded. The winning bidder was not a small entity.

    61. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, a little less than one third of these entities can be considered small.

    62. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.

    63. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.

    64. Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses. The Commission awards “small entity” bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The Commission awards “very small entity” bidding credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction began on December 5, 1995, and closed on April 15, 1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for the 800 MHz band was held on January 10, 2002 and closed on January 17, 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.

    65. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the General Category channels began on August 16, 2000, and was completed on September 1, 2000. Eleven bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band and qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed on December 5, 2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed status as small businesses.

    66. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licenses and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In addition, the Commission does not know how many of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees, which is the SBA-determined size standard. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as defined by the SBA.

    67. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) licenses—“entrepreneur”—which is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.

    68. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 72 FR 48814, August 24, 2007. An auction of 700 MHz licenses commenced January 24, 2008 and closed on March 18, 2008, which included, 176 Economic Area licenses in the A Block, 734 Cellular Market Area licenses in the B Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.

    69. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five licenses.

    70. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, 65 FR 17594, April 4, 2000, the Commission adopted size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001, and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.

    71. Cellular Radiotelephone Service. Auction 77 was held to resolve one group of mutually exclusive applications for Cellular Radiotelephone Service licenses for unserved areas in New Mexico. Bidding credits for designated entities were not available in Auction 77. In 2008, the Commission completed the closed auction of one unserved service area in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, designated as Auction 77. Auction 77 concluded with one provisionally winning bid for the unserved area totaling $25,002.

    72. Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee's primary (non-telecommunications) business operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR system is a small business as defined by the SBA, the Commission uses the broad census category, Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The Commission notes that PLMR licensees generally use the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular industry subsector to which the licensee belongs.

    73. As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating 921,909 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. The Commission notes that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities covering a great variety of industries.

    74. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). In the present context, the Commission will use the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and policies proposed herein.

    75. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has previously used the SBA's small business size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. These definitions were approved by the SBA. In May 2006, the Commission completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction No. 65). On June 2, 2006, the auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.

    76. Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals. Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes of the Commission's evaluations in this analysis, the Commission estimates that there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars. In addition, a “very small” business is one that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million dollars. There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the above special small business size standards and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    77. Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although the Commission does not know for certain which entities are likely to apply for these frequencies, it notes that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.

    78. 3650-3700 MHz band. In March 2005, the Commission released a Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order that provides for nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). As of April 2010, more than 1270 licenses have been granted and more than 7433 sites have been registered. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive licensees. However, the Commission estimates that the majority of these licensees are Internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of those licensees are small businesses.

    79. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status. At present, there are approximately 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. There are approximately 135 LMDS licensees, three DEMS licensees, and three 24 GHz licensees. The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of the IRFA, the Commission will use the SBA's definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons. Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. The Commission notes, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category includes some large entities.

    80. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

    81. 39 GHz Service. The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years. An additional size standard for “very small business” is: An entity that, together with affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    82. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules.

    83. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

    84. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently 2,436 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities. Thus, the Commission estimates that at least 2,336 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use the most current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 996 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 948 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 48 firms had receipts of $10 million or more but less than $25 million. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

    85. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. In 1994, the Commission conducted an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses. A second auction was also conducted later in 1994. For purposes of the first two Narrowband PCS auctions, “small businesses” were entities with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. Through these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small businesses. To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 65 FR 35843, June 6, 2000. A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. A third auction was conducted in 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses. Three of these claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

    86. Paging (Private and Common Carrier). In the Paging Third Report and Order, 64 FR 33762, June 24, 1999, the Commission developed a small business size standard for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. A “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Additionally, a “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. According to Commission data, 291 carriers have reported that they are engaged in Paging or Messaging Service. Of these, an estimated 289 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of paging providers are small entities that may be affected by its action. An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold. Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won 440 licenses. A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area (“EA”) licenses was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold. One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874 licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003. Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. A fourth auction, consisting of 9,603 lower and upper paging band licenses was held in the year 2010. Twenty-nine bidders claiming small or very small business status won 3,016 licenses.

    87. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the SBA rules applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under this category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's small business size standard that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice.

    88. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 62 FR 15978, April 3, 1997, the Commission adopted a small business size standard for “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business size standard indicates that a “small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. A “very small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small business size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine small businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158 licenses.

    e. Satellite Service Providers

    89. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a small business size standard of $30 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size standard of $30 million or less in annual receipts.

    90. The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 570 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 530 firms had annual receipts of under $30 million, and 40 firms had receipts of over $30 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action.

    91. The second category of Other Telecommunications comprises, inter alia, “establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.” For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 1,274 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,252 had annual receipts below $25 million per year. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by its action.

    f. Cable Service Providers

    92. Because section 706 requires the Commission to monitor the deployment of broadband using any technology, the Commission anticipates that some broadband service providers may not provide telephone service. Accordingly, the Commission describes below other types of firms that may provide broadband services, including cable companies, MDS providers, and utilities, among others.

    93. Cable and Other Program Distributors. Since 2007, these services have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must, however, use current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard; that size standard was: all such firms having $13.5 million or less in annual receipts. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 2,048 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 1,393 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 655 firms had receipts of $10 million or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

    94. Cable Companies and Systems. The Commission has also developed its own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a “small cable company” is one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide. Industry data that there are currently 4,600 active cable systems in the United States. Of this total, all but nine cable operators are small under the 400,000 subscriber size standard. In addition, under the Commission's rules, a “small system” is a cable system serving 15,000 or fewer subscribers. Current Commission records show 4,945 cable systems nationwide. Of this total, 4,380 cable systems have less than 20,000 subscribers, and 565 systems have 20,000 or more subscribers, based on the same records. Thus, under this standard, the Commission estimates that most cable systems are small entities.

    95. Cable System Operators. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is “a cable operator that, directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate exceed $250,000,000.” The Commission has determined that an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed $250 million in the aggregate. Based on available data, the Commission finds that all but ten incumbent cable operators are small entities under this size standard. The Commission notes that the Commission neither requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed $250 million, and therefore it is unable to estimate more accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small under this size standard.

    96. The open video system (“OVS”) framework was established in 1996, and is one of four statutorily recognized options for the provision of video programming services by local exchange carriers. The OVS framework provides opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription services, OVS falls within the SBA small business size standard covering cable services, which is “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, which is: All such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in this previous category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 939 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this second size standard, most cable systems are small and may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Further Notice. In addition, the Commission notes that it has certified some OVS operators, with some now providing service. Broadband service providers (“BSPs”) are currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or local OVS franchises. The Commission does not have financial or employment information regarding the entities authorized to provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. Thus, again, at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small entities.

    g. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors

    97. Electric Power Generators, Transmitters, and Distributors. The Census Bureau defines an industry group comprised of “establishments, primarily engaged in generating, transmitting, and/or distributing electric power. Establishments in this industry group may perform one or more of the following activities: (1) Operate generation facilities that produce electric energy; (2) operate transmission systems that convey the electricity from the generation facility to the distribution system; and (3) operate distribution systems that convey electric power received from the generation facility or the transmission system to the final consumer.” The SBA has developed a small business size standard for firms in this category: “A firm is small if, including its affiliates, it is primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale and its total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours.” Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were 1,174 firms that operated for the entire year in this category. Of these firms, 50 had 1,000 employees or more, and 1,124 had fewer than 1,000 employees. Based on this data, a majority of these firms can be considered small.

    4. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    98. In the Further Notice, the Commission begins the process of seeking comment on several specific procedures that will apply in the Phase II auction. The Commission seeks comment on three discrete sets of issues relating to the process for determining winning bidders: (1) How to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the concurrently adopted Order; (2) measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states; and (3) measures to achieve the public interest objective of expanding broadband on Tribal lands. The Commission also seeks comment on issues relating to interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations.

    99. First, the Commission seeks comment on how to apply weights to the different levels of performance adopted in the concurrently adopted Order. As part of the weighting process, bidders should not need to provide additional information beyond their bid.

    100. Second, the Commission also seeks comment on measures to achieve the public interest objective of ensuring appropriate support for all of the states. To the extent that these procedures require bidders to identify whether they qualify, bidders will have to provide that information to the Commission.

    101. Third, the Commission seeks comment on several auction procedures that could advance its goal of expanding access to broadband on Tribal lands. Similarly, to the extent that these procedures require bidders to identify whether they qualify, bidders will have to provide that information to the Commission.

    102. Fourth, the Commission seeks comment on issues relating to interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations. Alternative interim milestones could require entities to report deployment information at different or accelerated intervals.

    5. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered

    103. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities. The Commission expects to consider all of these factors when it has received substantive comment from the public and potentially affected entities.

    104. Comparing Bids of Different Performance Levels. The Commission does not expect the submission of additional information from bidders in order to score weighted bids. In the Further Notice, the Commission specifically seeks comment on the weighting proposals of a number of industry groups, and it will take into account any concerns that these groups and subsequent commenters may have regarding any additional burden on carriers, particularly small entities. The Commission expects to consider whether any burden from these procedures would be outweighed by the benefit of furthering the Commission's goal to provide households in the relevant high-cost areas with access to high quality broadband services in the most efficient way possible.

    105. Access to Appropriate Phase II Levels for All States. The Commission does not expect that any weighting factors or other processes adopted to ensure appropriate support for all states will increase the administrative burden on bidders. To the extent that these procedures require bidders to identify whether they qualify, such as whether a bidder is submitting a bid in a declined state, bidders should readily have access to the necessary information.

    106. Access to Service on Tribal Lands. Similarly, the Commission does not expect that any weighting factors or other processes adopted to advance its goal of expanding access to broadband on Tribal lands will increase the administrative burden on bidders. To the extent that these procedures require bidders to identify whether they qualify, such as whether a bidder is submitting a bid to serve Tribal lands, bidders should readily have access to the necessary information.

    107. Limited Adjustments to Interim Deployment Milestones. Interim deployment milestones for non-terrestrial providers or providers that have already deployed the infrastructure they intend to use to fulfill their Phase II obligations could require entities to report deployment information at different or accelerated intervals than other Phase II recipients. However, such entities could complete deployment reporting sooner than other providers. All high-cost recipients are subject to narrowly tailored reporting obligations in order to enable the Commission to determine how high-cost support is being used to improve broadband availability, service quality, and capacity.

    108. More generally, the Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the Further Notice and this IRFA, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding. The proposals and questions laid out in the Further Notice were designed to ensure the Commission has a complete understanding of the benefits and potential burdens associated with the different actions and methods.

    6. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rules

    109. None.

    C. Ex Parte Presentations

    110. Permit-But-Disclose. The proceeding this Second FNPRM initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

    111. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    112. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments and reply comments must also comply with section 1.49 and all other applicable sections of the Commission's rules. The Commission directs all interested parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length of their submission. The Commission also strongly encourages parties to track the organization set forth in the FNPRM in order to facilitate its internal review process.

    113. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Alexander Minard of the Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, [email protected], (202) 418-7400.

    IV. Ordering Clauses

    114. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 10, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 160, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 503, 1302, and sections 1.1, 1.427, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.427, and 1.429, that the concurrently adopted Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register, except for those rules and requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval. It is the Commission's intention in adopting these rules that if any of the rules that it retains, modifies, or adopts herein, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, are held to be unlawful, the remaining portions of the rules not deemed unlawful, and the application of such rules to other persons or circumstances, shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

    115. It is further ordered that, pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 5, 10, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 155, 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, 405, 1302, and sections 1.1, 1.421, 1.427, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421, 1.427, and 1.429, notice is hereby given of the proposals and tentative conclusions described in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

    116. It is further ordered that Part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is amended as set forth in Appendix A, and such rule amendments shall be effective thirty (30) days after publication of the rules amendments in the Federal Register, except to the extent they contain information collections subject to PRA review. The rules that contain information collections subject to PRA review shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval and an effective date.

    117. It is further ordered that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of the concurrently adopted Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    118. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of the concurrently adopted Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14507 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Chapter X [Docket No. EP 733] Expediting Rate Cases AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to section 11 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, the Surface Transportation Board (Board or STB) is instituting a proceeding through this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) to assess procedures that are available to parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation, and the potential application of any such procedures to rate cases before the Board. The Board also intends to assess additional ways to move stand-alone cost (SAC) rate cases in particular more expeditiously.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by August 1, 2016. Reply comments are due by August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on this proposal may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the E-FILING link on the Board's Web site, at http://stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: EP 733, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. Copies of written comments will be available for viewing and self-copying at the Board's Public Docket Room, Room 131, and will be posted to the Board's Web site. Information or questions regarding this ANPR should reference Docket No. EP 733 and be in writing addressed to: Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Davis: (202) 245-0378. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 11 of the Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization Act of 2015, Public Law 114-110, 129 Stat. 2228 (2015) (STB Reauthorization Act) directs the Board, not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of the Act, to “initiate a proceeding to assess procedures that are available to parties in litigation before courts to expedite such litigation and the potential application of any such procedures to rate cases.” 129 Stat. 2228. In addition, section 11 requires the Board to comply with a new timeline in SAC cases.1

    1 The statute previously required the Board to issue a decision no later than 270 days after the close of the record, which the Board measured from the filing of closing briefs. Under the STB Reauthorization Act, the Board is now required to issue a decision no later than 180 days after the close of the record, which by statute is now defined to exclude closing briefs. See 49 U.S.C. 10704(d)(2). Thus, pursuant to the STB Reauthorization Act, the time available to the Board to issue a decision after closing briefs has been reduced from 270 days to 150 days. The Board has adopted a new timeline to comply with this provision. Revised Procedural Schedule in Stand-Alone Cost Cases, EP 732, slip op. at 2-5 & n.3 (STB served Mar. 9, 2016).

    In advance of initiating this proceeding, Board staff held informal meetings with stakeholders 2 to explore and discuss ideas on: (1) How procedures to expedite court litigation could be applied to rate cases, and (2) additional ways to move SAC cases forward more expeditiously.

    2 Board staff met with individuals either associated with and/or speaking on behalf of the following organizations: American Chemistry Council; Archer Daniels Midland Company; CSX Transportation, Inc.; Economists Incorporated; Dr. Gerald Faulhaber; FTI Consulting, Inc.; GKG Law, P.C.; Growth Energy; Highroad Consulting; L.E. Peabody; LaRoe, Winn, Moerman & Donovan; consultant Michael A. Nelson; Norfolk Southern Railway Company; Olin Corporation; POET Ethanol Products; Sidley Austin LLP; Slover & Loftus LLP; Steptoe & Johnson LLP; The Chlorine Institute; The Fertilizer Institute; The National Industrial Transportation League; and Thompson Hine LLP. We note that some participants expressed individual views, not on behalf of the organization(s) with which they are associated.

    Based on the Board's experience in processing rate cases, as well as the feedback received during the informal meetings, the Board has generated a number of ideas to expedite rate cases. We now seek formal comment on procedures used to expedite court litigation that could be applied to rate cases and the ideas listed below to expedite SAC through this ANPR.3 In their comments, parties may address any relevant matters, but we specifically seek comment on the following potential changes to SAC rate cases.

    3 Since 2014, the Board has also undertaken a number of internal changes to process SAC cases more efficiently. Although these changes will not require any stakeholder action, the Board expects that they will lead to improvements in the way the Board manages case workflow. These changes include greater use of technical conferences with parties early in proceedings, issuance of evidentiary instructions following the technical conferences, internal management structure changes for rate cases, improving communication and coordination among Board staff, and setting additional milestone markers within our internal workflow.

    Pre-Filing Requirement

    In order to expedite SAC cases, several stakeholders suggested that the Board could require a complainant to file a notice before filing its complaint.4 This would create a “pre-complaint” period, during which the railroad would have time to start preparing for litigation, including gathering documents and data necessary for the discovery stage, which in turn could benefit both parties by accelerating the discovery process.

    4 In the context of major and significant mergers, the Board requires a pre-filing notification. See 49 CFR 1180.4(b).

    If a pre-filing notice were adopted, the Board could also use this pre-complaint period to provide parties the opportunity to engage in early-stage mediation, and appoint a mediator upon receipt of the pre-filing notice.5 This would not prevent parties from engaging in mediation at any other time during the proceeding, and the Board could encourage the parties to do so.

    5 Currently, the Board's regulations state that, in a SAC case, a shipper must engage in mediation with the railroad upon filing a formal complaint and that a mediator will be assigned within 10 business days of the filing of the shipper's complaint. 49 CFR 1109.4(a) and (b).

    We therefore seek comment on the merits of adopting a pre-filing requirement in SAC cases, and, if a pre-filing notice were adopted, the information that should be contained in that notice and the appropriate time period for filing the notice (e.g., 30 or 60 days prior to the filing of a complaint). Parties may also comment on the idea of offering or requiring mediation during a pre-complaint period, or any other period during the rate case.

    Discovery: Standardized Requests and/or Disclosures

    In order to expedite litigation, some federal courts have focused on streamlining discovery by, among other things, requiring early disclosures. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1). In the informal meetings, several stakeholders stated that standardizing discovery would help expedite rate cases and reduce the number of disputes between the parties. Several stakeholders explained that, over the years, the initial discovery requests relating to both the SAC and market dominance portions of SAC cases have become relatively consistent, and that formalizing such requests could be helpful. Accordingly, the Board could require the parties to either serve standard discovery requests or disclosures of information with the filing of their complaints and answers.

    For example, on the filing of the complaint, the complainant could be required to either: (a) Serve a standard set of discovery requests on the defendant railroad covering data pertinent to creation of the stand-alone railroad (SARR), or (b) serve a standard set of disclosures pertinent to market dominance. Then, on the filing of the railroad's answer, the railroad could be required to either: (a) Serve a standard set of discovery requests on the complainant pertinent to market dominance, or (b) serve a standard set of disclosures pertinent to creating the SARR.

    Based on the informal discussions with stakeholders, the standard initial information related to creation of the SARR might include: Waybill data; train and carload data; timetables; track charts; authorizations for expenditure; grade, curve, and profile data; Wage Forms A & B; Geographic Information System data; forecasts; and contracts. Standard information related to market dominance might include: Forecasts for issue traffic, alternative transportation options, and states in which the SARR might operate.

    Alternatively, rather than requiring requests or disclosures of traffic data related to the SARR, some stakeholders suggested that the Board could collect data that could be used in rate cases. The data could be made available to complainants upon the filing of a complaint and a protective order being entered. We are concerned, however, about how to standardize the data and the burdens collection of the data could impose.

    Another potential standardized disclosure that the Board could consider involves software that is not available to the general public. The Board could consider requiring the disclosure by each party of any such software it intends to use in its evidentiary submissions by, for example, the close of discovery. Such early disclosure may avoid disputes on appropriate software after the evidence has been presented.

    We therefore seek comment on the advisability of adopting standardized discovery requests and/or disclosures or a database of standardized traffic data as discussed above, as well as the appropriate content and timing of such requests and/or disclosures. Because the Board generally does not have an opportunity to review uncontested discovery requests, it would be beneficial to the Board for parties to include in their comments copies of their initial discovery requests served in recent SAC cases, where applicable, to provide guidance on common discovery topics.

    Discovery: Other Ideas

    Some federal courts have also streamlined discovery in other ways, such as by adopting limits on discovery. If the Board requires mandatory initial discovery requests or disclosures, such that the core information necessary for a SAC case is accounted for, the Board could then limit the number of additional discovery requests allowed by each party. The Board could allow a party to obtain discovery beyond the set limit only upon a showing of good cause, for example. We seek comment on the merits of limiting discovery requests in conjunction with adopting standardized initial requests/disclosures, and what, if any, those limits should be.

    Stakeholders also indicated that the Board could either encourage or require more requests for admissions (particularly with respect to the issue of market dominance) to narrow the scope of contested issues and to avoid the unnecessary presentation of evidence. To encourage thorough and honest consideration of the requests, if a party denies a request for admission with no basis for doing so, that party would pay for the litigation of the issue. See 49 CFR 1114.27 (providing for requests for admission); 49 CFR 1114.31(c) (providing for “the reasonable expenses incurred in making that proof”). We seek comment on whether the use of requests for admissions might assist parties and expedite SAC cases.

    In the informal meetings, stakeholders also indicated that some discovery disputes over scope and terminology occur with regularity, and that the Board could obviate those disputes through standardization. For example, when an interrogatory or request for production asks for information from a date certain “to the present,” the Board could define that term by rule to avoid continued disputes from case to case. We therefore seek comment on how the Board might appropriately define “to the present,” as well as comment on any other term or scope issue that could be standardized to avoid unnecessary discovery disputes.

    Finally, to encourage parties to resolve discovery disputes among themselves, the Board could consider a rule similar to one used by federal courts requiring parties filing motions to compel to certify that they have attempted to confer with the opposing party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) (“The motion [to compel disclosure or discovery] must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.”). The Board could also consider whether such a requirement should be used for other types of motions, such as modifications to the procedural schedule. See, e.g., 49 CFR 1111.10(a) (requiring parties in complaint proceedings to “meet, or discuss by telephone, discovery and procedural matters within 12 days after an answer to a complaint is filed.”). We seek comment on the merits of such a requirement.

    Evidentiary Submissions: Standardization

    In the informal meetings, stakeholders indicated that standardization of certain evidence could not only reduce the number of litigated issues, thereby expediting the case, but would also allow parties before a rate case has even started to more accurately assess their respective positions and the potential outcome of the case. Stakeholders cautioned, however, that standardization has the potential to favor one side or the other; thus the Board should be cognizant of those implications when selecting methods of standardization.

    Standardization could be done in a number of ways. For example, the Board could standardize unit costs based on actual railroad data or prior rate cases; standardize sources of data that parties can rely on; or standardize a methodology to be used for particular items.

    There are various areas in a SAC case that may be well-suited to some form of standardization or simplification. For example, rather than deciding each individual element within the general and administrative (G&A) section, the Board could estimate G&A as a percentage of the SARR's total revenue or based on the SARR's traffic levels, or the Board could adopt one party's entire G&A evidence over the other. For maintenance of way (MOW), the parties could develop MOW expenses by developing a general unit cost by dividing MOW operating costs by the Trailing Gross Ton Miles found in the R-1 multiplied by the General Overhead ratio found in the Board's Uniform Rail Costing System. Construction costs might be standardized by using R-1 data or the carriers' depreciation studies to develop the cost per track mile. Similarly, the Board could develop standardized locomotive acquisition costs using data from the R-1 reports (Schedule 710S) and the carriers' periodic depreciation studies. Finally, the Board could use Wage Forms A&B to standardize wages/salaries.

    Although we invite comment on any item that commenters believe should be standardized, we seek comment on the specific areas listed above.

    Evidentiary Submissions: Other Ideas

    Stakeholders also discussed ways to address the exceedingly large number of contested issues in each case, and how that affects the presentation of evidence. The Board could consider early resolution of certain issues through interim rulings to narrow the scope of the case or to avoid the evidentiary misalignment that occurs when parties build their cases on top of fundamental disagreements, as well as encouraging motions practice as a means of managing the scope and timing of cases. For example, if the railroad believes a complainant's operating plan cannot be corrected, the Board could require the railroad to file a motion to dismiss rather than submitting a reply based on a different operating plan in order to avoid the problem of misaligned evidentiary submissions. In other words, the Board could determine that a railroad may not submit an entirely new operating plan in its reply. Assignment of attorneys' fees or extension of rate prescriptions could be used to discourage frivolous motions to dismiss. Depending on the technical challenge presented by a case, the Board could dismiss a case without prejudice.

    Another concern that impacts the Board's ability to process cases efficiently and the parties' ability to respond to each other's evidence relates to the scope of the pleadings. Many stakeholders expressed concern that the scope of rebuttal filings is often disproportionate to that of opening filings and that final briefs are often more akin to surrebuttal than a summary of key issues. To address these concerns, the Board could more strictly enforce the evidentiary standard set forth in Duke Energy Corp. v. Norfolk Southern Railway, 7 S.T.B. 89, 100 (2003), which requires that the complainant “must present its full case-in-chief in its opening evidence,” in conjunction with consideration of motions to strike inappropriate rebuttal evidence. Additionally, the Board could consider putting a page limit on rebuttal evidence (e.g., cannot be longer than opening, or must be no more than half the length of opening). The Board could also limit final briefs to certain subjects on which the Board would like further argument rather than allowing generalized argument.

    Next, to address concerns about parties' rate case presentations relying on software that is not available to the general public, some stakeholders suggested that the Board should restrict a party's ability to use such software in its rate presentation unless it provides a temporary license to the opposing party. If the Board required parties to provide temporary licenses to use non-publicly availably software, whenever parties used such software in their rate case presentations, such provision could be made along with a disclosure of the software being used, as discussed earlier.

    Finally, to give parties more time to ensure that public versions of filings are appropriately redacted without delaying the case, the Board could consider staggering the filing of public and highly confidential versions of the parties' pleadings. For example, parties could file their highly confidential pleadings and workpapers according to the procedural schedule, but have an additional period of days to file their public versions. We seek comment on these ideas, and others, relating to whether interim rulings, narrowing the scope of pleadings, software requirements, and staggering public and confidential versions would assist parties, minimize disputes, and expedite SAC cases.

    Interaction With Board Staff

    During the informal meetings, numerous stakeholders expressed that increased interaction with Board staff during all stages of a SAC case would be beneficial. To that end, during and/or after the submission of evidence, the Board could make more aggressive use of written questions from staff and/or technical conferences with the parties to clarify the record. If technical conferences are used, the Board could provide advance notice of the topics to be discussed to promote an efficient and productive conference. An early technical conference could be useful to establish ground rules and issue-specific Board expectations. The Board could also consider assigning a staff member as a liaison to the parties to facilitate greater interaction. This could allow the Board to be more available to the parties, particularly toward the beginning of a case, to answer questions about the process and to intervene informally (e.g., hold status conferences) if it would help discovery or other matters move more smoothly. Both technical conferences and additional interaction with Board staff would be encouraged at any time during the proceeding.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this ANPR does not impose or propose any requirements, and instead seeks comments and suggestions for the Board to consider in possibly developing a subsequent proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612 (RFA) do not apply to this action. Nevertheless, as part of any comments submitted in response to this ANPR, parties may include comments or information that could help the Board assess the potential impact of a subsequent regulatory action on small entities pursuant to the RFA.

    It is ordered:

    1. Initial comments are due by August 1, 2016.

    2. Replies are due by August 29, 2016.

    3. This decision is effective on its date of service.

    Decided: June 14, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

    Raina S. Contee, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14625 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 648 [Docket No.: 151215999-6488-01] RIN 0648-BF64 Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Atlantic Herring Fishery; Specification of Management Measures for Atlantic Herring for the 2016-2018 Fishing Years AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule, request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS proposes regulations to implement the 2016-2018 fishery specifications and management measures for the Atlantic herring fishery. The specifications would set harvest specifications and river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery for the 2016-2018 fishing years as recommended to NMFS by the New England Fishery Management Council. The river herring/shad catch caps are area and gear-specific catch caps for river herring and shad for trips landing more than 6,600 lb (3 mt) of herring. The specifications and management measures are set in order to meet conservation objectives while providing sustainable levels of access to the fishery.

    DATES:

    Public comments must be received by July 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of supporting documents used by the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), including the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), are available from: Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950, telephone (978) 465-0492. The EA/RIR/IRFA is also accessible via the Internet at http://www.greateratlantic.fisheries.noaa.gov/.

    You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0050, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments;

    Mail: Submit written comments to NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional Office, 55 Great Republic Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside of the envelope “Comments on 2016-2018 Herring Specifications;”

    Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Shannah Jaburek.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shannah Jaburek, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 282-8456, fax (978) 281-9135.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Regulations implementing the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for herring appear at 50 CFR part 648, subpart K. The regulations at § 648.200 require the Council to recommend herring specifications for NMFS' review and proposal in the Federal Register, including: The overfishing limit (OFL); acceptable biological catch (ABC); annual catch limit (ACL); optimum yield (OY); domestic annual harvest (DAH); domestic annual processing (DAP); U.S. at-sea processing (USAP); border transfer (BT); the sub-ACL for each management area, including seasonal periods as allowed by § 648.201(d) and modifications to sub-ACLs as allowed by § 648.201(f); and the amount to be set aside for the research set aside (RSA) (3 percent of the sub-ACL from any management area) for up to 3 years. These regulations also provide the Council with the discretion to recommend river herring and shad catch caps as part of the specifications.

    Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), NMFS is required to publish proposed rules for comment after preliminarily determining whether they are consistent with applicable law. The Magnuson-Stevens Act permits NMFS to approve, partially approve, or disapprove measures proposed by the Council based only on whether the measures are consistent with the fishery management plan, plan amendment, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law. Otherwise, NMFS must defer to the Council's policy choices. Under the Atlantic herring regulations guiding the specifications process, NMFS must review the Council's recommended specifications and publish notice of the proposed specifications, clearly noting any differences from the Council's recommendations. NMFS is proposing and seeking comment on the Council's recommended herring specifications and river herring and shad catch caps and whether they are consistent with the Herring FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act and its National Standards, and other applicable law.

    The proposed 2016-2018 herring specifications are based on the provisions currently in the Herring FMP, and provide the necessary elements to comply with the ACL and accountability measure (AM) requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). At its September 29, 2015, meeting, the Council recommended the 2016-2018 specifications for the herring fishery, including river herring/shad catch caps. NMFS proposes to implement the herring specifications as recommended by the Council and detailed in Table 1 below. For 2016-2018 fishing years, the Council may annually review these specifications and recommend adjustments if necessary.

    Table 1—Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications Status Quo and Proposed Atlantic Herring Specifications (mt) 2013-2015 2016-2018 Overfishing Limit 169,000-2013
  • 136,000-2014
  • 114,000-2015
  • 138,000-2016
  • 117,000-2017
  • 111,000-2018.
  • Acceptable Biological Catch 114,000 111,000. Management Uncertainty 6,200 6,200. Optimum Yield/ACL 107,800 104,800.* Domestic Annual Harvest 107,800 104,800. Border Transfer 4,000 4,000. Domestic Annual Processing 103,800 100,800. U.S. At-Sea Processing 0 0. Area 1A Sub-ACL (28.9%) 31,200 30,300.* Area 1B Sub-ACL (4.3%) 4,600 4,500. Area 2 Sub-ACL (27.8%) 30,000 29,100. Area 3 Sub-ACL (39%) 42,000 40,900. Fixed Gear Set-Aside 295 295. Research Set-Aside 3 percent of each sub-ACL 3 percent of each sub-ACL. * If New Brunswick weir fishery catch through October 1 is less than 4,000 mt, then 1,000 mt will be subtracted from the management uncertainty buffer and added to the ACL and Area 1A Sub-ACL.

    An operational update to the herring stock assessment, completed in May 2015, indicated that herring was not overfished and overfishing was not occurring. However, the assessment contained a retrospective pattern suggesting that spawning stock biomass (SSB) is likely overestimated and fishing mortality (F) is likely underestimated. Following an adjustment for the retrospective pattern, the assessment estimated the herring stock at approximately double its target biomass (SSBMSY) and F is approximately half the fishing mortality threshold (FMSY).

    At its June 2015 meeting, the Council recommended a herring ABC of 111,000 mt (a 3-mt decrease from status quo) for 2016-2018 based on the current control rule (constant catch with 50-percent probability that F > FMSY in last year). The resulting overfishing limit was calculated to be 138,000 mt in 2016, 117,000 mt in 2017, and 111,000 mt in 2018. This ABC recommendation is consistent with the Scientific and Statistical Committee's (SSC) advice. After considering herring's role as forage, the Council found that, while the ABC control rule does not explicitly adjust for herring's role in the ecosystem, herring's high biomass (approximately 74 percent of unfished biomass) and low fishing mortality (ratio of catch to consumption by predators is 1:4) likely achieves ecosystem goals.

    Several other factors contributed to the SSC's and Council's recommendation to continue using the current constant catch ABC control rule for 2016-2018. First, the Council recently initiated Amendment 8 to the Herring FMP to consider herring ABC control rules that may explicitly adjust for herring's role as forage in the ecosystem. Second, key attributes of the stock (SSB, recruitment, F, and survey indices) have not significantly changed since the constant catch control rule for herring was used in the 2013-2015 herring specifications. Third, the realized catch in the fishery is generally well below ABC, reducing the likelihood of overfishing. Fourth, the probability of the stock becoming overfished in 2016-2018 is close to zero. Lastly, the constant catch control rule provides the herring industry with economic stability, which was one of the considerations in the Council's harvest risk policy.

    The herring ABC is reduced from the OFL to account for scientific uncertainty. The Council's recommendation to continue using the current constant catch control rule means that the ABC would equal the OFL in 2018. This is consistent with the status quo specifications when ABC was set equal to OFL in 2015, which were successful in preventing overfishing. Some stakeholders (environmental advocacy groups, groundfish industry, and recreational fishing community) are concerned with the potential implications of the assessment's retrospective pattern on herring biomass, including its availability as forage, and the lack of a scientific uncertainty buffer in 2018. Subject to review and consideration of public comment, NMFS preliminarily supports the Council's ABC recommendation. The recent herring operational assessment indicates that the herring biomass is robust, despite an adjustment in the assessment for the retrospective pattern. The realized catch in the fishery is expected to be much less than the ABC, reducing the likelihood of overfishing. Additionally, NMFS anticipates that Amendment 8 will be adopted prior to the development of the 2019-2021 herring fishery specifications, and will consider herring's role in the ecosystem.

    Under the Herring FMP, the herring ACL is reduced from ABC to account for management uncertainty, and the primary source of management uncertainty is catch in the New Brunswick (NB) weir fishery. Catch in the weir fishery is variable, but has declined in recent years. After considering a range of management uncertainty buffers, the Council recommended a buffer of 6,200 mt, which is equivalent to the value of the buffer in 2015. The recommended buffer is greater than the most recent 3-year and 5-year average catch in the NB weir fishery. This would be a more conservative buffer than the buffer used in the most recent specifications that was based on the most recent 3-year average from the NB weir fishery. The resulting stockwide ACL would be 104,800 mt. Given the variability of the NB weir catch and the likelihood that weir catch may be less than 6,200 mt, the Council also recommended a payback provision related to the management uncertainty buffer. Specifically, the Council recommended subtracting 1,000 mt from the buffer and adding it to the ACL if the weir fishery harvests less than 4,000 mt by October 1. The Council recommended October 1 because the fishery primarily occurs during the late summer and fall months (June-October), and catch from the fishery occurring after October averaged less than four percent of total reported landings. If NB catch is less than 4,000 mt by October 1, the buffer would be reduced to 5,200 mt, the ACL would be increased to 105,800 mt, and the Herring Management Area 1A sub-ACL would be increased to 31,300 mt. The NB weir fishery payback provision was last in effect during fishing years 2010-2012. Council recommendations for all other herring specifications, including the sub-ACL's percentages allocated to the herring management areas, were status quo.

    BT is a processing allocation available to Canadian dealers. The MSA provides for the issuance of permits to Canadian vessels transporting U.S. harvested herring to Canada for sardine processing. The Council recommended a 4,000 mt specification for BT. The amount specified for BT has equaled 4,000 mt since 2000. As there continues to be Canadian interest in transporting herring for sardine processing, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification for BT would remain unchanged at 4,000 mt.

    The Herring FMP specifies that DAH will be set less than or equal to OY and be comprised of DAP and BT. Consistent with the proposed specifications for OY and ACL, the Council recommended that DAH be 104,800 mt for 2016-2018. DAH should reflect the actual and potential harvesting capacity of the U.S. herring fleet. Since 2001, total landings in the U.S. fishery have decreased, but herring catch has remained somewhat consistent from 2003-2014, averaging 91,925 mt. When previously considering the DAH specification, the Council evaluated the harvesting capacity of the directed herring fleet and determined that the herring fleet is capable of fully utilizing the available yield from the fishery. This determination is still true. Therefore, NMFS is proposing that DAH for the 2016-2018 fishing years be set at 104,800 mt, equal to the OY and ACL.

    DAP is the amount of U.S. harvest that is processed domestically, as well as herring that is sold fresh (i.e., bait). DAP is calculated by subtracting BT from DAH. Using this formula, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that DAP be set at 100,800 mt for 2016-2018.

    A portion of DAP may be specified for the at-sea processing of herring in Federal waters. When determining the USAP specification, the Council considers availability of shore-side processing, status of the resource, and opportunities for vessels to participate in the herring fishery. During the 2007-2009 fishing years, the Council maintained a USAP specification of 20,000 mt (Herring Management Areas 2/3 only) based on information received about a new at-sea processing vessel that intended to utilize a substantial amount of the USAP specification. At that time, landings from Areas 2 and 3—where USAP was authorized—were considerably lower than allocated sub-ACLs for each of the past several years. Moreover, the specification of 20,000 mt for USAP did not restrict either the operation or the expansion of the shoreside processing facilities during the 2007-2009 fishing years. However, this operation never materialized, and none of the USAP specification was used during the 2007-2009 fishing years. Consequently, the Council recommended and NMFS set USAP at zero for the 2010-2015 fishing years. The Council did not receive any information that would suggest changing this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of USAP would remain unchanged at zero.

    The herring ABC specification recommended by the SSC for 2016-2018 is not substantially different from the 2013-2015 ABC specification; therefore, the Council, based on a recommendation from the Herring Committee, has determined that there is no need to consider modifying the distribution of the total ACL between the herring management areas. Additionally, information for the recent herring operational assessment report does not suggest there is a biological need to consider modifying the distribution of stockwide ACL. This approach would maintain status quo for the herring sub-ACLs for the 2016-2018 specifications.

    During 2013-2015, the herring research set-aside (RSA) for each management area was three percent of the area's sub-ACL. The research set-aside was established in Amendment 1 (0-3 percent for any management area). The herring RSA set-aside is removed from each sub-ACL prior to allocating the remaining sub-ACL to the fishery. If a proposal is approved, but a final award is not made by NMFS, or if NMFS determines that the allocated RSA cannot be utilized by a project, NMFS shall reallocate the unallocated or unused amount of the RSA to the respective sub-ACL, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements, provided that the additional catch can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which that RSA is specified. Any unallocated or unused RSA would be re-allocated to the sub-ACL and made available to the fleet before the end of the fishing year in accordance with the APA, provided that the RSA can be available for harvest before the end of the fishing year for which the RSA is specified. The Council did not receive any information that would suggest changing this specification for fishing years 2016-2018, thus the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing that the specification of RSA would remain unchanged at 3 percent of each sub-ACL. On February 29, 2016, NMFS fully awarded the herring RSA allocations for fishing years 2016-2018.

    Herring regulations at § 648.201(e) specify that up to 500 mt of the Area 1A sub-ACL shall be allocated for the fixed gear fisheries in Area 1A (weirs and stop seines) that occur west 67°16.8′ W. Long. This set-aside shall be available for harvest by the fixed gear fisheries within the specified area until November 1 of each year; any unused portion of the allocation will be restored to the Area 1A sub-ACL after November 1. During 2013-2015, the fixed gear fisheries set-aside was specified at 295 mt. Because the proposed Area 1A sub-ACL for 2016-2018 is not substantially different from the Area 1A sub-ACL in 2015, the Council recommended that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain the same. Therefore, the Council recommended, and NMFS is proposing, that the fixed gear fisheries set-aside remain unchanged at 295 mt for 2016-2018.

    Framework 3 to the Herring FMP established gear and area-specific river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery in 2014. These included catch caps for midwater trawl vessels fishing in the Gulf of Maine, off Cape Cod, and in Southern New England, as well as for small-mesh bottom trawl vessels fishing in Southern New England. Herring regulations at § 648.201(a)(4)(ii) state that once 95 percent of a catch cap is reached, the herring possession limit for vessels using that gear type and fishing in that area is reduced to 2,000 lb (907 kg) for the remainder of the fishing year. To date, the value of the caps has been specified using the median catch of river herring and shad catch over the previous 5 years (2008-2012). The intent of the caps is to provide a strong an incentive for the herring fleet to continue to reduce river herring and shad catch, while allowing the fleet to fully harvest the herring ACL.

    The Council's recommendations for 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, as specified below in Table 2, are based on updated data and a revised methodology. The Council's intent in specifying the value of the catch caps using the weighted mean catch of river herring and shad (versus median catch) and using a longer time series (the most recent 7 years versus 5 years) is to best account for the inter-annual variability in the level of sampling by both observers and portside samplers as well as river herring and shad catch. Additionally, the revised methodology includes previously omitted catch data, including some shad landings and trips from catch cap areas where trips did not meet the 6,600-lb (3-mt) herring landing threshold, and updated extrapolation methodologies. The Council's recommended catch caps appear to better reflect the herring fishery's recent catch of river herring and shad. Additionally, they balance the opportunity to achieve OY with providing an incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch. For these reasons, the Council recommended and NMFS is proposing the river herring/shad catch caps as shown in Table 2 for fishing years 2016-2018. Although increasing catch caps has the potential to increase river herring and shad catch, the fishery still has strong incentive to avoid reaching the caps. Specifically, the economic loss from limiting herring harvest in an area before the sub-ACLs for an area have been fully reached. Environmental advocates and participants in the tuna and recreational fisheries strongly advised the Council against increasing river herring/shad catch caps for the herring fishery. Instead they recommended that status quo cap amounts should continue through 2018. Subject to review and consideration of public comment on the suitability of these methods for setting caps that provide a strong incentive to avoid river herring and shad catch while allowing the fleet to achieve OY, NMFS preliminarily supports the Council's river herring/shad catch cap recommendations based on the use of the weighted mean and additional data.

    Table 2—Proposed River Herring/Shad Catch Caps Status quo and proposed River Herring/Shad catch caps (mt) Catch cap area 2013-2015 2016-2018 Gulf Of Maine (GOM) Midwater Trawl-85.5 Midwater Trawl-76.7. Cape Cod (CC) Midwater Trawl-13.3 Midwater Trawl-32.4. Southern New England/Mid-Atlantic (SNE/MA) Midwater Trawl-123.7
  • Bottom Trawl-88.9
  • Midwater Trawl-129.6.
  • Bottom Trawl-122.3.
  • Georges Bank (GB) 0 0. Total Midwater Trawl-222.5
  • Bottom Trawl-88.9
  • Midwater Trawl-238.7.
  • Bottom Trawl-122.3.
  • Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the MSA, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Herring FMP, other provisions of the MSA, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.

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

    An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows.

    Description of the Reasons Why Action by the Agency Is Being Considered and Statement of the Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule

    This action proposes management measures and 2016-2018 specifications for the herring fishery. A complete description of the reasons why this action is being considered, and the objectives of and legal basis for this action, are contained in the preamble to this proposed rule and are not repeated here.

    Description and Estimate of Number of Small Entities to Which This Proposed Rule Would Apply

    The proposed specifications would affect all permitted herring vessels; therefore, the regulated entity is the business that owns at least one herring permit. Based on 2014 permit data, the number of potential fishing vessels in each permit category in the herring fishery are as follows: 39 for Category A (limited access, all herring management areas); 4 for Category B (limited access, Herring Management Areas 2/3); 46 for Category C (limited access, all herring management areas); 1,841 for Category D (open access, all herring management areas); and 4 for Category E (open access, Herring Management Areas 2/3). The RFA recognizes three kinds of small entities: Small businesses; small organizations; and small governmental jurisdictions. A small entity is classified as a finfish firm if more than half of the firm's gross receipts are derived from finfish with receipts of up to $20.5 million of gross revenues annually. Individually-permitted vessels may hold permits for several fisheries, harvesting species of fish that are regulated by several different fishery management plans, even beyond those affected by the proposed action. Furthermore, multiple permitted vessels and/or permits may be owned by entities with various personal and business affiliations. For the purposes of this analysis, “ownership entities” are defined as those entities with common ownership as listed on the permit application. Only permits with identical ownership are categorized as an “ownership entity.” For example, if five permits have the same seven persons listed as co-owners on their permit applications, those seven persons would form one “ownership entity,” that holds those five permits. If two of those seven owners also co-own additional vessels, that ownership arrangement would be considered a separate “ownership entity” for the purpose of this analysis.

    From 2014 permit data, there were 1,206 firms that held at least one herring permit; of those, 1,188 were classified as small businesses. There were 103 firms, 96 classified as small business, that held at least one limited access permit. There were 38 firms, including 34 small businesses, that held a limited access permit and were active in the herring fishery (Table 3). Active large entities all held at least one limited access herring permit. Table 4 describes gross receipts from both all fishing and only the herring fishery for firms that were active in the herring fishery. The small firms with limited access permits had 60 percent higher gross receipts and 85 percent higher revenue from herring than the small firms without a limited access herring permit.

    Table 3—Small and Large Firms in the Atlantic Herring Fishery All permits All Active Limited access only All Active Small 1,188 63 96 34 Large 18 4 7 4 Total 1,206 67 103 38 Table 4—Average Revenues for Active Small and Large Entities in the Atlantic Herring Fishery All permits All revenue Herring
  • revenue
  • Limited access only All revenue Herring
  • revenue
  • Small $986,399 $339,155 $1,588,059 $624,820 Large 15,913,950 1,426,152 15,913,948 1,426,152
    Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

    This action contains no new collection-of-information, reporting, or recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Rules Which May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

    This action does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules.

    Description of Significant Alternatives to the Proposed Action Which Accomplish the Stated Objectives of Applicable Statues and Which Minimize Any Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities

    The primary differences among Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (non-preferred alternative), and Alternative 3 (preferred alternative) for the 2016-2018 herring specifications are the specifications for ABC and ACL. Alternative 1 considers an ABC (114,000 mt) that is 3,000 mt (2.6 percent) higher than the ABC considered under Alternatives 2 and 3 (111,000 mt). Additionally, Alternatives 1 and 2 consider a higher ACL than Alternative 3. The ACL considered under Alternative 3 (104,800 mt) is 3,000 mt (2.78 percent) and 3,200 mt (2.96 percent) less, respectively, than the ACLs considered under Alternative 1 (107,800 mt) and Alternative 2 (108,000 mt). The EA for 2016-2018 herring specifications concluded that all the alternatives would have a low positive economic impact because there would be mortality controls in the fishery and the overall status of herring is not expected to be jeopardized. The EA also concluded that the differences among alternatives were negligible because all alternatives the Council considered for OFL/ABC specifications showed the herring SSB and fishing mortality that would result from fully utilizing the ABC fall within the same range based on the 80-percent confidence intervals. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, small entities are expected to experience slight increases in both gross revenues and herring revenues over the preferred alternative due to higher ACLs considered under Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. Under Alternatives 1 and 2, fishing vessels may take slightly more fishing trips and incur slightly higher variable operating costs over the preferred alternative. However, Alternative 3 would maintain a constant ABC over the specifications period, which would provide consistency for fishing industry operations, stability for the industry, and a steady supply to the market in addition to the stability provided by a three-year specifications process. Fixed and quasi-fixed costs are expected to remain the same. Because the ACLs are fishery wide and closures would apply to the entire fishery, the effects of these closures should be felt proportionally by the herring industry.

    For specifying the 2016-2018 river herring/shad catch caps, the Council chose the preferred alternative (Alternative 3, Option 2) of using the weighted mean and 7-year extended time series shown below in table 5, because it uses the best technical approach to determining river herring/shad catch estimates in support of the goals and objective of Framework 3.

    Table 5—River Herring/Shad Catch Cap Alternatives Catch caps Alternative 1—no action (2008-2012) (mt) Alternative 2-5 years of data (2008-2012) * Option 1
  • median (mt)
  • Option 2 avg mean (mt) Alternative 3-7 years of data (2008-2014) * Option 1
  • median (mt)
  • Option 2 ** avg mean (mt)
    Midwater Trawl Gulf of Maine 85.5 98.1 98.3 11.3 76.7 Midwater Trawl Cape Cod 13.3 8.9 27.6 29.5 32.4 Midwater Trawl Southern New England 123.7 83.9 115.4 83.9 129.6 Bottom Trawl Southern New England 88.9 19.6 28.2 24.0 122.3 Total 311.4 210.5 269.5 148.7 361.0 * Data errors and extrapolation methodologies were corrected and revised. ** Preferred Alternative.

    The primary goal is to provide strong incentive for the industry to continue to avoid river herring/shad and reduce river herring/shad catch to the extent possible. Based on the performance of the fishery in the first year under the river herring/shad catch caps, most of the observed river herring/shad catch has been in the Southern New England by vessels using bottom trawl gear. Alternative 3, Option 2 (preferred) would be the least constraining on the directed herring fishery compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, particularly in the Southern New England bottom trawl catch cap area.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

    Fisheries, Fishing, Recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 648 as follows:

    PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES 1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 648.201, paragraph (h) is added to read as follows:
    § 648.201 AMs and harvest controls.

    (h) If NMFS determines that the New Brunswick weir fishery landed less than 4,000 mt through October 1, NMFS will allocate an additional 1,000 mt to the stockwide ACL and Area 1A sub-ACL. NMFS will notify the Council of this adjustment and publish the adjustment in the Federal Register.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14568 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 119 Tuesday, June 21, 2016 Notices ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Adoption of Recommendations AGENCY:

    Administrative Conference of the United States.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administrative Conference of the United States adopted two recommendations at its Sixty-fifth Plenary Session. The appended recommendations address: Consumer Complaint Databases and Aggregation of Similar Claims in Agency Adjudication.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For Recommendation 2016-1, Gisselle Bourns; for Recommendation 2016-2, Amber Williams. For both of these actions the address and telephone number are: Administrative Conference of the United States, Suite 706 South, 1120 20th Street NW., Washington, DC 20036; Telephone 202-480-2080.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Administrative Conference Act, 5 U.S.C. 591-596, established the Administrative Conference of the United States. The Conference studies the efficiency, adequacy, and fairness of the administrative procedures used by Federal agencies and makes recommendations to agencies, the President, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States for procedural improvements (5 U.S.C. 594(1)). For further information about the Conference and its activities, see www.acus.gov. At its Sixty-fifth Plenary Session, held June 10, 2016, the Assembly of the Conference adopted two recommendations.

    Recommendation 2016-1, Consumer Complaint Databases. This recommendation encourages agencies that make consumer complaints publicly available through online databases or downloadable data sets to adopt and publish written policies governing the dissemination of such information to the public. These policies should inform the public of the source and limitations of the information and permit entities publicly identified to respond or request corrections or retractions.

    Recommendation 2016-2, Aggregation of Similar Claims in Agency Adjudication. This recommendation provides guidance to agencies on the use of aggregation techniques to resolve similar claims in adjudications. It sets forth procedures for determining whether aggregation is appropriate. It also considers what kinds of aggregation techniques should be used in certain cases and offers guidance on how to structure the aggregation proceedings to promote both efficiency and fairness.

    The Appendix below sets forth the full texts of these two recommendations. The Conference will transmit them to affected agencies, Congress, and the Judicial Conference of the United States. The recommendations are not binding, so the entities to which they are addressed will make decisions on their implementation.

    The Conference based these recommendations on research reports that are posted at: https://www.acus.gov/65th. A video of the Plenary Session is available at: new.livestream.com/ACUS/65thPlenary, and a transcript of the Plenary Session will be posted when it is available.

    Dated: June 16, 2016. Shawne C. McGibbon, General Counsel. APPENDIX—RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES Administrative Conference Recommendation 2016-1 Consumer Complaint Databases Adopted June 10, 2016

    Some federal agencies maintain records of consumer complaints and feedback on products and services offered by private entities. Taking advantage of recent technological developments, several agencies have recently begun to make such information available to the public through online searchable databases and downloadable data sets that contain complaint narratives or provide aggregate data about complaints. Examples of such online searchable databases include: the Consumer Product Safety Commission's database of consumer product incident reports (“Saferproducts.gov”); the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's database of recalls, investigations, and complaints (“Safercar.gov”); and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's database of financial products and services complaints (“Consumer Complaint Database”).1

    1 Other examples located by the Administrative Conference include: the Department of Transportation's monthly data sets on the number and types of complaints against airlines (“Air Travel Consumer Report”) (only aggregated data about complaints is made public, with the exception of animal incident reports, for which a narrative description is provided); the Federal Trade Commission's consumer complaints database (“Consumer Sentinel”) (only aggregated data about complaints is made public); and the Federal Communications Commission's database of unwanted calls and consumer complaints (“Consumer Complaints at the FCC”) (complaint narratives are not provided). Some databases and data sets include reports from both consumers and manufacturers, such as the Food and Drug Administration's database of reports of suspected device-associated deaths, serious injuries, and malfunctions (“MAUDE”), as well as its downloadable data sets of adverse events and medication errors (“FAERS”).

    As documented by the Executive Office of the President's National Science and Technology Council, agencies are constantly improving databases that publish consumer complaints and information, and are gradually developing best practices for such disclosures.2 Two policy considerations are significant in this process. Agencies must have the flexibility to provide information to the public to facilitate informed decisionmaking. At the same time, agencies should inform the public of the limitations of the information they disseminate.3 The following recommendations aim to promote the widespread availability of such information and to identify best practices to ensure the integrity of complaints databases and data sets.

    2See Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Smart Disclosure and Consumer Decision Making: Report of the Task Force on Smart Disclosure 15 (May 30, 2013).

    3See generally id; see also Nathan Cortez, Agency Publicity in the Internet Era 44-45 (Sept. 25, 2015) (report to the Administrative Conference of the United States), https://www.acus.gov/report/agency-publicity-internet-era-report (discussing disclaimers provided by Food and Drug Administration on the accuracy and reliability of data in MAUDE and FAERS databases).

    Recommendation

    To the extent permitted by law, agencies that make consumer complaints publicly available (whether in narrative or aggregated form) through online databases or downloadable data sets should adopt and publish online written policies governing the public dissemination of consumer complaints through databases or downloadable data sets. These policies should:

    1. Inform the public of the source(s) and limitations of the information, including whether the information is verified or authenticated by the agency, and any procedures used to do so;

    2. permit entities publicly identified in consumer complaints databases or downloadable data sets to respond, as practicable, or request corrections or retractions, as appropriate; and

    3. give appropriate consideration to privacy interests.

    Administrative Conference Recommendation 2016-2 Aggregation of Similar Claims in Agency Adjudication Adopted June 10, 2016

    Federal agencies in the United States adjudicate hundreds of thousands of cases each year—more than the federal courts. Unlike federal and state courts, federal agencies have generally avoided aggregation tools that could resolve large groups of claims more efficiently. Consequently, in a wide variety of cases, agencies risk wasting resources in repetitive adjudication, reaching inconsistent outcomes for the same kinds of claims, and denying individuals access to the affordable representation that aggregate procedures promise. Now more than ever, adjudication programs, especially high volume adjudications, could benefit from innovative solutions, like aggregation.1

    1 Other related techniques that can help resolve recurring legal issues in agencies include the use of precedential decisions, declaratory orders as provided in 5 U.S.C. 554(e), and rulemaking. With respect to declaratory orders, see Recommendation 2015-3, Declaratory Orders, 80 FR 78,163 (Dec. 16, 2015), available at https://www.acus.gov/recommendation/declaratory-orders. The Supreme Court has recognized agency authority to use rulemaking to resolve issues that otherwise might recur and require hearings in adjudications. See Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U.S. 458 (1983).

    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 2 does not provide specifically for aggregation in the context of adjudication, though it also does not foreclose the use of aggregation procedures. Federal agencies often enjoy broad discretion, pursuant to their organic statutes, to craft procedures they deem “necessary and appropriate” to adjudicate the cases and claims that come before them.3 This broad discretion includes the ability to aggregate common cases, both formally and informally. Formal aggregation involves permitting one party to represent many others in a single proceeding.4 In informal aggregation, different claimants with very similar claims pursue a separate case with separate counsel, but the agency assigns them to the same adjudicator or to the same docket, in an effort to expedite the cases, conserve resources, and ensure consistent outcomes.5

    2See Administrative Procedure Act, Public Law 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 551-559, 701-706 and scattered sections in Title 5).

    3 Broad discretion exists both in “formal adjudication,” where the agency's statute requires a “hearing on the record,” triggering the APA's trial-type procedures, and in “informal adjudication,” where the procedures set forth in APA §§ 554, 556 & 557 are not required, thus allowing less formal procedures (although some “informal adjudications” are nevertheless quite formal).

    4 This recommendation does not address formal aggregation of respondents or defendants in proceedings before agencies.

    5 The American Law Institute's Principles of the Law of Aggregation defines proceedings that coordinate separate lawsuits in this way as “administrative aggregations,” which are distinct from joinder actions (in which multiple parties are joined in the same proceeding) or representative actions (in which a party represents a class in the same proceeding). See American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation § 1.02 (2010) (describing different types of aggregate proceedings).

    Yet, even as some agencies face large backlogs, few have employed such innovative tools. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. The sheer number of claims in aggregate agency adjudications may raise concerns of feasibility, legitimacy, and accuracy because aggregation could (1) create diseconomies of scale by inviting even more claims that further stretch the agency's capacity to adjudicate; (2) negatively affect the perceived legitimacy of the process; and (3) increase the consequence of error.

    Notwithstanding these risks, several agencies have identified contexts in which the benefits of aggregation, including producing a pool of information about recurring problems, achieving greater equality in outcomes, and securing the kind of expert assistance high volume adjudication attracts, outweigh the costs.6 Agencies have also responded to the challenges of aggregation by (1) carefully piloting aggregation procedures to improve output while avoiding creation of new inefficiencies; (2) reducing potential allegations of bias or illegitimacy by relying on panels, rather than single adjudicators, and providing additional opportunities for parties to voluntarily participate in the process; and (3) allowing cases raising scientific or novel factual questions to “mature” 7 —that is, putting off aggregation until the agency has the benefit of several opinions and conclusions from different adjudicators about how a case may be handled expeditiously.

    6See Michael Sant'Ambrogio & Adam Zimmerman, Aggregate Agency Adjudication 27-65 (June 9, 2016), available at https://www.acus.gov/report/aggregate-agency-adjudication-final-report (describing three examples of aggregation in adjudication).

    7Cf. Francis E. McGovern, An Analysis of Mass Torts for Judges, 73 Tex. L. Rev. 1821 (1995) (defining “maturity” in which both sides' litigation strategies are clear, expected outcomes reach an “equilibrium,” and global resolutions or settlements may be sought).

    The Administrative Conference recognizes aggregation as a useful tool to be employed in appropriate circumstances. This recommendation provides guidance and best practices to agencies as they consider whether or how to use or improve their use of aggregation.8

    8 This recommendation covers both adjudications conducted by administrative law judges and adjudications conducted by non-administrative law judges.

    Recommendation

    1. Aggregate adjudication where used should be governed by formal or informal aggregation rules of procedure consistent with the APA and due process.

    Using Alternative Decisionmaking Techniques

    2. Agencies should consider using a variety of techniques to resolve claims with common issues of fact or law, especially in high volume adjudication programs. In addition to the aggregate adjudication procedures discussed in paragraphs 3-10, these techniques might include the designation of individual decisions as “precedential,” the use of rulemaking to resolve issues that are appropriate for generalized resolution and would otherwise recur in multiple adjudications, and the use of declaratory orders in individual cases.

    Determining Whether To Use Aggregation Procedures

    3. Agencies should take steps to identify whether their cases have common claims and issues that might justify adopting rules governing aggregation. Such steps could include:

    a. Developing the information infrastructure, such as public centralized docketing, needed for agencies and parties to identify and track cases with common issues of fact or law;

    b. Encouraging adjudicators and parties to identify specific cases or types of cases that are likely to involve common issues of fact or law and therefore prove to be attractive candidates for aggregation; and

    c. Piloting programs to test the reliability of an approach to aggregation before implementing the program broadly.

    4. Agencies should develop procedures and protocols to assign similar cases to the same adjudicator or panel of adjudicators using a number of factors, including:

    a. Whether coordination would avoid duplication in discovery;

    b. Whether it would prevent inconsistent evidentiary or other pre-hearing rulings;

    c. Whether it would conserve the resources of the parties, their representatives, and the agencies; and

    d. Where appropriate, whether the agencies can accomplish similar goals by using other tools as set forth in paragraph 2.

    5. Agencies should develop procedures and protocols for adjudicators to determine whether to formally aggregate similar claims in a single proceeding with consideration of the principles and procedures in Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including:

    a. Whether the number of cases or claims are sufficiently numerous and similar to justify aggregation;

    b. Whether an aggregate proceeding would be manageable and materially advance the resolution of the cases;

    c. Whether the benefits of collective control outweigh the benefits of individual control, including whether adequate counsel is available to represent the parties in an aggregate proceeding;

    d. Whether (or the extent to which) any existing individual adjudication has (or related adjudications have) progressed; and

    e. Whether the novelty or complexity of the issues being adjudicated would benefit from the input of different adjudicators.

    Structuring the Aggregate Proceeding

    6. Agencies that use aggregation should ensure that the parties' and other stakeholders' interests are adequately protected and that the process is understood to be transparent and legitimate by considering the use of mechanisms such as:

    a. Permitting interested stakeholders to file amicus briefs or their equivalent;

    b. Conducting “fairness hearings,” in which all interested stakeholders may express their concerns with the proposed relief to adjudicators in person or in writing;

    c. Ensuring that separate interests are adequately represented in order to avoid conflicts of interest;

    d. Permitting parties to opt out in appropriate circumstances;

    e. Permitting parties to challenge the decision to aggregate in the appeals process, including an interlocutory appeal to the agency; and

    f. Allowing oral arguments for amici or amicus briefs in agency appeals.

    7. Agencies that use aggregation should develop written and publicly available policies explaining how they initiate, conduct, and terminate aggregation proceedings. The policies should also set forth the factors used to determine whether aggregation is appropriate.

    8. Where feasible, agencies should consider assigning a specialized corps of experienced adjudicators who would be trained to handle aggregate proceedings, consistent with APA requirements where administrative law judges are assigned. Agencies should also consider using a panel of adjudicators from the specialized corps to address concerns with having a single adjudicator decide cases that could have a significant impact. Agencies that have few adjudicators may need to “borrow” adjudicators from other agencies for this purpose.

    Using Aggregation To Enhance Control of Policymaking

    9. Agencies should make all decisions in aggregate proceedings publicly available. In order to obtain the maximum benefit from aggregate proceedings, agencies should also consider designating final agency decisions as precedential if doing so will:

    a. Help other adjudicators handle subsequent cases involving similar issues more expeditiously;

    b. Provide guidance to future parties;

    c. Avoid inconsistent outcomes; or

    d. Increase transparency and openness.

    10. Agencies should ensure the outcomes of aggregate adjudication are communicated to policymakers or personnel involved in rulemaking so that they can determine whether a notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding codifying the outcome might be worthwhile. If agencies are uncertain they want to proceed with a rule, they might issue a notice of inquiry to invite interested parties to comment on whether the agencies should codify the adjudicatory decision (in whole or in part) in a new regulation.

    [FR Doc. 2016-14636 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6110-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Notice of Proposed New Special Recreation Permit Fee AGENCY:

    Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, USDA Forest Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed new special recreation permit fee.

    SUMMARY:

    The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is proposing to implement a Special Recreation Permit Fee on the Wild and Scenic Snake River which flows between Oregon and Idaho. Implementing a Special Recreation Permit Fee would allow the Forest Service to manage the specialized recreation use associated with float and power boating on the Wild and Scenic Snake River, and result in improved services and experiences. Fees are assessed based on the level of amenities and services provided, cost of operation and maintenance of river-related facilities, market assessment, and public comments received.

    Boaters using the Wild and Scenic Snake River would be subject to a Special Recreation Permit Fee (boater-use permit fee) of $5.00 to $10.00 per person that would be collected from all private and commercial boaters and their occupants. The implementation of the fee on the Wild and Scenic Snake River is comparable to other federal day-use fees within the current Four Rivers reservation system for the Selway, Middle Fork Salmon, Main Salmon and other sections of the Snake Rivers. The area subject to the fee is the Snake River beginning at Hells Canyon Dam to Cache Creek Ranch (approximately 70 miles).

    The exceptions to this boater-use permit fee are:

    • Travel by private, noncommercial boat to any land in which the person has property rights.

    • Any person who has right of access for hunting or fishing privileges under specific provisions of treaty or law.

    • Individual outfitter/guides and their associated employees, while acting in an official capacity under the terms of their permit.

    At this time there is no boater-use permit fee on the Wild and Scenic Snake River for float or power boats. Boater-use for private float and power boats is currently managed though a national reservation system, which limits the amount of boats during the primary use season to meet management plan direction. A $6.00 transaction cost is associated with this reservation permit and is completely retained by the reservation contractor. In the future the reservation permit fee will be continued in conjunction with the application of this proposed boater-use permit fee for private boaters.

    At this time the listed boater-use permit fee is only a proposal and further analysis and public comment will occur before a decision is made. Funds from the proposed fee would be used for administrative and operational needs in the recreation area to enhance user experience and safety, sustain natural and cultural resources, and facility maintenance and improvements.

    DATES:

    New fees would begin after, and contingent upon a review and recommendation by the John Day-Snake River Resource Advisory Council and approval by the Regional Forester for the Pacific Northwest Region. All comments should be received no later than 60 days from publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The publication date of this Notice in the Federal Register is the exclusive means for calculating the comment period for this proposal. Those wishing to comment should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

    Public Open House: A series of public open houses are scheduled to answer questions brought forth by the public.

    The open house dates are:

    1. July 5, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Boise, ID.

    2. July 6, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Riggins, ID.

    3. July 7, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Clarkston, WA.

    4. July 8, 2016, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Joseph, OR.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send written comments to: Jacob Lubera, Deputy District Ranger, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, 201 East Second Street, P.O. Box 905, Joseph, Oregon 97846. Comments may also be faxed to 541-426-4978. Comments may be hand-delivered to the above address Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. till 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

    Electronic Comments: Electronic comments must be submitted in a format such as an email message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.docx) to [email protected] Emails submitted to email addresses other than the one listed above, in other formats than those listed, or containing viruses will be rejected. Comments can also be submitted at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa-whitman/specialplaces/?cid=fseprd481691. It is the responsibility of persons providing comments to submit them by the close of the comment period and ensure that their comments have been received.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jacob Lubera, Deputy District Ranger, 541-426-5581, [email protected], or http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/wallowa-whitman/specialplaces/?cid=stelprd3854363.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six month advance notice in the Federal Register whenever new recreation fee areas are established.

    Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Jacob S. Lubera, Deputy District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14471 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE National Agricultural Library Notice of Intent To Seek Approval To Collect Information AGENCY:

    National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, this notice announces the National Agricultural Library's (NAL) intent to request renewal of an information collection to obtain an evaluation of user satisfaction with NAL Internet sites.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by August 22, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected].

    Fax: 301-504-7042 attention Ricardo Romero.

    1. Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: National Agricultural Library, 10301 Baltimore Avenue, Room 115-B, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-2351.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ricardo Romero at 301-504-5066.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: “Evaluation of User Satisfaction with NAL Internet Sites.”

    OMB No.: 0518-0040.

    Expiration Date: N/A.

    Type of Request: Approval for renewed data collection.

    Abstract: This is a request, made by NAL Office of the Director Office of the Associate Director of Information Services, that the OMB approve, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, a 3 year generic clearance for the NAL to conduct user satisfaction research around its Internet sites. This effort is made according to Executive Order 12862, which directs federal agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to survey customers to determine the kind and quality of services they want and their level of satisfaction with existing services.

    The NAL Internet sites are a vast collection of Web pages. NAL Web pages are visited by an average of 8.6 million people per month. All NAL Information Centers have an established web presence that provides information to their respective audiences.

    Description of Surveys

    The online surveys will be no more than 15 Semantic Differential Scale or multiple-choice questions, and no more than four open-ended response questions.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per survey.

    Respondents: The agricultural community, USDA personnel and their cooperators, and including public and private users or providers of agricultural information.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1000 per year.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 60 hours.

    Comments

    The purpose of the research is to ensure that intended audiences find the information provided on the Internet sites easy to access, clear, informative, and useful. Specifically, the research will examine whether the information is presented in an appropriate technological format and whether it meets the needs of users of these Internet sites. The research will also provide a means by which to classify visitors to the NAL Internet sites, to better understand how to serve them. It is estimated that participants will require no more than 5 minutes to complete each survey. Actual time required will vary based on participant reading rate. Sample questions may include:

    Please rate the accuracy of information on this site.
  • Please rate the quality of information on this site.
  • Please rate the freshness of content on this site.
  • Functionality Please rate the usefulness of the information provided on this site.
  • Please rate the convenience of the information on this site.
  • Please rate the ability to accomplish what you wanted to on this site.
  • Look and Feel Please rate the ease of reading this site.
  • Please rate the clarity of site organization.
  • Please rate the clean layout of this site.
  • Navigation Please rate the degree to which the number of steps it took to get where you want is acceptable.
  • Please rate the ability to find information you want on this site.
  • Comments should be sent to the address in the preamble.

    Dated: June 13, 2016. Simon Y. Liu, Associate Administrator, ARS.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14604 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service Announcement of Loan Application Procedures, and Deadlines for the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP) AGENCY:

    Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Solicitation for Applications (NOSA); the RESP Application Process and Deadlines.

    SUMMARY:

    The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is soliciting letters of intent for loan applications under the Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP), announcing the application process for those loans and deadlines for applications from eligible entities. These loans are made available under the authority of Section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, as amended, (Section 6407). This notice describes the eligibility requirements, the application process and deadlines, the criteria that will be used by RUS to assess Applicants' creditworthiness, and how to obtain application materials.

    DATES:

    The application process consists of two steps. To be considered for this funding, Applicants must submit their documentation no later than the mandatory dates set forth herein. Failure to comply with both of the following deadlines will prevent RUS from considering the Applicant for financial assistance in FY 2016.

    Step 1: To be considered for financing in this fiscal year, an Applicant seeking financing must submit a Letter of intent to apply, as provided herein, in an electronic Portable Document Format (PDF) by electronic mail (email) to [email protected] no later than 11:59 p.m. (EST) on August 5, 2016. Late or incomplete Letters of Intent will not be considered by RUS.

    Step 2: An RESP Applicant that has been invited in writing by RUS to proceed with the loan application, as provided in this NOSA, will have up to sixty (60) calendar days to complete the documentation for a complete application. The sixty (60) day timeframe will begin from the date the RESP Applicant receives an email with RUS' Invitation to proceed. If the deadline to submit the completed application falls on Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. Instructions on how to electronically submit the loan application package will be included in the RUS Invitation to proceed to the RESP Applicant.

    ADDRESSES:

    Copies of this NOSA and other information on the Rural Energy Savings Program may be obtained by:

    (1) Contacting Titilayo Ogunyale at (202) 720-0736 to request a copy of this Notice.

    (2) Sending an electronic mail (email) to [email protected] The email must be identified as RESP Notice of Solicitation for Applications in the subject field.

    (3) The Letter of intent must be submitted by the Applicant in an electronic PDF (PDF) not to exceed 10 Megabytes (10 MB) by electronic mail (email) to [email protected] on or before the deadline set forth herein. No paper letters of intent will be accepted.

    (4) The completed loan application package must be submitted electronically following the instructions that will be outlined in the RUS Invitation to proceed to the RESP Applicant. The loan application package must be marked with the subject line “Attention: Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor; RESP Loan Application.”

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1510, Room 5136-S, Washington DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 720-0736; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Overview

    Federal Agency: Rural Utilities Service (RUS), USDA.

    Funding Opportunity Title: Rural Energy Savings Program (RESP).

    Announcement Type: Requests for Letter of intent and Applications.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) No.: 10.751.

    Dates: Submit the Letter of intent on or before August 5, 2016 and the completed loan application package on or before sixty (60) days from the receipt date of a written RUS Invitation to proceed.

    Administrative Procedure Act Statement

    This NOSA is being issued without advance rulemaking or public comment. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, as amended (5 U.S.C. 553) (APA), has several exemptions to rulemaking requirements. Among them is an exception for a matter relating to “loans, grants, benefits, or contracts.” Furthermore, the 30 day effective date policy is excepted for “good cause.”

    USDA has determined, consistent with the APA that making these funds available under this NOSA for the RESP program is in the public interest since the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, (Pub. L. 114-113) appropriated a budget authority of $8,000,000 on the condition that the Agency launch RESP during the current fiscal year. In order to do this, the Agency decided to move forward with developing procedures for RESP within a NOSA instead of rulemaking in order to meet the statutory mandate to implement this new program. The Agency intends to test this new program this year with available funds under this NOSA and implement a permanent rule based on its findings.

    Information Collection and Recordkeeping Requirements

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), OMB approved an emergency information collection request on RESP so RUS can begin the application period in the timeframe noted in this notice. RUS invites comments on this information collection. Comments on this notice of information collection must be received by August 22, 2016.

    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 assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Thomas P. Dickson, Acting Director, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, USDA Rural Utilities Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1522, Room 5164, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-4492. FAX: (202) 720-8435. Email: [email protected]

    Title: Rural Energy Savings Program.

    OMB Control No.: 0572-0151.

    Type of Request: New Collection.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 6.39 hours per response.

    Respondents: For-profit institutions, Not-for-profit institutions, State, Local or Tribal Government.

    Estimated number of Respondents: 20.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 10.6.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,354.

    Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Rebecca Hunt, Program Development and Regulatory Analysis, at (202) 205-3660, FAX (202) 720-8435 or email: [email protected]

    Abstract: The collection of information consists of the items required to be submitted to the agency as part of the Letter of Intent and the application package. Entities seeking funding under this program will have to submit applications that include information establishing applicant and project eligibility, certifications that the applicant is a legal entity in good standing (as applicable), and operating in accordance with the laws of the state(s) where the applicant has a place of business, and agreements that are required for similar loan programs. The collection of information is vital for the agency to make informed decisions regarding the eligibility of borrowers and to ensure that funds obtained from the Government under the program are used appropriately (e.g., used for the purposes for which the loans were awarded).

    Definitions and Rules of Grammatical Construction

    For the purpose of RESP, the following terms must have the following meanings:

    Administrator means the Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service, an agency under the Rural Development mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture.

    Applicant means an Eligible entity interested in applying for a RESP that is planning to submit a Letter of intent.

    Commercially available technology means equipment, devices, applications, or systems that have a proven, reliable performance and replicable operating history specific to the proposed application. The equipment, device, application or system is based on established patented design or has been certified by an industry-recognized organization and subject to installation, operating, and maintenance procedures generally accepted by industry practices and standards. Service and replacement parts for the equipment, device, application or system must be readily available in the marketplace with established warranty applicable to parts, labor and performance.

    Complete application means an application containing all information required by RUS to approve a loan and that is materially complete in form and substance satisfactory to RUS within the specified time.

    Conditional commitment letter means the notification issued by the Administrator to an RESP Applicant advising it of the total loan amount approved for it as a RESP borrower, the acceptable security arrangement, and such controls and conditions on the RESP borrower's financial, investment, operational and managerial activities deemed necessary by the Administrator to adequately secure the Government's interest. This notification will also describe the accounting standards and audit requirements applicable to the transaction.

    Conflict of interest means a situation or situations, event or series of events, that jointly or severely undermines an individual's judgement, ability, or commitment to providing an accurate, unbiased, fair and reliable assessment or determination about the cost-effectiveness of the Energy efficiency measures due to self-interest or cannot be justified by the prevailing and sound application of the generally accepted standards and principles of the industry.

    Eligible entity means an entity described in section C.1. of this NOSA.

    Energy audit means an inspection and analysis of energy flows in a building, process, or system with the goal of identifying opportunities to enhance energy efficiency. The activity should result in an objective standard-based technical report containing recommendations on the Energy efficiency measures to reduce energy costs or consumption of the Qualified consumer and an analysis of the estimated benefits and costs of pursuing each recommendation in a payback period not to exceed 10 years.

    Energy efficiency measures means for or at property served by an Eligible entity, structural improvements and investments in cost-effective, commercially available technologies to increase energy efficiency. The improvements and investments must be for the purpose of decreasing the Qualified consumer's energy usage or costs.

    Energy efficiency program (EE Program) means a program set up by an Eligible entity to provide financing to Qualified consumers so that they can reduce their energy use or costs by implementing energy efficiency measures.

    Financial feasibility means an Eligible entity's ability to generate sufficient revenues to cover its expenses, sufficient cash flow to service its debts and obligations as they come due, and meet the financial ratios set forth in the applicable loan documents.

    Invitation to proceed means the written notification issued by RUS to the Eligible entity acknowledging that the Letter of intent was received and reviewed, describing the next steps in the application process and inviting the Eligible entity to submit a complete application.

    Letter of intent means a signed letter issued by an Applicant of notifying RUS of its intent to apply for a RESP loan and addressing all the elements identified in section D.2.a. of this NOSA.

    Qualified consumer means a consumer served by an Eligible entity that has the ability to repay a loan made by an RESP borrower under the RESP program, as determined by the Eligible entity.

    RESP applicant means an Eligible entity that has received a written Invitation to proceed from RUS to apply for a RESP loan.

    RESP borrower means an Eligible entity with an approved RESP loan.

    Small business means an entity that is in accordance with the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards found in 13 CFR part 121.

    Special advance means an advance, not to exceed 4 percent of the total approved loan amount, that a RESP borrower may request to defray the start-up costs of establishing a new EE Program.

    Start-up costs mean amounts paid or incurred for: (a) Creating or implementing an active energy efficiency program; or (b) investing in the integration of an active energy efficiency program. Start-up costs may include, but are not limited to, amounts paid or incurred in the analysis or survey of potential markets, products such as software and hardware, labor supply, consultants, salaries and other working capital directly related to creation or enhancement of an energy efficiency program consistent with RESP.

    With regard to the rules of grammatical construction, unless the context otherwise indicates, “includes” and “including” are not limiting, and “or” is not exclusive.

    Additional Items in Supplementary Information A. Program Description B. Federal Award Information C. Eligibility Information D. Application and Submission Information E. Agency Review of Letter of Intent and Loan Application F. Federal Award Administration Information G. Federal Awarding Agency Contact H. Other Information A. Program Description

    The USDA through the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides RESP loans to Eligible entities that agree to, in turn, make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures. These loans are made available under the authority of Section 6407. Eligible Energy efficiency measures funded under this NOSA must be for or at a property or properties served by an RESP borrower, using commercially available technologies that would allow Qualified consumers to decrease their energy use or costs through cost-effective measures including structural improvements to the property. Loans made by RESP borrowers under this program may be repaid through charges added to the Qualified consumer's bill for the property or properties for, or at which, energy efficiencies are or will be implemented. The purpose of the program is to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures.

    It is to be noted that RESP and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program (EECLP), 7 CFR 1710 Subpart H, are two separate energy efficiency programs that are both operated by RUS. These programs are distinct, however, the re-lending provisions of RESP are targeted at directly supporting EE actions undertaken by a more specific set of Qualified consumers. An additional distinction is that because the EECLP loan program level is anticipated at being significantly higher than that of RESP, entities seeking larger EE loans can pursue funding through EECLP. Also, applicants to RESP need not be utilities as in the case for EECLP. As a result, RUS anticipates that the primary applicants for RESP will be cooperatives with smaller-scale EE programs and non-traditional borrowers seeking lower loan levels that what is typically sought through EECLP.

    B. Federal Award Information

    Type of Award: Loan.

    Fiscal Year 2016 Funds: $8,000,000 in budget authority with the loan program level yet to be determined.

    Authority: RESP is a new program to be carried out by the Rural Utilities Service pursuant to Section 6407 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, 7 U.S.C. 8107a, as amended; and Section 744, Title VII, Division A of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Public Law 114-113, December 18, 2015.

    C. Eligibility Information 1. Eligible Entities Include

    a. Any public power district, public utility district, or similar entity, or any electric cooperative described in section 501(c)(12) or 1381(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, that borrowed and repaid, prepaid, or is paying an electric loan made or guaranteed by the Rural Utilities Service (or any predecessor agency);

    b. Any entity primarily owned or controlled by 1 or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOSA; and

    c. Any other entity that is an eligible borrower of the Rural Utilities Service, as determined under 7 CFR 1710.101.

    2. Equity Contributions

    a. To be eligible for a RESP loan, a newly created Eligible entity or an entity primarily owned or controlled by one (1) or more entities described in section C.1.a. of this NOSA must have a minimum equity position in the EE Program proposed to be funded with RESP at the time of the loan closing. The required equity position will be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis based upon review of the risk profile of the Eligible entity and other security arrangements.

    b. If the Administrator determines that the RESP Applicant under this section does not have acceptable equity, in the Energy Efficiency Program at the time of application, the Administrator may consider the following to meet such shortfall regarding equity:

    i. The infusion of additional capital into the Energy efficiency program by an Investor to meet any shortfall. RUS may require that the additional capital be deposited into a RESP Applicant's special account subject to a deposit account control agreement with RUS prior to loan closing.

    ii. An unconditional, irrevocable letter of credit satisfactory to the Administrator in the amount of the shortfall. RUS must be an unconditional payee under the letter of credit and the letter of credit must be in place prior to loan closing and remain in place until the loan is repaid.

    iii. General obligation bonds issued by tribal, state or local governments in the amount of the shortfall. If the equity requirement is satisfied with general obligation bonds, any lien securing the bonds must be subordinate to the lien of the government securing the RESP loan.

    iv. Any other equity requirements determined necessary by the Administrator to meet the shortfall.

    3. Other

    An Applicant may not submit more than one application in this funding cycle for the same EE Program. However, one or more Eligible entities may submit their applications using the same EE Program model.

    D. Application and Submission Information 1. Sample Letter of Intent

    Interested parties may send an email to the contact listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this NOSA to obtain an electronic sample of the Letter of intent. The sample Letter of intent can also be found online using the following web address: http://www.rd.usda.gov/resp/.

    2. Content of Letter of Intent and RESP Application

    Complete applications for loans to Eligible entities under this NOSA will be processed on a first-come-first-serve basis (queue) until funds appropriated to carry out RESP are expended. Applicants must submit the required information for Step 1, “Letter of intent,” (see paragraph a below), and upon a written Invitation to proceed from RUS must submit the required information for Step 2, “Application,” (see paragraph b). Loan applications for RESP funds will be processed in a two-step approach as described herein. Applicants must submit all the information identified in the Letter of intent “Evaluation Criteria Checklist” available online at the following web address: http://www.rd.usda.gov/resp//

    a. Step 1—Letter of intent. An Applicant interested in applying for a RESP loan must submit a Letter of intent to RUS. The following information must be included in the Letter of intent:

    i. The description of the project must not exceed five pages (size 8.5 × 11) and must include the following:

    A. A description of the service to be provided to Qualified consumers.

    B. Identity of the staff or contractors that will be implementing the EE Program and their credentials.

    C. Implementation Plan that Briefly Addresses.

    (1) The marketing strategy.

    (2) How the Applicant will operate the relending process.

    (3) A schedule showing sources and uses of funds to implement the EE Program.

    (4) A brief description of the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in the energy costs of the Qualified consumers.

    D. A List of Eligible Energy Efficiency Measures that will be Implemented.

    ii. The Applicant must submit a copy of its balance sheet for the last 3 years. If applicable, the Applicant must provide the balance sheet for the last 3 years of the entity or entities providing equity or security for the RESP loan together with an explanation of the legal relationship among the legal entities.

    iii. The Applicant must provide evidence of its performance measures and indicators for the 5 complete years prior to the submission of the loan application if the total loan amount exceeds 5 million dollars.

    An Applicant with an existing EE Program in place by April 8, 2014, may describe the Energy efficiency measures, its implementation plan and its measurement and verification system for the existing program in its Letter of intent to expedite the application process.

    b. Step 2—Loan Application. Upon delivery of an Invitation to proceed, RUS will assign a General Field Representative (GFR) to assist the RESP Applicant during step 2 of the application process. The RESP Applicant's application package must include the following documents:

    i. Cover Letter. A signed cover letter from the RESP Applicant's General Manager or highest ranking officer requesting a RESP loan under this NOSA.

    ii. Board Resolution. A signed copy of the board resolution or applicable authorizing document approving and establishing the EE Program.

    iii. Environmental Compliance Agreement. A copy of the duly executed Multi-tier Action Environmental Compliance Agreement (Multi-tier Agreement). A template of a Multi-tier Agreement can be found in Exhibit H of RD Instruction 1970-A, Environmental Policies and Procedures (http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/1970a.pdf). A copy of the Multi-tier Agreement will be provided to the RESP Applicant with the Invitation to proceed.

    iv. Long-Range Financial Forecast. A long-range financial forecast approved by the applicable governing body of the RESP Applicant in support of its loan application. RUS encourages RESP Applicants to follow the format set forth in RUS Form 325, which may be obtained from a GFR. The financial forecast must cover a period of at least 10 years and must demonstrate that the RESP Applicant's operation is economically viable and that the proposed loan is financially feasible. RUS may request projections for a longer period of time if RUS deems it necessary based on the financial structure of the RESP Applicant. The financial forecast and related projections submitted in support of a loan application must include:

    A. The financial goals established for margins, debt service coverage, equity, and levels of general funds to be invested in the EE Program.

    B. A pro forma balance sheet, statement of operations, and general funds summary projected for each year during the forecast period.

    C. A full explanation of the assumptions, supporting data, and analysis used in the forecast, including the methodology used to project revenues, rates (if applicable), operating expenses, power costs (if applicable), and any other factors having a material effect on the balance sheet and the financial ratios such as equity and debt service coverage. The explanation should include a discussion of the historical experience of the RESP Applicant with respect to its's market competitiveness. RUS may require additional data and analysis on a case-by-case basis to assess the probable future competitiveness of the RESP Applicant.

    D. Current and projected cash flows.

    E. Projections of future borrowings and the associated interest and principal expenses required to meet the projected investment requirements of the RESP Applicant.

    F. Current and projected kW and kWh energy sales (if applicable).

    G. Current and projected unit prices of significant variables such as retail and wholesale power prices, average labor costs, and interest (if applicable).

    H. When applicable, current and projected system operating costs, including, but not limited to, wholesale power costs, depreciation expenses, labor costs and debt service costs.

    I. Current and projected revenues from sales of services, including but not limited to, electric power and energy (if applicable).

    J. Current and projected non-operating income and expense.

    K. A sensitivity analysis may be required by RUS on a case-by-case basis taking into account such factors as the number and type of loads (if applicable), projections of future borrowings and the associated interest, projected loads, projected revenues, and probable future competitiveness of the RESP Applicant. RUS may request the RESP Applicant to factor in other elements in its sensitivity analysis.

    L. The financial forecast must use the accrual method of accounting for analyzing costs and revenues and, as applicable, compare the economic results of the various alternatives on a present value basis.

    M. When applicable, the financial forecast must include the expenditures for any maintenance determined to be needed in the current system's operation and maintenance review and evaluation in order to comply with the covenants in the loan documents.

    N. An itemized budget for the activities to be implemented with the RESP funds and a discussion on how the loan loss reserve will be set up.

    v. EE Program Implementation Work Plan (IWP). The RESP Applicant must produce, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, an IWP duly approved by the applicable governing body of the Eligible entity. A RESP Applicant may submit evidence of the credentials of a third party retained, or to be retained, to carry out the EE program. The statement of qualifications must show the party's experience carrying out the financial and technical expertise components of an EE program at the desired scale. The IWP must:

    A. Describe the expected schedule to implement the EE Program with an itemized allocation of expected resources including anticipated costs assigned to each task.

    B. Project the expected amount of loans made by the RESP Applicant to the Qualified consumers over the next 10 years.

    C. Identify the anticipated amount of special advance for start-up costs and purposes over the expected schedule to draw down the funds attributable to such purposes.

    D. Describe the schedule and the mechanism to fund the loan loss reserve. In addition, it must describe how the RESP Applicant will be using the revenues from the interest rate charged to the Qualified consumers.

    E. Only include those activities and investments in an approved application as provided in the Multi-tier Agreement executed between RUS and the RESP Applicant.

    F. Address all the following core elements:

    (1) Marketing. In this section the RESP Applicant will identify the qualified customers by market segment that will benefit from the funding available under this NOSA and explains the marketing and outreach efforts to be executed in implementing the relending program. In the identification of the marketing effort to the qualified customers, the RESP Applicant should provide racial and ethnic demographics for the service area or individuals.

    (2) Operations. In this section the RESP Applicant will describe its energy efficiency program and how it will operate the relending process. The RESP Applicant must describe the Energy efficiency measures that it will fund and provide an estimate of the dollar amount of investment for each category of investments and/or activities. The RESP Applicant must also identify the staff that will be implementing the program and whether or not it will be outsourcing some or all of the execution of the program. In the event that an RESP Applicant partners with, or outsources to a third party to carry out the EE Program, it must describe the roles of each one of the parties involved in implementing the program and how the RESP Applicant will monitor third parties for legal and regulatory compliance. The RESP Applicant must describe its expertise to effectively implement Energy efficiency measures at the scale pursued in the EE Program funded by RESP. If the RESP Applicant envisions partnering with a third party or outsourcing the implementation of the energy efficiency loan program, it must adequately describe the credentials of the third party to effectively use Energy efficiency measures at the scale pursued in the EE Program. The RESP Applicant will be held accountable to RUS for actions or omissions of those partners or contractors, arising from or in connection with a program funded under this NOSA. The operational plan must also describe the process for documenting and perfecting collateral arrangements for Qualified consumer loans, if applicable.

    (3) Financials. The RESP Applicant must submit a schedule showing sources and uses of funds to implement the EE program. This plan must include an itemized budget for each activity and investment category necessary to carry out the EE Program including, but not limited to, the loan loss reserve, the expected loan delinquency and default rates. The RESP Applicant must describe how it is going to use the interest to be received from the loans to the Qualified consumers—if the RESP Applicant determines to charge interest. RUS may request additional information from an RESP Applicant in order to make its determination regarding loan feasibility and reasonably adequate security for the loan.

    (4) Measurement and Verification. The RESP Applicant must describe the processes, procedures, and capabilities to quantify and verify the reduction in energy consumption or decrease in energy costs of the Qualified consumers. An RESP Applicant may provide a measurement and verification plan approved by a state or local regulatory body or sponsored by a governmental entity. A measurement and verification plan developed and certified by an industry recognized professional or entity will also be acceptable. Other measurement and verification plans may be acceptable if the Eligible entity can support, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the protocols and methodology used to verify the Energy efficiency measures cost-effective using generally accepted industry principles and standards. An RESP Applicant with an existing EE Program as of April 8, 2014, may submit the measurement and verification plan previously established with this program to fulfill this requirement.

    (5) The RESP Applicant must describe the processes and procedures that will be put in place to avoid a Conflict of interest in the implementation of the energy efficiency loan program for Qualified consumers.

    vi. An opinion of counsel, acceptable to the Administrator, opining that the RESP Applicant is properly organized and has the required corporate authority to enter into the proposed transaction. It must also identify the proposed collateral to secure the RESP loan and certify that such collateral is free of liens or identify any issues that may arise for the Government regarding the securing and perfecting of a first and prior lien on such property comprising the collateral. If real property owned by the Eligible entity will collateralize the transaction, the counsel's opinion must include a listing of the real property owned by the Eligible entity, the counties where it is located, and must certify that the descriptions in the property schedule are complete and adequate for inclusion in a security instrument to be executed by the Eligible entity to secure the RUS loan.

    vii. Articles of incorporation and bylaws or other applicable governing and organizational documents. The RESP Applicant's articles of incorporation or other applicable organizational documents currently in effect, as filed with the appropriate state office, setting forth the RESP applicant's corporate purpose; and the bylaws or other applicable governing documents currently in effect, as adopted by the RESP Applicant's applicable governing body. RESP Applicants that are active RUS borrowers may comply with this requirement by notifying in writing to RUS that there are no material changes to the documents already on file with RUS.

    3. Compliance With Other Federal Statutes

    The RESP Applicant must provide statement of compliance with other federal statutes, including but not limited to the following:

    a. Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs. 7 CFR part 15, subpart A, Nondiscrimination in Federally-Assisted Programs of the Department of Agriculture-Effectuation on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, RUS Bulletin 1790-1, “Nondiscrimination Among Beneficiaries of RUS Program.” Eligible entities must complete and submit RUS Form 266, “Assurance Agreement.”

    b. Standard Form 100—Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Report EEO—1. This form, required by the Department of Labor, sets forth employment data for Eligible entities with 100 or more employees. A copy of this form, as submitted to the Department of Labor, is to be included in the application for an insured loan if the Eligible entity has more than 100 employees.

    c. Form AD-1049—Certificate Regarding Drug Free Workplace Requirements. This form is required as prescribed in 2 CFR parts 182 and 421, Requirements for Drug Free Workplace (Financial Assistance). Information on all of your organization's known workplaces by including the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the award takes place. Workplace identification is required under the drug-free workplace requirements in Subpart B of 2 CFR part 421, which adopts the Government-wide implementation (2 CFR part 182) of the Drug-Free Workplace Act.

    d. Form AD-1047—Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension. This form is required in accordance with 2 CFR part 417 (Nonprocurement Debarment and Suspension) supplemented by 2 CFR part 180, if it applies. See the section heading is “What information must I provide before entering into a covered transaction with the Federal Government?” located at 2 CFR 180.335.

    e. Executive Order 13166, “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency.” For information on limited English proficiency and agency-specific guidance, go to http://www.LEP.gov.vi. Lobbying for Grants, Loans, Contracts and Cooperative Agreements. The following information on lobbying is required pursuant to 2 CFR part 418. The RESP Applicant should consult RUS before submitting this information.

    f. Report on Federal debt delinquency. This report indicates whether or not the RESP Applicant is delinquent on any Federal debt.

    g. Certify Accounting, Auditing, and Reporting Requirements. The RESP Applicant must certify to RUS that it is aware of and will abide by the accounting, auditing, and reporting requirements as described within the Federal Award Administration Information section of this NOSA.

    h. Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS). The Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS Unique entity identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). Applicants must supply a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number with their Letters of Intent and RESP Applicants with their loan application. Please see http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. RESP Applicant are required to be registered in SAM before submitting an application, provide a valid unique entity identifier in the application, and continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which the entity has an active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal awarding agency. The agency may not make a Federal award to an RESP Applicant until the RESP Applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an RESP Applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Federal awarding agency is ready to make a Federal award, the Federal awarding agency may determine that the RESP Applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another RESP Applicant. Applicants may register for the SAM at http://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM. To remain registered in SAM, the Applicant must review and update the information in the SAM database annually from the date of initial registration or last update. Applicants must ensure that the information in the database is current, accurate, and complete.

    4. Funding Restriction

    a. Loan Disbursements. RUS will disburse RESP funds to the RESP borrower in accordance with the terms of the executed loan agreement. Any disbursements of loan funds to a RESP borrower in a single year must not exceed 50 percent of the approved loan amount.

    i. The RESP borrower must provide to the Qualified consumers all RESP loan funds that the RESP borrower receives within one year of receiving them from RUS. If the RESP borrower does not re-lend the RESP loan funds within one year, the unused RESP loan funds, and any interest earned on those RESP loan funds, must be returned to the Federal Government and will be applied to the RESP borrower's debt. The RESP borrower will not be eligible to receive additional RESP loan funds from RUS until providing evidence, satisfactory to RUS, that RESP loan funds from a previous advance have been fully relent to Qualified consumers or returned to the Federal Government.

    ii. RUS will disburse the RESP loan funds in advance if the following requirements are met:

    A. The RESP borrower has established written procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of RESP loan funds from RUS and their disbursement to the Qualified consumer; and (ii) the requests for advances made by the RESP borrower are limited to the minimum amounts needed and timed to be in accordance with the actual immediate cash needs to carry out the Energy Efficiency program.

    B. Loan term for loans to Qualified consumers. Each loan made by the RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer may not exceed a term of 10 years.

    C. Unauthorized uses of funds. The RESP borrower must not finance the purchase or modification of personal property with proceeds from the RESP loan unless the personal property is or becomes attached to real property (including a manufactured home) as a fixture. The RESP borrower must keep adequate processes, procedures and records and must not commingle RESP funds with other sources of funding in the implementation of an EE Program.

    5. Submission Requirements

    The application process consists of two steps. To be considered for funding in this fiscal year, Applicants must submit their documentation no later than the mandatory dates set forth above.

    a. To be considered for financing this fiscal year, an Applicant must submit its mandatory Letter of intent, that complies with the requirements in section D(2) of this NOSA, in a PDF file, not to exceed 10 MB in size, by electronic mail (email) to [email protected] no later than 11:59 p.m. (EST) on August 5, 2016.

    b. By submitting the Letter of intent, the Applicant certifies to RUS that it has the intent of submitting a complete RESP loan application on or before the date set forth as the application deadline in the event that RUS provides an Invitation to proceed. RUS will not consider Letters of intent where the project description exceeds five (5) pages. An Invitation to proceed with the loan application sent by the RUS is not to be deemed as an offer by the Agency. In extending an Invitation to proceed to an Applicant in the queue, RUS reserves the right to meet overall RUS Program objectives and therefore, may notify the Applicant that the amount of financing to be awarded is below the level sought by the Applicant.

    c. Completed Loan Application. A RESP Applicant that has received an Invitation to proceed, as provided herein, will have up to sixty (60) calendar days to complete the documentation required for the loan application package. The 60-day timeframe will begin from the date RUS delivers the Invitation to proceed to the point of contact identified in the Letter of intent. The Administrator may grant a short extension of time to complete the documentation required for an application if, in the Administrator's sole judgment, extraordinary circumstances prevented the RESP Applicant from completing the application within the timeframe herein stipulated (60 days).

    d. Applicants and RESP Applicants have appeal or review rights for Agency decisions made under this NOSA. Programmatic decisions based on clear and objective statutory or regulatory requirements are not appealable; however, such decisions are reviewable for appeal ability by the National Appeals Division (NAD). An Applicant can appeal any Agency decision that directly and adversely impacts it. Appeals will be conducted by USDA NAD and will be handled in accordance with 7 CFR part 11.

    e. In the event of system problems during the submittal of the Letter of intent please contact: Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1510, Room 5136-S, Washington, DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 720-0736; Email: [email protected] [INSERT CONTACT INFORMATION FOR IT SUPPORT]

    E. Agency Review of Letter of Intent and Loan Application 1. Letter of Intent

    RUS will consider complete Letters of intent as they are received. Letters of intent will be reviewed by RUS for the following:

    a. The legal identity and status of the entity and eligibility to participate in RESP in accordance with section C. of this NOSA.

    b. Compliance with meeting the purpose of Section 6407 to help rural families and small businesses achieve cost savings by providing loans to Qualified consumers to implement durable cost-effective Energy efficiency measures.

    c. The financial status of the Applicant to determine the Applicant's likelihood to complete the full application.

    d. The feasibility of the project.

    e. Upon review of the Letters of Intent, RUS will issue a notification to the Applicant indicating the status of its application by stating one of the following:

    i. Acknowledgment of receipt of the Letter of intent that was submitted before the deadline but was deemed incomplete. This notification will include the reasons the Letter of intent was deemed incomplete. The Applicant may resubmit a completed Letter of intent within the original deadline of this NOSA.

    ii. Acknowledgement of receipt of the Letter of intent that was submitted before the deadline and was deemed complete but will not be receiving an Invitation to proceed for the reasons cited.

    iii. Acknowledgement of receipt of the Letter of intent that was submitted before the deadline and was deemed complete and issuance of an Invitation to proceed. This Invitation to proceed will include your placement in the queue and identification of the RUS staff that will be assisting the RESP Applicant in the application process.

    2. Loan Application Review

    Loans made to RESP Applicants for eligible purposes under this program will be made only when the Administrator, in his judgment, finds that there is reasonably adequate security and the loan will be repaid within the time agreed.

    a. Term of the loan. The loan term must not exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed. The Administrator will only make a loan offer to the RESP Applicant in a Conditional commitment letter. Upon receipt of the acceptance of the loan offer from the RUS Borrower, RUS will begin to prepare the loan documents with the assistance of the Eligible entity. Upon completion of the loan documents, RUS will forward the loan documents to the RESP borrower.

    b. Loan Feasibility. Based on the complete application, RUS must have reasonable assurance that the loan, together with all other outstanding loans and other obligations of the RESP Applicant, will be repaid in full as scheduled, in accordance with the loan documents. RUS will consider the following criteria to evaluate loan feasibility:

    i. The projections of the expected amount of loans to Qualified consumers per year and the average size of those loans per customer class. Those projections must be based on reasonable assumptions and adequate supporting data and analysis.

    ii. The expected rates to the Qualified consumers, including interest rate, application fees, servicing fees and any other fees expected to be charged to the Qualified consumer per customer class. The RESP Applicant must demonstrate the basis for its anticipated market penetration assuming these service charges.

    iii. The projected revenues, expenses, applicable margins and any other financial information or any other reliable source of revenue of the RESP Applicant that could enable RUS to assess its ability to repay the loan within a term not to exceed 20 years.

    iv. Ability of the RESP borrower to meet the required coverage ratios. The Administrator, on case-by-case basis, may set financial coverage ratios based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan terms. Those financial ratios will be included in the RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios in their current loan documents, unless notified otherwise.

    v. The economics of the RESP Applicant's operations and service area are such that Qualified consumers may reasonably be expected to pay the proposed rates repay the loans for energy efficiency in such levels so that the RESP borrower may sufficiently cover all its expenses and meet the debt service coverage ratio set by the Administrator.

    vi. Possible risk of reduction in electric system demand associated with anticipated efficiency improvements within the consolidated pool of Qualified consumers that could impair the RESP Applicant's ability to repay the RUS loan within the agreed term of the loan.

    vii. Possible risk of loss of portions of the RESP Applicant's business in a given area to third party competitors, or other causes that could substantially impair loan feasibility.

    viii. The RESP Applicant's management experience implementing EE Programs similar in scale and type to the one to be financed with RESP funds.

    ix. Supplemental sources of funding available to the RESP Applicant to implement the Energy efficiency program that enhance the creditworthiness of the RESP applicant.

    x. The RESP Applicant has implemented adequate financial and management controls and there are and have been no significant irregularities.

    xi. Any other relevant information pertaining to credit enhancement mechanisms available to the RESP Applicant relevant to a determination by RUS of creditworthiness.

    c. Loan Security. The Administrator will make loans under the RESP only if, in his judgement, the security is reasonably adequate. Loans will ordinarily be secured by a first and prior lien on substantially all the RESP borrower's property, and in any event will be secured by the best security position practicable in a manner which will adequately protect the interest of the Government during the repayment period of the loan.

    i. Liens and Lien Sharing. RUS may in certain circumstances agree to share its first lien position with another lender provided the RESP loan is adequately secured and the security arrangements are acceptable to RUS. In such circumstances, RUS will consider entering into joint security arrangements with other lenders on a pari pasu, prorated basis. For existing RUS borrowers, the agency may, at its sole discretion, rely on existing security arrangements with RUS.

    ii. Collateral. Collateral that is used to secure a loan must be free from liens or security interests other those permitted by RUS or existing security documents. RUS generally requires that borrowers provide it with a first priority lien on all of the borrower's real and personal property, including intangible personal property and any property acquired after the date of the loan. This lien will ordinarily be in the form of a mortgage by the RESP borrower to the Government or a deed of trust between the RESP borrower and a trustee satisfactory to the Administrator, together with such additional security documents as RUS may deem necessary in a particular case. When a RESP borrower is unable by reason of preexisting encumbrances, or otherwise, to furnish a first priority lien on its entire system, the Administrator may accept other forms of security, such as a parent guarantee, state guarantee, an irrevocable letter of credit, or a pledge of revenues if the Administrator determines such credit support is reasonably adequate and otherwise acceptable in form and substance.

    iii. The requirements for coverage ratios will be set forth in the RESP borrower's loan documents with RUS. The minimum coverage ratios required of RESP borrowers, whether applied on an annual or average basis will be determined by the Administrator on case-by-case based on the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and specific loan features. Existing RUS borrowers will be subject to their current debt service coverage ratios.

    vi. When new loan documents are executed, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, increase the coverage ratio of the RESP borrower if the Administrator determines that higher ratios are required to ensure the repayment made by RUS. Also, the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, reduce the coverage ratios if the Administrator determines that the lower ratios are required to ensure the repayment of the loan made by RUS.

    3. Loan Terms and Conditions

    a. General. This section provides the core terms and conditions that RUS will apply in making loans under the RESP. The Administrator, at his sole discretion, may add other terms and conditions in a loan under this NOSA to ensure the RESP loan is timely repaid and is adequately secured.

    b. Loan Term. RUS will make loans to RESP Applicant under RESP for a term not to exceed 20 years from the date on which the loan is closed.

    c. Interest rate. Loans made under RESP will not bear interest (0%) although indebtedness not paid when due will be subject to interest, penalties, administrative costs and late fees as provided in the loan documents.

    d. Repayment. The repayment of each advance to the RESP borrower must be amortized for a period not to exceed 10 years. However, the repayment of the special advance must be during the 10-year period beginning on the date on which the special advance is made. A RESP borrower may elect to defer the repayment of the special advance to the end of the 10-year period. However, all amounts advanced on the loan by RUS to the RESP borrower must be paid prior to the final maturity which must not exceed 20 years.

    e. Loan Disbursements. RUS will disburse loan funds to the RESP borrower in accordance with the terms of the loan documents. Excluding the special advance for start-up activities, all loan funds will be disbursed either as an advance in anticipation of consumer loans to be made by the RESP borrower; or as a reimbursement for eligible program costs, including consumer loans already made, once the RESP borrower has complied with the loan covenants. Within a 12-month consecutive period, any disbursements of loan funds to an RESP borrower must not exceed 50 percent of the approved loan amount.

    The RESP borrower must provide to the Qualified consumers all RESP loan funds that the RESP borrower receives as advances from RUS within one year of receiving them from RUS. If the RESP borrower does not re-lend RUS funds within one year, the unused loan funds, and any interest earned on those loan funds, must be returned to the government and will be applied to the RESP borrower's debt. The RESP borrower will not be eligible to receive additional loan funds, if available, from RUS until providing evidence, satisfactory to RUS, that loan funds from a previous advance have been fully relent to Qualified consumers or returned to the government.

    RUS will disburse the RESP loan funds for anticipated consumer loans if the following requirements are met: (1) The RESP borrower has established written procedures that will minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of funds from RUS and their disbursement to the Qualified consumer; and (2) the requests for advances made by the RESP borrower are limited to the minimum amounts needed and timed to be in accordance with the actual immediate cash needs to carry out the EE Program.

    f. Equity Requirements. The required equity position would be determined by the Administrator on a case-by-case basis upon review of the risk profile of the RESP Applicant and the anticipated security arrangements as provided further in Section C(2)(b) in this NOSA.

    i. Any additional equity requirement determined necessary by the Administrator will be set forth in the loan documents as a condition to the RESP loan.

    ii. The Administrator reserves the right to modify or waive the requirements of this section if the Administrator believes such modifications or waiver are in the best interest of the government and the Administrator has determined that the loan will be repaid in the designated time period and the security is adequate.

    g. Loans to Qualified consumers—General. An Eligible entity must use the proceeds from a RESP loan only to make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of implementing Energy efficiency measures.

    i. Interest rate. Loans made by a RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer may bear interest not to exceed 3 percent. Proceeds from the interest charged to the Qualified consumers may be used to establish a loan loss reserve, and to offset personnel and program costs necessary to carry out the program.

    ii. Purpose of the loan to the Qualified consumer. Loans made to a Qualified consumer must be to finance Energy efficiency measures for the purpose of decreasing energy (not just electricity) usage or costs of the Qualified consumer by an amount that ensures, to the maximum extent practicable, that a loan term of not more than 10 years will not pose an undue financial burden on the Qualified consumer as determined by the RESP borrower.

    iii. Loan term to Qualified consumers. Loans made by the RESP borrower to Qualified consumers may not exceed 10 years.

    iv. Repayment of the Qualified consumer loan. Qualified consumers must repay their loans to the RESP borrower through charges added by the RESP borrower to the electric bill for the property for, or at which, the Energy efficiency measures are or will be implemented. The repayment mechanism adopted to implement an EE Program under RESP must not prevent the voluntary prepayment of the loan by the owner of the property. A RESP borrower may adopt any additional repayment mechanism to carry out its EE Program with RESP proceeds as long as it can demonstrate that the proposed repayment mechanism has appropriate risk mitigation features or is required to ensure repayment to the RESP borrower if the Qualified consumer will no longer be a customer of the RESP borrower.

    v. Energy Audit. Loans made by a RESP borrower to a Qualified consumer using RESP loan funds must require an Energy audit by the RESP borrower to determine the impact of the proposed Energy efficiency measures on the energy costs and consumption of the Qualified consumer. The RESP borrower may engage contractors to carry out the Energy audits necessary to fulfill this requirement. In so doing, the RESP borrower must engage contractors with adequate expertise to perform the Energy audits according to the applicable standards of the industry. Contractor's adequate expertise may be determined by using the following criteria:

    A. Contractor's staff possesses a current residential or commercial Energy auditor or building analyst certification from a national, industry-recognized organization.

    B. Contractor's staff possesses proficiency in the knowledge, skills and abilities needed to conduct whole house assessments, building performance diagnostics and reasoning, and estimates of energy savings from improvement installations (via calculations or a modeling software tool) accredited by training and credentialing. The credentialing process must be at least as robust as those employed by nationally recognized certification bodies or suitable to meet or exceed the rigor of the standards of federal, state or local government entities.

    C. The contractor must demonstrate adequate capacity and resources to engage customers, conduct whole house assessments, building performance testing and diagnostic reasoning, and fulfillment of all program data collection and reporting requirements. This includes having access to satisfactory diagnostic equipment, tools, qualified staff, data systems and software, and administrative support.

    D. The contractor must be current and in good standing with all local registration and licensing requirements for their specific region and trade.

    E. The contractor must employ or sub-contract to companies with workers who are qualified to install or physically oversee the installation of home performance improvements in compliance with local building codes and industry-accepted protocols.

    F. In the absence of fulfilling the first criterion under this subsection, the contractor for commercial Energy audits, must meet one of the following criteria:

    (1) Be a licensed professional engineer in the state in which the audit is conducted with at least 1 year experience and who has completed at least two similar type Energy audits;

    (2) Be an individual with a four-year engineering or architectural degree with at least 3 years of experience and who has completed at least five similar type Energy audits; or

    (3) Be an individual with an energy auditor certification recognized by the U.S. Department of Energy through its Better Buildings Workforce Guidelines project. For related information please visit: https://www4.eere.energy.gov/workforce/projects/workforceguidelines.

    vi. The credentials of the energy auditors used or proposed to be used by the RESP Applicant will be subject to RUS review. RUS may reject a loan application or refuse to disburse loan proceeds to the RESP borrower that fails to demonstrate that the Energy audits will be or have been performed by qualified individuals.

    h. Repayment. The RESP borrower is responsible for fully repaying the RESP loan to RUS according to the loan documents regardless of repayment by its Qualified consumers.

    i. Material changes in borrower circumstances. A RESP Applicant must, after submitting a loan application, promptly notify RUS of any changes in its circumstances that materially affect the information contained in the loan application.

    j. Eligible Activities and Investments.

    i. General. A RESP borrower must make loans to Qualified consumers for the purpose of decreasing their energy (not just electricity) use or costs.

    ii. A RESP borrower may provide financing to Qualified consumers to implement or invest in one or more set of Energy efficiency measures listed below in this paragraph. However, a RESP borrower may be able to fund other Energy efficiency measures if it can justify, to the satisfaction of the Administrator, that the Energy efficiency measure is cost effective and the technology is commercially available. Eligible activities and investments include, but are not limited, to:

    A. Lighting:

    (1) Lighting fixture upgrades to improve efficiency.

    (2) Re-lamping to more energy efficient bulbs.

    (3) Lighting controls.

    B. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC):

    (1) Central Air Systems—Energy Star qualified equipment.

    (2) Window AC Units—Energy Star qualified equipment.

    (3) Economizers.

    (4) Heat pumps.

    (5) Furnaces—Energy Star qualified equipment.

    (6) Air Handlers.

    (7) Programmable controls.

    (8) Duct sealing.

    C. Building Envelope Improvements:

    (1) Improved insulation—added insulation beyond existing levels, or for new construction, above existing building codes.

    (2) Caulking and weather stripping of doors and windows.

    (3) Window upgrades—Energy Star qualifying windows.

    (4) Door upgrades—door upgrades could include man-doors, and overhead doors with integrated insulation and energy efficient windows.

    (5) Any material listed in Appendix A to Part 440 of the U.S. Department of Energy's Weatherization Assistance Program, 10 CFR part 440, Appendix A—Standards for Weatherization Materials.

    D. Water Heaters.

    E. Compressed Air Systems.

    F. Motors:

    (1) High efficiency motors—motors with a rated efficiency beyond the Energy Policy Act standards.

    (2) Variable frequency drive.

    G. Boilers, dryers, heaters and process-related equipment or equipment not otherwise specified, e.g., commercial coolers and freezers.

    H. Demand Management or Load Shifting.

    I. Energy audits.

    J. On or Off Grid Renewable energy systems if consistent with the statutory purpose of RESP.

    K. Energy storage devices.

    L. The replacement of existing fuel consuming equipment using a particular fuel with more efficient fuel consuming equipment that uses another fuel or the same fuel but with a more efficient output as long as in either of the cases there is no increase in direct greenhouse gas emissions.

    M. Energy efficient appliance upgrades if attached to real property.

    N. Irrigation or water and waste disposal system efficiency improvements.

    O. Necessary and incidental activities and investments directly related to implementation of an Energy efficiency measure.

    F. Federal Award Administration Information 1. Federal Award Notices

    A successful loan RESP Applicant will receive a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator notifying it of the total loan amount approved by RUS; any additional controls on the its financial, investment, operational and managerial activities; acceptable security arrangements; and such other conditions deemed necessary by the Administrator to adequately secure the Government's interest and ensure repayment. Receipt of a Conditional commitment letter from the Administrator does not authorize the RESP borrower to commence performance under the award. Any RUS determinations still needed as specified in the Conditional commitment letter must be concluded before the loan will be made. RUS will notify the RESP borrower when it is authorized to commence performance using RESP funds.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    The items listed in Section D and Section E of this notice implement the appropriate administrative and national policy requirements, which include but are not limited to:

    a. Execution of a RESP loan agreement and related loan documents;

    b. Compliance with policies, guidance, and requirements as described in Section D(2)(c) of this notice, and any successor regulations.

    3. Reporting

    a. Performance Reporting. RUS will establish periodic reporting requirements. These will be enumerated in the loan documents.

    b. Accounting Requirements. RESP borrowers must follow RUS' accounting requirements. These requirements, which will be specified in the Conditional commitment letter, include, but are not limited to, the following:

    i. RUS accounting requirements include compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, as well as compliance with the requirements of the applicable regulations: 7 CFR part 200 (for RESP borrowers, under this CFR Part, the term “grant recipient” will also mean loan recipient) or the system of accounting prescribed by RUS Bulletin 1767. The Administrator may modify the accounting requirements if, in his judgement, it is necessary to satisfy the purpose of Section 6407.

    ii. RESP borrowers must comply with all reasonable RUS requests to support ongoing monitoring efforts. The RESP borrowers must afford RUS, through their representatives' reasonable opportunity, at all times during business hours and upon prior notice, to have access to and the right to inspect any or all books, records, accounts, invoices, contracts, leases, payrolls, timesheets, cancelled checks, statements, and other documents, electronic or paper of every kind belonging to or in possession of the RESP borrowers or in any way pertaining to its property or business, including its parents, affiliates, and subsidiaries, if any, and to make copies or extracts therefrom.

    c. Audit Requirements. RESP borrowers will be required to prepare and furnish to RUS, at least once during each 12-month period, a full and complete report of its financial condition, operations, and cash flows, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS, audited and certified by an independent certified public accountant, satisfactory to RUS, and accompanied by a report of such audit, in form and substance satisfactory to RUS. RESP borrowers must follow the 7 CRF 1773, Policy on Audits for RUS borrowers or 2 CFR part 200, subpart F audit requirements. The Administrator may modify the audit requirements if, in his judgement, it is necessary to satisfy the purpose of Section 6407.

    G. FEDERAL AWARDING AGENCY CONTACT

    Titilayo Ogunyale, Senior Advisor, Office of the Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, Rural Development, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 1510, Room 5136-S, Washington, DC 20250-1510; Telephone: (202) 720-0736; Email: [email protected]

    H. OTHER INFORMATION 1. Other Funding Opportunities

    Applicants may also consider the funding opportunities under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Loan Program, 7 CFR 1710, Subpart H.

    2. USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

    To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.

    To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by:

    a. Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410;

    b. Facsimile: (202) 690-7442; or

    c. Email: [email protected]

    d. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14617 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee: Reestablishment of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Reestablishment of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and Solicitation of Nominations for Membership.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., the Department of Commerce announces the reestablishment of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee (the Committee). The Committee shall advise the Secretary of Commerce regarding the development and administration of programs and policies to expand the competitiveness of U.S. exports of renewable energy and energy efficiency goods and services. The Committee's work on energy efficiency will focus on technologies, services, and platforms that provide system-level energy efficiency to electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. These include smart grid technologies and services, as well as equipment and systems that increase the resiliency of power infrastructure such as energy storage. For the purposes of this Committee, covered goods and services will not include vehicles, feedstock for biofuels, or energy efficiency as it relates to consumer goods. Non-fossil fuels that are considered renewable fuels (e.g., liquid biofuels and pellets) are included. This notice also requests nominations for membership.

    DATES:

    Nominations for members must be received on or before 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations may be emailed [email protected]; faxed to the attention of Victoria Gunderson at 202-482-7890; or mailed to Victoria Gunderson, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Gunderson, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, Room 4053, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; phone 202-482-7890; fax 202-482-5665; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee shall consist of approximately 35 members appointed by the Secretary in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance and based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee. The Secretary of Commerce invites nominations to the Committee of U.S. citizens who will represent U.S. companies, U.S. trade associations, and U.S. private sector organizations with activities focused on the export competitiveness of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency goods and services. Members shall reflect the diversity of this sector, including in terms of entity or organization size, geographic location, and subsector represented. The Committee shall also represent the diversity of company or organizational roles in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, including, for example, project developers, technology integrators, financial institutions, and manufacturers.

    Prospective applicants and nominees are strongly encouraged to review materials and information on the Committee Web site, including the Committee's charter, to gain an understanding of the Committee's responsibilities, matters on which the Committee will provide recommendations, and expectations for members based on the work of previous Committees: http://export.gov/reee/reeeac.

    Members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary from the date of appointment to the Committee to the date on which the Committee's charter terminates. Members serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of a U.S. entity or U.S. organization, as well as their particular subsector; they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees.

    Members of the Committee must not be registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. No member may represent a company that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities).

    Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses.

    If you are interested in applying or nominating someone else to become a member of the Committee, please provide the following information:

    (1) Sponsor letter on the company's, trade association's or organization's letterhead containing the name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, fax, and email address) of the individual who is applying or being nominated;

    (2) An affirmative statement that the nominee will be able to meet the expected time commitments of Committee work. Committee work includes (1) attending in-person committee meetings roughly four times per year (lasting one day each), (2) undertaking additional work outside of full committee meetings including subcommittee conference calls or meetings as needed, and (3) frequently drafting, preparing, or commenting on proposed recommendations to be evaluated at Committee meetings;

    (3) Short biography of nominee, including credentials;

    (4) Brief description of the company, trade association, or organization to be represented and its business activities; company size (number of employees and annual sales); and export markets served;

    (5) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements.

    Please do not send company, trade association, or organization brochures or any other information.

    See the ADDRESSES and DATES captions above for how and the deadline for submitting nominations.

    Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified by mail.

    Dated: June 15, 2016. Edward A. O'Malley, Director, Office of Energy and Environmental Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14573 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Smart Grid Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee), will meet in open session on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Thursday, July 14, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. This meeting was originally scheduled for January 26-27, 2016 and was rescheduled due to inclement weather. The primary purposes of this meeting are to provide updates on NIST Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program activities and to discuss resiliency and reliability topics. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

    DATES:

    The SGAC will meet on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Thursday, July 14, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the Executive Conference Room, Building 101 (Administration), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899. Please note admittance instructions under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. The Committee is composed of nine to fifteen members, appointed by the Director of NIST, who were selected on the basis of established records of distinguished service in their professional community and their knowledge of issues affecting Smart Grid deployment and operations. The Committee advises the Director of NIST in carrying out duties authorized by section 1305 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-140). The Committee provides input to NIST on Smart Grid standards, priorities, and gaps, on the overall direction, status, and health of the Smart Grid implementation by the Smart Grid industry, and on Smart Grid Interoperability Panel activities, including the direction of research and standards activities. Background information on the Committee is available at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid/committee.cfm.

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the NIST Smart Grid Advisory Committee (SGAC or Committee) will meet in open session on Wednesday, July 13, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time and Thursday, July 14, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Eastern time. This meeting was originally scheduled for January 26-27, 2016 and was rescheduled due to inclement weather. The meeting will be open to the public and held in the Executive Conference Room, Building 101 (Administration) at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The primary purposes of this meeting are to provide updates on NIST Smart Grid activities and the intersections with Cyber-Physical System program activities and to discuss resiliency and reliability topics. The agenda may change to accommodate Committee business. The final agenda will be posted on the Smart Grid Web site at http://www.nist.gov/smartgrid.

    Individuals and representatives of organizations who would like to offer comments and suggestions related to the Committee's affairs are invited to request a place on the agenda by submitting their request to Cuong Nguyen at [email protected] or (301) 975-2254 no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 1, 2016. On Thursday, July 14, 2016, approximately one-half hour will be reserved at the end of the meeting for public comments, and speaking times will be assigned on a first-come, first-serve basis. The amount of time per speaker will be determined by the number of requests received, but is likely to be about three minutes each. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Speakers who wish to expand upon their oral statements, those who had wished to speak but could not be accommodated on the agenda, and those who were unable to attend in person are invited to submit written statements to Mr. Cuong Nguyen, Smart Grid and Cyber-Physical Systems Program Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8200, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8200; telephone 301-975-2254, fax 301-948-5668; or via email at [email protected]

    All visitors to the NIST site are required to pre-register to be admitted. Anyone wishing to attend this meeting must register by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, Friday, July 1, 2016, in order to attend. Please submit your full name, time of arrival, email address, and phone number to Cuong Nguyen. Non-U.S. citizens must submit additional information; please contact Mr. Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen's email address is [email protected] and his phone number is (301) 975-2254. For participants attending in person, please note that federal agencies, including NIST, can only accept a state-issued driver's license or identification card for access to federal facilities if such license or identification card is issued by a state that is compliant with the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-13), or by a state that has an extension for REAL ID compliance. NIST currently accepts other forms of federal-issued identification in lieu of a state-issued driver's license.

    For detailed information, please contact Mr. Nguyen or visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/.

    Kent Rochford, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-14580 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE442 Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental to Subsea Cable-Laying Operations in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of an incidental harassment authorization (IHA).

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an IHA to Quintillion Subsea Operations, LLC (Quintillion) to take, by harassment, small numbers of 12 species of marine mammals incidental to a subsea cable-laying operation in the state and federal waters of the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas, Alaska, during the open-water season of 2016.

    DATES:

    This authorization is effective from June 1, 2016 through October 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Shane Guan, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) direct the Secretary of Commerce to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are issued or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed authorization is provided to the public for review.

    An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”

    Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA established an expedited process by which citizens of the United States can apply for an authorization to incidentally take small numbers of marine mammals by harassment. Section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA establishes a 45-day time limit for NMFS's review of an application followed by a 30-day public notice and comment period on any proposed authorizations for the incidental harassment of small numbers of marine mammals. Within 45 days of the close of the public comment period, NMFS must either issue or deny the authorization.

    Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: Any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A harassment]; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering [Level B harassment].

    Summary of Request

    On October 29, 2015, NMFS received an IHA application and marine mammal mitigation and monitoring plan (4MP) from Quintillion for the taking of marine mammals incidental to conducting subsea cable-laying activities in the U.S. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas. After receiving NMFS' comments on the initial application, Quintillion made revisions and updated its IHA application and 4MP on February 3, 2016. NMFS determined that the application and the 4MP were adequate and complete on February 5, 2016. NMFS published a notice on March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17666) making preliminary determinations and proposing to issue an IHA. The notice initiated a 30-day comment period.

    Quintillion proposed to install a subsea fiber optic network cable along the northern and western coasts of Alaska in the U.S. Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas during the 2016 Arctic open-water season. The activity would occur between June 1 and October 31, 2016. Noise generated from the cable vessel's dynamic positioning thruster could impact marine mammals in the vicinity of the activities. Take, by Level B harassments, of individuals of 12 species of marine mammals from the specified activity is authorized by the IHA.

    Description of the Specified Activity

    A detailed description of Quintillion's subsea cable-laying program is provided in the Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 17666; March 30, 2016). Since that time, no changes have been made to the proposed construction activities. Therefore, a detailed description is not provided here. Please refer to that Federal Register notice for the description of the specific activity.

    Comments and Responses

    A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to Quintillion was published in the Federal Register on March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17666). That notice described, in detail, Quintillion's activity, the marine mammal species and subsistence activities that may be affected by the proposed subsea cable-laying project, and the anticipated effects on marine mammals and subsistence activities. During the 30-day public comment period, NMFS received comments from the Marine Mammal Commission (Commission) and the North Slope Borough (NSB). Specific comments and responses are provided below.

    Comment 1: The Commission recommends that NMFS issue the requested incidental harassment authorization, subject to inclusion of the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures.

    Response: NMFS concurs with the Commission's recommendation and has included the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures contained in the proposed authorization in the issued IHA.

    Comment 2: The NSB requests Quintillion continue coordination with the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC), and its member communities, and other Alaska Native marine mammal user groups as appropriate, and participation in the well-established and effective Conflict Avoidance Agreement (CAA) process.

    Response: Quintillion has worked closely with AEWC, the co-management groups, and the villages to develop a Plan of Cooperation (POC) that recognizes the time and place of subsistence use and provides an effective plan for avoiding active subsistence areas. Quintillion stated that it has discussed the potential for a CAA with the AEWC and that they agreed it is not necessary for Quintillion to sign a CAA for its subsea cable-laying project; therefore, Quintillion is not signing a CAA. NMFS has conducted a thorough analysis of the potential impact on subsistence activities from Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying operations and determined that the proposed project would not have unmitigable impacts to subsistence use of marine mammals in the vicinity of the project area, given that Quintillion is required to implement a number of mitigation and monitoring measures (see “Impacts on Availability of Affected Species for Taking for Subsistence Use” section below for details). In addition, Quintillion has prepared a POC, which includes detailed maps showing scheduled cable-laying activity relative to seasonal subsistence use. Quintillion states that these maps have been reviewed and the schedule is supported by AEWC. NMFS has reviewed the POC and believes it contains all necessary information for us to make the above determination.

    Comment 3: The NSB requests Quintillion to communicate with all villages near its operations to make sure its activities do not disrupt subsistence activities, and to ensure the life, health and safety of Borough residents who may be out on the ocean.

    Response: As stated earlier in Response to Comment 2, the POC provided by Quintillion contains all necessary information for us to make a determination that Quintillion's proposed subsea cable-laying activity would not have an unmitigable impact to subsistence use of marine mammal resources in the vicinity of the project area. This POC also includes the daily communication plan that Quintillion will be implementing. Further, Quintillion stated it is donating to AEWC and landing villages memberships to Marine Exchange Alaska, which will allow real-time tracking of Quintillion vessels during its subsea cable-laying operations.

    Comment 4: The NSB requests Quintillion conduct a robust visual and acoustical monitoring program with input from subsistence hunters and the Borough's Department of Wildlife Management.

    Response: For the issuance of the IHA to Quintillion, NMFS worked with the applicant, NMFS' biologists in the Alaska Region and Alaska Fisheries Science Center, and an independent peer-review panel to ensure that robust visual and acoustical monitoring programs are in place to provide adequate monitoring measures during Quintillion's subsea cable-laying operations in the Arctic. For visual monitoring, Quintillion is required to place both Inupiat and non-native Protected Species Observers (PSO) on three cable-laying vessels to conduct visual monitoring throughout the entire project during the daylight period, including all vessel transits. Quintillion is also required to provide substantial financial support to two existing passive acoustical monitoring (PAM) programs that will be monitoring both marine mammals and vessel noise in the cable-laying project area. These include supporting the National Marine Mammal Laboratory's (NMML) PAM program in the northern Chukchi and western Beaufort Seas, and the Kotzebue Sound PAM in the southern Chukchi Sea. Support of these active programs, in lieu of a separate and unproven PAM program, was recommended by Dr. Robert Suydam with the NSB Department of Wildlife Management during the monitoring plan independent peer-review process. This approach was additionally supported by Dr. Manuel Castellote with NMML, who would also be the acoustical liaison for both PAM projects and would help to ensure the PAM projects provide the necessary information on marine mammal vocalizations and ship underwater sound needed for the 90-day report.

    Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of the Specified Activity

    The Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas support a diverse assemblage of marine mammals. Table 1 lists the 12 marine mammal species under NMFS jurisdiction with confirmed or possible occurrence in the proposed project area.

    Table 1—Marine Mammal Species With Confirmed or Possible Occurrence in the Proposed Action Area Common name Scientific name Status Occurrence Seasonality Range Abundance Odontocetes Beluga whale (Beaufort Sea stock) Delphinapterus leucas Common Mostly spring and fall with some in summer Mostly Beaufort Sea 39,258 Beluga whale (eastern Chukchi Sea stock) Common Mostly spring and fall with some in summer Mostly Chukchi Sea 3,710 Beluga whale (eastern Bering Sea stock) Common Year round Bering Sea 19,186 Killer whale (Alaska resident stock) Orcinus orca Occasional/Extralimital Mostly summer and early fall California to Alaska 2,347 Harbor porpoise (Bering Sea stock) Phocoena phocoena Occasional/Extralimital Mostly summer and early fall California to Alaska 48,215 Mysticetes * Bowhead whale (W. Arctic stock) Balaena mysticetus Endangered; Depleted Common Mostly spring and fall with some in summer Russia to Canada 19,534 Gray whale (E. North Pacific stock) Eschrichtius robustus Somewhat common Mostly summer Mexico to the U.S. Arctic Ocean 20,990 * Fin whale (N. East Pacific) Balaenoptera physalus Endangered; Depleted Rare Mostly summer N.E. Pacific Ocean 1,650 Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Rare Mostly summer N.E. Pacific Ocean 810 * Humpback whale (Central North Pacific stock) Megaptera novaeangliae Endangered; Depleted Rare Mostly summer North Pacific Ocean 10,103 * Humpback whale (western North Pacific stock) Endangered; Depleted Rare Mostly summer North Pacific Ocean 1,107 Pinnipeds Bearded seal (Alaska stock) Erigathus barbatus Common Spring and summer Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 155,000 Ringed seal (Alaska stock) Phoca hispida Common Year round Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort Seas 249,000 Spotted seal (Alaska stock) Phoca largha Common Summer Japan to U.S. Arctic Ocean 460,268 Ribbon seal (Alaska stock) Histriophoca fasciata Occasional Summer Russia to U.S. Arctic Ocean 49,000 * Endangered, threatened, or species of concern under the Endangered Species Act (ESA); Depleted under the MMPA.

    Among these species, bowhead, humpback, and fin whales are listed as endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In addition, walrus and polar bear could also occur in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas; however, these species are managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and are not considered in this Notice of Issuance of an IHA.

    Of all these species, bowhead and beluga whales and ringed, bearded, and spotted seals are the species most frequently sighted in the proposed activity area. The proposed action area in the Bering, Chukchi, and Beaufort seas also includes areas that have been identified as important for bowhead whale reproduction during summer and fall and for beluga whale feeding and reproduction in summer.

    Most bowheads migrate in the fall through the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in water depths between 15 and 200 m (50 and 656 ft) deep (Miller et al. 2002), with annual variability depending on ice conditions. Hauser et al. (2008) conducted surveys for bowhead whales near the Colville River Delta (near Oliktok Point) during August and September 2008, and found most bowheads between 25 and 30 km (15.5 and 18.6 mi) north of the barrier islands (Jones Islands), with the nearest in 18 m (60 ft) of water about 25 km (16 mi) north of the Colville River Delta. No bowheads were observed inside the 18-m (60-ft) isobath. Most of the cable-lay activity planned for the Beaufort Sea will occur in water deeper than 15 m (50 ft), where migrating bowhead whales could most likely be encountered.

    Three stocks of beluga whale inhabit the waters where cable-lay is planned to occur: Beaufort Sea, Eastern Chukchi Sea, and Eastern Bering Sea (O'Corry-Crowe et al. 1997). All three stocks winter in the open leads and polynyas of the Bering Sea (Hazard 1988). In spring, the Beaufort Sea stock migrates through coastal leads more than 2,000 km (1,200 mi) to their summering grounds in the Mackenzie River delta where they molt, feed, and calve in the warmer estuarine waters (Braham et al. 1977). In late summer, these belugas move into offshore northern waters to feed (Davis and Evans 1982, Harwood et al. 1996, Richard et al. 2001). In the fall, they begin their migration back to their wintering grounds generally following an offshore route as they pass through the western Beaufort Sea (Richard et al. 2001).

    The Beaufort Sea stock beluga whales take a more coastal route during their fall migration, but compared to the vanguard of population and the survey effort expended, nearshore travel appears to be relatively rare. Most belugas recorded during aerial surveys conducted in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in the last two decades were found more than 65 km (40 mi) from shore (Miller et al. 1999, Funk et al. 2008, Christie et al. 2010, Clarke and Ferguson 2010, Brandon et al. 2011). For the most part, beluga whales from this stock are expected to occur well north of the proposed cable route through the Beaufort Sea at the time of cable-lay activity.

    The Eastern Chukchi Sea beluga whale stock summers in Kotzebue Sound and Kasegaluk Lagoon where they breed and molt, and then in late summer and fall they also move in the Beaufort Sea (Suydam et al. 2005). Suydam et al. (2005) satellite-tagged 23 beluga whales in Kasegaluk Lagoon and found nearly all the whales move into the deeper waters of the Beaufort Sea post-tagging. However, virtually none of the whales were found in continental shelf waters (<200 m deep) of the Beaufort Sea, and all were in waters at least 65 km (40 mi) north of the northern Alaska coastline. The most recent stock estimate is 3,710 animals (Allen and Angliss 2015). The planned cable-lay activity is most likely to encounter this stock while laying the Kotzebue and Wainwright branch lines, but the routes do avoid the Kasegaluk Lagoon breeding and molting area.

    There is little information on movements of the East Bering Sea stock of beluga whales, although two whales that were satellite-tagged in 2012 near Nome wintered in Bristol Bay (Allen and Angliss 2015). Whales from this stock might be encountered while laying the Nome branch line.

    In addition, a few gray whales are expected to be encountered along the main trunk line route through the north Bering and Chukchi seas. However, they are expected to be commonly observed along the nearshore segments of the branch lines, especially the Wainwright branch, where they are commonly found in large feeding groups.

    Three of the ice seal species—ringed, bearded, and spotted seals—are fairly common in the proposed subsea cable-laying areas. However, there are no pinnipeds haulouts in the vicinity of the action area.

    Fin whale, minke whale, and ribbon seal are not common in the vicinity of the project area, though they could occur occasionally.

    Further information on the biology and local distribution of these species can be found in Quintillion's application (see ADDRESSES) and the NMFS Marine Mammal Stock Assessment Reports, which are available online at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/sars/species.html.

    Potential Effects of the Specified Activity on Marine Mammals

    The effects of the stressors associated with the specified activity (e.g., acoustic effects of operation of dynamic thrusters) have the potential to result in harassment of marine mammals. The Federal Register notice for the proposed IHA (81 FR 17666, March 30, 2016) included a discussion of the effects of acoustic stimuli on marine mammals. Therefore, that information is not repeated here. No instances of injury, serious injury, or mortality (Level A take) are expected as a result of the subsea cable-laying operation activities, nor are any Level A take authorized by this IHA.

    Anticipated Effects on Marine Mammal Habitat

    Project activities that could potentially impact marine mammal habitats include acoustical impacts to prey resources from thruster noise and impacts associated with laying cable on sea bottom. Regarding the former, however, acoustical injury from thruster noise is unlikely. Previous noise studies (e.g., Greenlaw et al. 1988, Davis et al. 1998, Christian et al. 2004) with cod, crab, and schooling fish found little or no injury to adults, larvae, or eggs when exposed to impulsive noises exceeding 220 decibels (dB). Continuous noise levels from ship thrusters are generally below 180 dB, and do not create great enough pressures to cause tissue or organ injury.

    Nedwell et al. (2003) measured noise associated with cable trenching operations offshore of Wales, United Kingdom, and found that levels (178 dB at source) did not exceed those where significant avoidance reactions of fish would occur. Cable burial operations involve the use of ploughs or jets to cut trenches in the sea floor sediment. Cable ploughs are generally used where the substrate is cohesive enough to be “cut” and laid alongside the trench long enough for the cable to be laid at depth. In less cohesive substrates, where the sediment would immediately settle back into the trench before the cable could be laid, jetting is used to scour a more lasting furrow. The objective of both is to excavate a temporary trench of sufficient depth to fully bury the cable. The plough blade is 0.2 m (0.7 ft) wide, producing a trench of approximately the same width. Jetted trenches are somewhat wider, depending on the sediment type. Potential impacts to marine mammal habitat and prey include (1) crushing of benthic and epibenthic invertebrates with the plough blade, plough skid, or remote operating vehicle (ROV) track, (2) dislodgement of benthic invertebrates onto the surface where they may die, and (3) and the settlement of suspended sediments away from the trench where they may clog gills or feeding structures of sessile invertebrates or smother sensitive species (BERR 2008). However, the footprint of cable trenching is generally restricted to 2 to 3 m (7-10 ft) width (BERR 2008), and the displaced wedge or berm is expected to naturally backfill into the trench. Jetting results in more suspension of sediments, which may take days to settle, during which currents may transport it well away (up to several kilometers) from its source. Suspended sand particles generally settle within about 20 m (66 ft). BERR (2008) reviewed the effect of offshore wind farm construction, including laying of power and communication cables, on the environment. Based on a rating of 1 to 10, they concluded that sediment disturbance from plough operations rated the lowest at 1, with jetting rating from 2 to 4, depending on substrate. Dredging rated the highest (6) relative sediment disturbance.

    The maximum amount of trenching possible is about 1,900 km (1,180 mi), but the width of primary effect is only about 3 m (10 ft). Thus, the maximum impact footprint is less than 6 km2 (2.3 mi2), an insignificantly small area given the Chukchi Sea area alone is 595,000 km2 (230,000 mi2). Overall, cable-laying effects to marine mammal ha