Federal Register Vol. 81, No.136,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 136 (July 15, 2016)

Page Range45963-46566
FR Document

81_FR_136
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 46117 - Sunshine Act Meeting: Board of Directors and Its Six CommitteesPDF
81 FR 46045 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 46131 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 46089 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/DiabetesPDF
81 FR 46100 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education IIPDF
81 FR 46154 - Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on Non-Rulemaking Action To Change Land Use From Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical at Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport, Jackson, MississippiPDF
81 FR 45965 - Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation, Model SF50; Whole Airplane Parachute Recovery SystemPDF
81 FR 46081 - Medicare Program; Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the MIPS Mobile Challenge; Deadline ExtensionPDF
81 FR 46046 - Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014-2015PDF
81 FR 46048 - Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Affirmative Preliminary DeterminationPDF
81 FR 46047 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 46051 - Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Determination and Notice of Second Amended Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 46089 - Public Availability of the Department of Health and Human Services FY 2015 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 46055 - South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 46077 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 45972 - Safety Zone; Lake Erie Open Water Classic; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OHPDF
81 FR 46080 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46153 - Kanawha River Railroad, LLC-Lease Exemption Containing Interchange Commitment-Norfolk Southern Railway CompanyPDF
81 FR 46151 - Watco Holdings, Inc.-Continuance in Control Exemption-Kanawha River Railroad, LLCPDF
81 FR 46075 - Amendments To Terminate Uses for Certain Pesticide RegistrationsPDF
81 FR 46072 - EPA Board of Scientific Counselors; Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 46072 - Registration Review; Conventional, Biopesticide and Antimicrobial Dockets Opened for Review and CommentPDF
81 FR 46063 - Supervisory Highlights: Mortgage Servicing Special Edition 2016PDF
81 FR 46062 - Procurement List: AdditionsPDF
81 FR 46061 - Procurement List: Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 46152 - Paul Didelius-Continuance in Control Exemption-CWW, LLCPDF
81 FR 46153 - CWW, LLC-Lease and Operation Exemption-Port of Columbia, Wash.PDF
81 FR 46116 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Cooperative Research Group on Development of a Predictive Model for Corrosion-Fatigue of Materials in Sour EnvironmentPDF
81 FR 46113 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NDM 98943, North DakotaPDF
81 FR 45971 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mianus River, Greenwich, CTPDF
81 FR 46152 - Chesapeake Western Railway-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Rockingham and Shenandoah Counties, VAPDF
81 FR 46151 - Norfolk Southern Railway Company-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-In Shenandoah County, VAPDF
81 FR 46116 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent OrderPDF
81 FR 46154 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 45974 - Acquisition Regulation: Technical and Administrative Changes to Department of Energy Acquisition RegulationPDF
81 FR 46117 - Seismic Design Classification for Nuclear Power PlantsPDF
81 FR 46057 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 46124 - Florida Power & Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2PDF
81 FR 46118 - Duke Energy Progress, Inc.; Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Surveillance Frequency Control ProgramPDF
81 FR 46054 - Flow Cytometry Quantitation ConsortiumPDF
81 FR 46116 - Publication of Offender Tracking System Standard, NIJ Standard-1004.00, and Request for Expressions of Interest From Manufacturers and Conformity Assessment BodiesPDF
81 FR 46117 - Draft Baseline Specifications for Law Enforcement Service Pistols With Security TechnologyPDF
81 FR 46045 - Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 46057 - Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 46058 - Electronic Filing of Certain Import/Export Data Relating to Controlled Substances and Listed Chemicals: Announcement of the Partner Government Agency Message Set/Document Image System Test and Request for ParticipantsPDF
81 FR 46160 - Application of Rectrix Aviation, Inc. for Commuter AuthorityPDF
81 FR 45982 - Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; 2016 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery ClosurePDF
81 FR 46159 - Applications of 21 Air, LLC for Certificate AuthorityPDF
81 FR 46044 - Fishlake Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 46088 - Council on Graduate Medical Education; Request for NominationsPDF
81 FR 46002 - Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation HelicoptersPDF
81 FR 46078 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 46044 - Cherokee Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 46113 - Notice of Public Meeting; Wyoming Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 46055 - Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 46114 - Record of Decision for the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park General Management Plan/Wilderness Study; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Hawaii County, HawaiiPDF
81 FR 46053 - Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National CybersecurityPDF
81 FR 46086 - Request for Nominations on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 46072 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Cash Management Contract URL CollectionPDF
81 FR 45971 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WAPDF
81 FR 46084 - Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device With a Therapeutic Product; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 46087 - Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments; Guidance for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 45992 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 45995 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 45997 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 46044 - Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of DirectorsPDF
81 FR 46078 - Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public CommentPDF
81 FR 45969 - Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying BenefitsPDF
81 FR 46143 - Public Company Accounting Oversight Board; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Amendments to Board Rules Relating to InspectionsPDF
81 FR 46069 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 46135 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Automated Removal of QuotesPDF
81 FR 46147 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Automated Removal of Orders and QuotesPDF
81 FR 46144 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 952NY With Respect to Opening Trading in an Options SeriesPDF
81 FR 46133 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Fee for the Regulatory Element of Continuing EducationPDF
81 FR 46129 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Rule 3.3 To Delete an Outdated ReferencePDF
81 FR 46139 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 12403 (Cases With Three Arbitrators) of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes Relating to the Panel Selection Process in ArbitrationPDF
81 FR 46126 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees Under Rule 7018PDF
81 FR 46140 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change Related to The Options Clearing Corporation's Membership Approval ProcessPDF
81 FR 46125 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees SchedulePDF
81 FR 46077 - Announcement of Rechartering and First Meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 46131 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 1 and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, To Amend Rule 6.64 With Respect To Opening Trading in an Options SeriesPDF
81 FR 46026 - Anchorage Grounds; Delaware Bay and River, Philadelphia, PAPDF
81 FR 46115 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 46110 - Proposed Collection; 60-Day Comment Request; the Study of the Global Cancer Project Map (NCI)PDF
81 FR 46109 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 46156 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
81 FR 46083 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Refugee Microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise DevelopmentPDF
81 FR 46068 - Inland Waterways Users Board; Request for NominationsPDF
81 FR 45984 - Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State Assessments to the National Program; Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 46084 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46078 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 46050 - Certain Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper ReviewPDF
81 FR 46042 - Draft Revisions to the Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B and C, Change-2PDF
81 FR 46069 - Extension of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Continental United States Interceptor SitePDF
81 FR 45963 - Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors; CorrectionsPDF
81 FR 46000 - Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan EnginesPDF
81 FR 45968 - Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Isolation or Protection of Airplane Electrical-System Security From Unauthorized Internal AccessPDF
81 FR 45963 - Designation of First AssistantsPDF
81 FR 45979 - Classified Information: Classification/Declassification/Access; Authority To Classify Information (RRR)PDF
81 FR 46157 - Deepwater Port License Application: Delfin LNG LLC, Delfin LNG Deepwater PortPDF
81 FR 46004 - Guidance Under Section 355 Concerning Device and Active Trade or BusinessPDF
81 FR 46111 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 46030 - Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Revised Numeric Criteria for Selenium for the San Francisco Bay and Delta, State of CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 46161 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program ModelPDF
81 FR 46019 - Public Safety Officers' Benefits ProgramPDF
81 FR 46477 - Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf-Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental ShelfPDF
81 FR 45973 - Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America FundPDF

Issue

81 136 Friday, July 15, 2016 Contents African African Development Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors, 46044 2016-16730 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service PROPOSED RULES Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef Promotion and Research: Redirection of State Assessments to the National Program, 45984-45992 2016-16698 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

RULES Designation of First Assistants, 45963 2016-16599
Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Development of a Predictive Model for Corrosion-Fatigue of Materials in Sour Environment, 46116 2016-16778 Army Army Department NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Inland Waterways Users Board, 46068-46069 2016-16699 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Supervisory Highlights: Mortgage Servicing Special Edition, 46063-46068 2016-16786 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement RULES Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf: Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, 46478-46566 2016-15699 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee, 46045-46046 2016-16758 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; etc., 46162-46476 2016-16097 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46080-46081 2016-16797 Medicare Program: Requirements and Registration for the MIPS Mobile Challenge; Deadline Extension, 46081-46083 2016-16808 Chemical Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46045 2016-16901 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46084 2016-16697 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Refugee Microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development, 46083-46084 2016-16700 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA, 45971 2016-16736 Mianus River, Greenwich, CT, 45971 2016-16775 Safety Zones: Lake Erie Open Water Classic; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH, 45972-45973 2016-16799 PROPOSED RULES Anchorage Grounds: Delaware Bay and River, Philadelphia, PA, 46026-46030 2016-16714 Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B and C, Change-2, 46042-46043 2016-16691 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Commission Education Commission on Education of the Deaf NOTICES Electronic Filing of Certain Import/Export Data Relating to Controlled Substances and Listed Chemicals: Partner Government Agency Message Set/Document Image System Test and Request for Participants, 46058-46061 2016-16756 Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 46061-46063 2016-16783 2016-16784 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Continental United States Interceptor Site, 46069 2016-16686 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 46069-46072 2016-16726
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cash Management Contract URL Collection, 46072 2016-16737 Energy Department Energy Department RULES Acquisition Regulations, 45974-45979 2016-16768 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Water Quality Standards: Establishment of Revised Numeric Criteria for Selenium for the San Francisco Bay and Delta, CA, 46030-46042 2016-16266 NOTICES Amendments to Terminate Uses for Certain Pesticide Registrations, 46075-46077 2016-16793 Charter Renewals: Board of Scientific Counselors, 46072 2016-16790 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 46077 2016-16800 Pesticide Product Registrations: Conventional, Biopesticide and Antimicrobial Dockets; Registration Review, 46072-46075 2016-16788 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation, Model SF50; Whole Airplane Parachute Recovery System, 45965-45968 2016-16813 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Isolation or Protection of Airplane Electrical-System Security from Unauthorized Internal Access, 45968-45969 2016-16638 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 45992-46000 2016-16731 2016-16732 2016-16733 Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines, 46000-46002 2016-16646 Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters, 46002-46004 2016-16749 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Action to Change Land Use from Aeronautical to Non-Aeronautical at Jackson-Medgar Wiley Evers International Airport, Jackson, MS, 46154 2016-16815 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Connect America Fund: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, 45973-45974 2016-15194 NOTICES Charter Renewals: Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee, 46077-46078 2016-16716 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46154-46156 2016-16771 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance, 46156 2016-16705 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 46078 2016-16696 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 46078 2016-16748 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Proposed Consent Agreements: Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment, 46078-46080 2016-16729 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff: Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product, 46084-46086 2016-16735 Guidance for Industry: Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments, 46087-46088 2016-16734 Requests for Nominations: Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, 46086-46087 2016-16739 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Cherokee Resource Advisory Committee, 46044-46045 2016-16747 Fishlake Resource Advisory Committee, 46044 2016-16752 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory, 46089 2016-16802
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Council on Graduate Medical Education, 46088-46089 2016-16751 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 46111-46113 2016-16462 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Funding Opportunities: National Indian Health Outreach and Education II, 46100-46109 2016-16819 National Indian Health Outreach and Education: Policy, Budget, Diabetes, 46089-46100 2016-16824 Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service PROPOSED RULES Guidance Concerning Device and Active Trade or Business, 46004-46019 2016-16512 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Pasta from Turkey, 46050-46051 2016-16694 Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 46048-46050 2016-16806 Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 46047-46048 2016-16804 Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China, 46046-46047 2016-16807 Court Decision Not in Harmony with Amended Final Determination and Second Amended Final Determination: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Mexico, 46051-46053 2016-16803 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

See

Justice Programs Office

PROPOSED RULES Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program, 46019-46026 2016-16086 NOTICES Proposed Consent Orders, 46116 2016-16772
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Draft Baseline Specifications for Law Enforcement Service Pistols with Security Technology, 46117 2016-16759 Offender Tracking System Standard: Request for Expressions of Interest from Manufacturers and Conformity Assessment Bodies, 46116 2016-16760 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Wyoming Resource Advisory Council, 46113 2016-16746 Oil and Gas Leases: NDM 98943, North Dakota; Proposed Reinstatement, 46113-46114 2016-16777 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46117 2016-16939 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Deepwater Port License Application: Delfin LNG LLC, Delfin LNG Deepwater Port, 46157-46159 2016-16540 National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Meetings: Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, 46053-46054 2016-16742 Requests for Information: Flow Cytometry Quantitation Consortium, 46054-46055 2016-16761 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: The Study of the Global Cancer Project Map, 46110-46111 2016-16707 Meetings: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 46109-46110 2016-16706 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species: Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure, 45982-45983 2016-16754 NOTICES Meetings: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 46055 2016-16745 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 46057 2016-16766 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 46055-46057 2016-16801 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Hawaii Volcanoes National Park General Management Plan/Wilderness Study, 46114 2016-16744 National Register of Historic Places; Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 46115-46116 2016-16712 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, 46057-46058 2016-16757 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors; Corrections, 45963-45965 2016-16659 NOTICES Director's Decisions: Florida Power and Light Co., St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, 46124-46125 2016-16763 Guidance: Seismic Design Classification for Nuclear Power Plants, 46117-46118 2016-16767 License Amendment Applications: Duke Energy Progress, Inc., Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1; Surveillance Frequency Control Program, 46118-46123 2016-16762 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau RULES Oil and Gas and Sulfur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf: Requirements for Exploratory Drilling on the Arctic Outer Continental Shelf, 46478-46566 2016-15699 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans: Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits, 45969-45971 2016-16728 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46131 2016-16867 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 46125-46126 2016-16717 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 46133-46135, 46139-46140 2016-16720 2016-16722 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 46126-46129, 46135-46139 2016-16719 2016-16725 NYSE Arca, Inc., 46129-46133 2016-16715 2016-16721 NYSE MKT LLC, 46144-46147 2016-16723 Options Clearing Corp., 46140-46143 2016-16718 Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 46143-46144 2016-16727 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 46147-46151 2016-16724 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Paul Didelius: CWW, LLC, 46152 2016-16782 Watco Holdings, Inc.; Kanawha River Railroad, LLC, 46151-46152 2016-16795 Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: Chesapeake Western Railway, Rockingham and Shenandoah Counties, VA, 46152-46153 2016-16774 Norfolk Southern Railway Co., Shenandoah County, VA, 46151 2016-16773 Lease Exemptions Containing Interchange Commitments: Kanawha River Railroad, LLC; Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 46153-46154 2016-16796 Leases and Operation Exemptions: CWW, LLC, Port of Columbia, WA, 46153 2016-16781 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Maritime Administration

RULES Classified Information: Classification/Declassification/Access; Authority to Classify Information, 45979-45982 2016-16565 NOTICES Applications for Certificate Authority: 21 Air LLC, 46159-46160 2016-16753 Applications for Commuter Authority: Rectrix Aviation, Inc., 46160 2016-16755
Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Health and Human Services Department, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 46162-46476 2016-16097 Part III Interior Department, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement , 46478-46566 2016-15699 Interior Department, Ocean Energy Management Bureau, 46478-46566 2016-15699 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.

81 136 Friday, July 15, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary 7 CFR Part 2 RIN 0503-AA59 Designation of First Assistants AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This document amends the existing delegations of authority to provide for the designation of First Assistants to positions to which appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

DATES:

Effective July 15, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa McClellan, Office of the General Counsel, USDA, 3311-South Bldg., 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720-9425, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Section 3345 of title 5, United States Code, provides that when an officer of an Executive agency whose appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate dies, resigns, or is otherwise unable to perform the functions and duties of the office, the first assistant to the office of such officer (“First Assistant”) may perform temporarily the functions and duties of the office in an acting capacity. This rule authorizes the Secretary to establish a First Assistant to each office within the Department of Agriculture to which appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (“PAS office”).

If there is a principal deputy position to the PAS office, the principal deputy position is the First Assistant. If there is no position with the title “principal deputy,” but there is one, and only one, deputy position to the PAS office, that deputy position is the First Assistant. If there is more than one deputy position to the PAS office, and the delegations of authority by the Secretary published in part 2 of title 7 of the CFR establish which deputy has the authority to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the PAS office, then that deputy delegated such authority is the First Assistant.

If there is no position or deputy that qualifies as a First Assistant under these tests, then the Secretary may designate in writing a First Assistant position to the PAS office, with the exception of the Inspector General.

Classification

This rule relates to internal agency management. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, notice of proposed rulemaking and opportunity for comment are not required, and this rule may be made effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. This rule also is exempt from the provisions of Executive Order 12866. This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., or the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and thus is exempt from the provisions of those acts. 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 in 7 CFR Part 2

Authority delegations (Government agencies).

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 2 is amended as follows:

PART 2—DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND GENERAL OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT 1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 6912(a)(1); 5 U.S.C. 301; Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1953, 3 CFR 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1024.

2. Add § 2.6 to subpart B to read as follows:
§ 2.6 Designation of first assistants.

(a) Every office within the Department to which appointment is required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate (“PAS Office”) may have a First Assistant within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d.

(1) Where there is a position of principal deputy to the PAS Office, the principal deputy shall be the First Assistant.

(2) Where there is only one deputy position to the PAS Office, the official in that position shall be the First Assistant.

(3) Where there is more than one deputy position to the PAS Office, and this part establishes which deputy is delegated the authority to perform all the duties and exercise all the powers of the PAS Office during the absence or unavailability of the PAS official, the deputy delegated such authority shall be the First Assistant.

(4) Where neither paragraph (a)(1), (2), nor (3) of this section is applicable to the PAS Office, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Secretary may designate in writing the First Assistant position.

(b) The Inspector General of the Department shall determine any arrangements for the temporary performance of the functions and duties of the Inspector General when that office is vacant.

Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture.
[FR Doc. 2016-16599 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-90-P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 171 [NRC-2008-0664] RIN 3150-AI54 Variable Annual Fee Structure for Small Modular Reactors; Corrections AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule; correcting amendments.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a final rule in the Federal Register on May 24, 2016, amending its licensing, inspection, and annual fee regulations to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water small modular reactors. The final rule contained a grammatical error in a definition, an incorrect reference format, and an incomplete signature date. This document corrects the final rule by revising the sections that contain these errors and completing the signature date.

DATES:

This rule is effective on July 15, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0664 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0664. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced.

NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michele Kaplan, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-5256, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The NRC published a final rule in the Federal Register on May 24, 2016 (81 FR 32617), effective June 23, 2016, amending its licensing, inspection, and annual fee regulations in parts 170 and 171 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water small modular reactors. The final rule contained a grammatical error in the definition of variable rate that was added to § 171.5, “Definitions,” and an incorrect reference format in a paragraph that was added to § 171.15, “Annual fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel storage licenses.” The final rule also included an incomplete signature date for the rule. This document corrects the final rule by revising the definition for variable rate, revising the reference format in § 171.15(e)(1), and correcting the signature date for the final rule.

Rulemaking Procedure

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)), an agency may waive the normal notice and comment requirements if it finds, for good cause, that they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As authorized by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), the NRC finds good cause to waive notice and opportunity for comment on the amendments because they will have no substantive impact and are of a minor and administrative nature dealing with corrections to certain CFR sections related only to management, organization, procedure, and practice. Specifically, these amendments are to correct grammatical errors and to revise cross-references to comply with the Office of the Federal Register's Document Drafting Handbook. These amendments do not require action by any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Also, the final rule does not change the substantive responsibilities of any person or entity regulated by the NRC. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, the NRC finds, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), that good cause exists to make this rule effective upon publication of this notice.

Correction to the Signature Date

In FR Doc. 2016-11975 appearing on page 32617 in the Federal Register of Tuesday, May 24, 2016, the following correction to the signature date is made:

1. On page 32628, in the first column, the signature date is corrected to read as follows: Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of May, 2016.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 171

Annual charges, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, registrations, approvals, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following correcting amendments to 10 CFR part 171:

PART 171—ANNUAL FEES FOR REACTOR LICENSES AND FUEL CYCLE LICENSES AND MATERIALS LICENSES, INCLUDING HOLDERS OF CERTIFICATES OF COMPLIANCE, REGISTRATIONS, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM APPROVALS AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES LICENSED BY THE NRC 1. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2214; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.

2. In § 171.5, revise the definition of variable rate to read as follows:
§ 171.5 Definitions.

Variable rate means a per-MWt fee factor applied to all bundled units on site with a licensed thermal power rating less than or equal to 2,000 MWt. For the first bundled unit on a site with a licensed thermal power rating greater than 250 MWt and less than or equal to 2,000 MWt, the variable rate is based on the difference between the maximum fee and the minimum fee, divided by 1,750 MWt (the variable fee licensed thermal rating range). For additional bundled units with a licensed thermal power rating less than or equal to 2,000 MWt, the variable rate is based on the maximum fee divided by 2,000 MWt.

3. In § 171.15, revise paragraph (e)(1) to read as follows:
§ 171.15 Annual fees: Reactor licenses and independent spent fuel storage licenses.

(e)(1) Each person holding an operating license for an SMR issued under 10 CFR part 50 or a combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52 after the Commission has made the finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g), shall pay the annual fee for all licenses held for an SMR site. The annual fee will be determined using the cumulative licensed thermal power rating of all SMR units and the bundled unit concept, during the fiscal year in which the fee is due. For a given site, the use of the bundled unit concept is independent of the number of SMR plants, the number of SMR licenses issued, or the sequencing of the SMR licenses that have been issued.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of July 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Theresa Barczy, Acting Branch Chief, Rules, Announcements and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-16659 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3462; Notice No. 23-275-SC] Special Conditions: Cirrus Design Corporation, Model SF50; Whole Airplane Parachute Recovery System AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Cirrus Design Corporation (Cirrus), model SF50 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature(s) associated with a whole airplane parachute recovery system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

These special conditions are effective August 15, 2016 and are applicable on July 6, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bob Stegeman, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-4140; facsimile (816) 329-4090.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

On September 9, 2008, Cirrus Design Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new SF50 airplane. The SF50 is a seven seat (five adults and two children), pressurized, retractable gear, carbon composite, single engine jet airplane. The airplane will have a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 6,000 pounds, a Maximum Operating Speed of 250 Knots Calibrated Airspeed (KCAS), and a Maximum Operating Altitude of 28,000 feet.

Cirrus intends to install a whole airplane ballistic parachute system (BPS) called the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). This installation couples the BPS with the automatic flight controls. The CAPS will be installed as standard equipment on the SF50 airplane. Unlike the SR20 and SR22 airplanes CAPS, the SF50 CAPS is a supplemental system and no credit for the system will be used to meet part 23 requirements. The SF50 CAPS design will require some performance enhancements over existing technology used in other BPS.

The system will consist of the recovery parachute, activation and deployment systems, and autopilot functions. The SF50 CAPS will be designed for a higher gross weight, maximum activation speed, and maximum operating altitude.

Whole airplane parachute recovery systems are intended to save the lives of the occupants in life-threatening situations for which normal emergency procedures have been exhausted. Potential emergencies include, but are not limited to—loss of power or thrust; loss of airplane control; pilot disorientation; pilot incapacitation with a passenger on board; mechanical or structural failure; icing; and accidents resulting from pilot negligence or error. The recovery system should prioritize protection from most probable hazards, but it is not reasonable to expect it to protect occupants from every possible situation.

This technology, which was originally developed for ultralight and experimental aircraft, was first approved for general aviation airplanes with a Supplemental Type Certificate for the Cessna model 150/152 airplanes. The FAA issued special conditions for these airplanes to incorporate ballistic recovery systems on October 22, 1987 (Special Condition No. 23-ACE-33; Ballistic Recovery System, Inc., Modified Cessna 150/A150 Series Airplanes and 152/A152 Model Airplanes to Incorporate the GARD-150 System; Docket No. 037CE) (FR Doc. 87-26420, November 11, 1987). These special conditions were later modified for the other general aviation airplanes (Special Condition No. 23-ACE-76; Ballistic Recovery Systems, Modified for Small General Aviation Airplanes; Docket No. 118CE) (FR Doc. 94-16233, August 5, 1994), including the Cirrus Design Corporation SR20 airplanes (Special Condition No. 23-ACE-88, Ballistic Recovery Systems Cirrus SR20 Installation, Docket No. 136CE) (FR Doc. 97-27504, October 15, 1997).

The previously FAA-approved BPS consists of a parachute packed in a compartment within the airframe. A solid propellant rocket motor, adjacent to the parachute pack, extracts the parachute. A mechanical pull handle mounted within reach of the pilot and copilot or passenger activates the system. At least two separate independent actions are necessary to activate the system.

In addition to a normal BPS, the SF50 CAPS system will incorporate an airbag to assist deployment and a system for sequencing deployment and interfacing with the airplane's avionics. The avionics interface is intended to bring the airplane within a valid deployment envelope speed (67-160 KCAS).

The SF50 CAPS is a non-required system that differs from other BPS in that it will interact with the flight control system and other airplane systems. The baseline special conditions must incorporate the required level of safety for the normal BPS as well as the aspect that interfaces with the airplane. Since it is a non required system, additional latitude exists to evaluate and substantiate the system so it will present no additional hazards.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Cirrus Design Corporation must show that the SF50 meets the applicable provisions of part 23, as amended by amendments 23-1 through 23-62 thereto.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the SF50 because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the SF50 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36 and the FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The SF50 will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features: A whole-airplane parachute recovery system that is a supplemental safety system and unlike any previously approved BPS, will add enhancements that assist deployment and autopilot functions that work to bring the airplane into an acceptable deployment envelope.

Discussion

This system is a non-required system that will interact with the flight control system. These special conditions must incorporate the required level of safety for the normal ballistic parachute system as established by Special Condition 23-ACE-76 in addition to the aspect that interfaces with the airplane.

The FAA revised § 23.1309, Equipment, systems, and installations, in amendment 23-62 (76 FR 75736, December 2, 2011) to address two different types of equipment and systems installed in the airplane. This system operates at the limit of the normal operating envelope and challenges normal expectations of such a supplemental system. Amendment 23-62 preamble states: Section 23.1309 lists the qualifiers “under the airplane operating and environmental conditions”.

Section 23.1309, amendment 23-62 preamble also describes two actions for the applicant. First, the applicant must consider the full normal operating envelope of the airplane, as defined by the Airplane Flight Manual, with any modification to that envelope associated with abnormal or emergency procedures and any anticipated flightcrew action. Second, the applicant must consider the anticipated external and internal airplane environmental conditions, as well as any additional conditions where equipment and systems are assumed to “perform as intended”.

Section 23.1309(a)(2) requires analysis of any installed equipment or system with potential failure conditions that are catastrophic, hazardous, major, or minor, to determine their impact on the safe operation of the airplane. The applicant must show that they do not adversely affect proper functioning of the equipment, systems, or installations covered by § 23.1309 and do not otherwise adversely influence the safety of the airplane or its occupants.

Section 23.1309(a)(2) does not mandate that non-required equipment and systems function properly during all airplane operations once in service, provided all potential failure conditions have no effect on the safe operation of the airplane. The equipment or system must function in the manner expected by the manufacturer's operating manual for the equipment or system. An applicant's statement of intended function must be sufficiently detailed so the FAA can evaluate whether the system is appropriate for its intended function(s).

To incorporate the intent of amendment 23-62, the FAA issues these special conditions to include previous BPS special conditions, address the interaction CAPS with other airplane systems, and that it is a non-required system. The system must function within specified manufacturer's limits while operated within the manufacturers recommended envelope. Since it is a non-required system, the means of substantiation have been altered to reflect the bounds of the operating envelope, the means of analysis that can be substantiated with overlapping lower-level testing/analysis, and relieve in-flight deployment to avoid unnecessary expense and the inherent danger in performing this test.

All special condition requirements must meet two fundamental criteria:

• The installed system must not introduce unacceptable hazards prior to or after activation.

• The applicant must show that the system does not adversely affect proper functioning of the equipment, systems, or installations covered by § 23.1309 and do not otherwise adversely influence the safety of the airplane or its occupants.

The applicant does not have to demonstrate the system in flight on a test airplane. Discussion of Comments

Notice of proposed special conditions No. 23-16-01-SC for the Cirrus Design Corporation SF50 airplanes was published in the Federal Register on March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14801). The FAA received 11 comments that disagreed with the special condition provisions for demonstration via test or test supported by analysis. These comments primarily focused on the concern that the FAA should require testing of the BPS in flight to validate intended performance.

The process of an applicant showing compliance to these BPS system special conditions is a complex and multi-tiered process. The applicant must conservatively demonstrate each function of the entire deployment event sequentially, from pulling the handle to securing the airplane after ground impact, to meet the special conditions. These separate events and functions can be demonstrated to satisfy the requirements of these special conditions with lower-level testing, normally using analysis supported by test. This is consistent with certification methods used on many other parts of the airplane.

The FAA decision to allow a means of compliance without requiring inflight deployment on a test airplane is not a complete elimination of testing or an evaluation of the system. The FAA believes that test or analysis supported by test will provide an acceptable level of safety to demonstrate that the system will perform its intended function; therefore, no in-flight deployment on a test airplane will be required.

The Cirrus SF50 BPS is a non-required safety device intended to improve occupant survivability in emergencies and under extreme conditions. The certification requirements contained in these special conditions are consistent with the requirements of §§ 23.1301(a) and 23.1309(a) for equipment that is not required for type certification or by the operating rules. Because the BPS is non-required equipment, its design must be shown to be appropriate for the intended function and it must not adversely affect safety. The FAA Aircraft Certification Service has evaluated the intended function, design, and installation of the SF50 BPS, and has considered what is required to meet an acceptable confidence level.

The potential operational decision to deploy the BPS in service would be the result of an emergency, one that will invariably result in a controlled crash. While the BPS is expected to improve occupant survivability in an emergency, the residual risk to the occupants is not completely eliminated. The primary hazard introduced while performing a comprehensive BPS flight test is the risk to the flight test crew when exposed to controlled crash conditions during a successful deployment. The FAA has determined the requirement to demonstrate the BPS via testing or testing supported by analysis to be “appropriate for the intended function and does not adversely affect safety”. Therefore, the FAA will not require a comprehensive flight test deployment.

Another commenter requested clarification of paragraph 1(c)(3), regarding definition of occupant protection after aircraft structure damage. To clarify, the FAA's intent of this paragraph was to ensure that the cabin can protect the occupants after a normal deployment even if the cabin experiences damage resulting from the deployment process or as a result of ground impact. The paragraph does not assume any airplane damage prior to system deployment.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the SF50. Should Cirrus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register; however, as the certification date for the Cirrus SF50 is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Conclusion

This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

Citation

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 14 CFR 11.38, 11.39, 21.16 and 21.17.

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Cirrus SF50 airplanes.

1. Whole Airplane Parachute Recovery System With Flight Control and Deployment Augmentation.

(a) System Validation.

(1) The applicant must demonstrate by test, or analysis supported by test, that the system will not cause an unacceptable hazard or otherwise exceed the system deployment design loads for the critical flight conditions.

(2) The recovery system activation envelope must include speeds at or near VS up to at least Vo. The applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate by test, or by analysis supported by test, the logic and automatic control interface that allow the recovery system activation over this speed range.

(b) Occupant Restraint.

Each seat in the airplane must be equipped with an approved restraint system, which will protect the occupants from serious head and upper torso injuries during a recovery system deployment and ground impact at the critical load conditions.

(c) Parachute Performance.

(1) A 1.5 factor of safety applied to the limit load must be used for all components of the recovery system as well as the attachment structure, the cabin structure surrounding the occupants, and any interconnecting structure of the airplane. Limit loads are defined as the parachute deployment forces developed within the operational envelope of the system. Lower factors of safety for airplane weight and velocity may be used, so that when combined in the energy equation, represent a 1.5 factor of safety of the energy equation.

(2) Stitching must be of a type that will not ravel when broken.

(3) The applicant must show via test, or analysis supported by test, that with the recovery parachute deployed and the airplane structure damaged, the airplane impact during touchdown will result in an occupant environment in which serious injury to the occupants is improbable.

(4) The applicant must show via test, or analysis supported by test, that with the recovery parachute deployed, the airplane can impact the ground in various adverse weather conditions, including winds up to 15 knots, without endangering the airplane occupants at and after touchdown.

(d) System Function and Operations.

(1) The installation design and location of the extraction device must consider fire hazards associated with the activation of the parachute system and reduce this potential as much as possible without compromising function of the extraction device.

(2) A system safety analysis will be conducted on the recovery system that will consider the effects of annunciated and un-annunciated failures. This analysis will address both losses of function as well as malfunction (including un-commanded system activation). The applicant must show that they do not adversely affect proper functioning of the equipment, systems, or installations covered by § 23.1309, and do not otherwise adversely influence the safety of the airplane or its occupants. It must be shown that reliable and functional deployment in the adverse weather conditions that the airplane is approved for have been considered. For example, if the airplane is certified for flight in icing conditions, and flight test in icing reveals that ice may cover the deployment area, then the possible adverse effects of ice or an ice layer covering the parachute deployment area should be analyzed.

(3) The recovery system must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent activation. Two separate and intentional actions will be required to activate the system.

(4) It must be demonstrated that the system can be activated without difficulty by occupants of various sizes, from a 10th percentile female to a 90th percentile male, while sitting in the pilot or copilot seat.

(5) The system must be labeled for identification, function, and operating limitations.

(6) The airplane must be equipped with ASTM F 2316-06 conforming placards suitable to draw attention of first responders. Section 11 of ASTM F 2316-06, specifies that the airplane should be marked with a “danger” placard placed adjacent to the exit point of each rocket/parachute, an “identifying” placard attached to each rocket, and “warning” placard(s) applied where occupant(s) enter the airplane or where rescue personnel can readily see the placard(s).

(e) Design and Construction.

(1) All components of the system must be protected against deterioration due to weathering, corrosion, and abrasion.

(2) Adequate provisions must be made for ventilation and drainage of the system compartments and associated structure to ensure the sound condition of the system.

(f) Materials and workmanship.

(1) The suitability and durability of materials used for parts, the failure of which could adversely affect safety, must—

i. Be established by experience or tests;

ii. Meet approved specifications that ensure their having the strength and other properties assumed in the design data; and

iii. Take into account the effects of environmental conditions, such as temperature and humidity, expected in service.

(2) Workmanship must be of a high standard.

(3) The parachute(s) must be identified with a data panel that defines the Manufacturer, Date of Manufacture, Part Number, and Serial Number.

(g) Systems Maintenance and Inspection.

(1) Instructions for continued airworthiness must be prepared for the system that meet the requirements of § 23.1529.

(2) Adequate means must be provided to permit the close examination of the system components to ensure proper functioning, alignment, lubrication, and adjustment during the required inspection of the system.

(h) Operating Limitations.

(1) Operating limitations must be prescribed to ensure proper operation of the system. A detailed discussion of the system, including operation, limitations, and deployment envelope must be included in the Airplane Flight Manual.

(2) Operating limitations must be prescribed for inspecting and overhauling the system components at approved intervals.

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 6, 2016. William Schinstock, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16813 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4237; Special Conditions No. 25-619-SC] Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 Airplanes; Isolation or Protection of Airplane Electrical-System Security From Unauthorized Internal Access AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G500 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a digital systems architecture requiring isolation or protection from unauthorized internal access. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Gulfstream on July 15, 2016. We must receive your comments by August 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-4237 using any of the following methods:

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

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

Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Varun Khanna, FAA, Airplane and Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1298; facsimile 425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is unnecessary because the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 airplane. The Model GVII-G500 airplane will be a business jet capable of accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

Type Certification Basis

Under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, Model GVII-G500 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under § 611 of Public Law 92-574, the “Noise Control Act of 1972.”

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: A digital systems architecture requiring isolation or protection from unauthorized internal access.

Discussion

Networks, both in safety-related and non-safety-related applications, have been implemented in existing commercial-production airplanes. However, network security considerations and functions have played a relatively minor role in the certification of such systems because of the isolation, protection mechanisms, and limited connectivity between these networks.

To provide an understanding of the airplane electronic equipment, systems, and assets, these special conditions use the concept of domains. However, this does not prescribe any particular architecture.

The aircraft-control domain consists of the airplane electronic systems, equipment, instruments, networks, servers, software and hardware components, databases, etc., which are part of the type design of the airplane and are installed in the airplane to enable the safe operation of the airplane. These can also be referred to as flight-safety-related systems, and include flight controls, communication, display, monitoring, navigation, and related systems.

The airline-information-services domain generally consists of functions that the airplane operator manages or controls, such as administrative functions, cabin-support functions, etc.

The passenger-information-services domain consists of all functions required to provide the passengers with information.

The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane design introduces the potential for access to aircraft-control domain and airline-information-services domain by unauthorized persons through the passenger-information-services domain; and the security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of viruses, worms, user mistakes, and intentional sabotage of airplane networks, systems, and databases.

For electronic systems-and-assets security in these domains, the level of protection provided against security threats should be based on a security-risk assessment, noting that the level of protection could differ between domains and within domains, depending on the security threat. For each security vulnerability and airplane electronic asset, Gulfstream should identify in which domain the asset will be addressed.

In addition, the operating systems for current airplane systems are usually and historically proprietary. Therefore, they are not as susceptible to corruption from worms, viruses, and other malicious actions as are more-widely used commercial operating systems, such as Microsoft Windows NT, because access to the design details of these proprietary operating systems is limited to the system developer and airplane integrator. Some systems installed on the Gulfstream Model GVII-500 will use operating systems that are widely used and commercially available from third-party software suppliers. The security vulnerabilities of these operating systems may be more widely known than are the vulnerabilities of proprietary operating systems that the avionics manufacturers currently use.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.

The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane.

Isolation or Security Protection of the Aircraft Control Domain and the Airline Information Services Domain From the Passenger Services Domain

1. Gulfstream must ensure that the Model GVII-G500 series airplane design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, or other assets required for safe flight and operations.

2. Gulfstream must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the Model GVII-G500 series airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 7, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-16638 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Part 4022 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Paying Benefits AGENCY:

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the regulation for valuation dates in August 2016. The interest assumptions are used for paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by the pension insurance system administered by PBGC.

DATES:

Effective August 1, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah C. Murphy ([email protected]), Assistant General Counsel for Regulatory Affairs, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4400 ext. 3451. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4400 ext. 3451).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

PBGC's regulation on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4022) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for paying plan benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions in the regulation are also published on PBGC's Web site (http://www.pbgc.gov).

PBGC uses the interest assumptions in Appendix B to Part 4022 to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine the amount to pay. Appendix C to Part 4022 contains interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using PBGC's historical methodology. Currently, the rates in Appendices B and C of the benefit payment regulation are the same.

The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Assumptions under the benefit payments regulation are updated monthly. This final rule updates the benefit payments interest assumptions for August 2016.1

1 Appendix B to PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes interest assumptions for valuing benefits under terminating covered single-employer plans for purposes of allocation of assets under ERISA section 4044. Those assumptions are updated quarterly.

The August 2016 interest assumptions under the benefit payments regulation will be 0.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for July 2016, these interest assumptions represent a decrease of 0.25 percent in the immediate annuity rate and are otherwise unchanged.

PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible.

Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the payment of benefits under plans with valuation dates during August 2016, PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication.

PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 4022

Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4022 is amended as follows:

PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344.

2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 274, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 274 8-1-16 9-1-16 0.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 274, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates for Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities
  • (percent)
  • i 1 i 2 i 3 n 1 n 2
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * 274 8-1-16 9-1-16 0.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8
    Issued in Washington, DC, on this 11th day of July 2016. Judith Starr, General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16728 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0635] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Lake Washington Ship Canal, Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of temporary deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs Seattle Department of Transportation's (SDOT) Fremont Bridge, across the Lake Washington Ship Canal, mile 2.6, at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate heavy pedestrian and cycling traffic across the bridge during the `Fun Ride' fundraising event. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position and need not open to maritime traffic.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0635] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) has requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule for the Fremont Bridge, mile 2.6, crossing the Lake Washington Ship Canal at Seattle, WA. The deviation is necessary to accommodate heavy pedestrian and cycling traffic across the bridge during the `Fun Ride' fundraising event. To facilitate this event, the double bascule draw of the bridge will not open for vessel traffic during said date and time. The Fremont Bridge provides a vertical clearance of 14 feet (31 feet of vertical clearance for the center 36 horizontal feet) in the close-to-navigation position. The clearance is referenced to the mean water elevation of Lake Washington. The normal operating schedule for the Fremont Bridge is 33 CFR 117.1051. Waterway usage on the Lake Washington Ship Canal ranges from commercial tug and barge to small pleasure craft.

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

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

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Steven M. Fischer, Bridge Administrator, Thirteenth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16736 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0632] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mianus River, Greenwich, CT AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the Metro-North Bridge across the Mianus River, mile 1.0, at Greenwich, Connecticut. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform superstructure repairs and replace timber ties.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. on September 12, 2016 to 8 a.m. on September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0632] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this temporary deviation, call or email Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, telephone (212) 514-4330, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Metro-North Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Mianus River, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 20 feet at mean high water and 27 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.209.

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic.

    Connecticut DOT, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform steel repairs and replace timber ties.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Metro-North Bridge will operate according to the schedule below:

    a. From September 12, 2016 8 a.m. to September 16, 2016 4 a.m. the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    b. From September 16, 2016 4 a.m. to September 19, 2016 8 a.m. the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

    c. From September 19, 2016 8 a.m. to September 23, 2016 4 a.m. the bridge will not open to marine traffic.

    d. From September 23, 2016 4 a.m. to September 26, 2016 8 a.m. the bridge will open fully on signal upon 24 hour advance notice.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and there is no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass.

    The Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterways through our Local Notice and Broadcast to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operations can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

    Dated: July 12, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16775 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0624] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Lake Erie Open Water Classic; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH. This safety zone is intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the Lake Erie Open Water Classic open water swim on July 16, 2016. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect swimmers from vessels operating in the area. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 5:45 a.m. until 11:15 a.m. on July 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0624 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 proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Stephanie Pitts, Chief of Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0128, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated with the presence of swimmers in open water.

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run would be contrary to the public interest given the need to ensure the safety and security of the event and participants.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard issues this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. On July 16, 2016, between 5:45 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., a large scale swimming event will take place on Lake Erie in Cleveland, OH. The Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a large scale swimming event on a navigable waterway will pose a significant risk to participants and the boating public. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the Open Water Classic is happening.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 5:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. on July 16, 2016. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH south of a line drawn between position 41°29′31″ N., 081°44′23″ W. and 41°29′24″ N., 081°45′05″ W. (NAD 83) to the shore. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

    We conclude that this 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 rule will be relatively small and enforced for a relatively short time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters. Under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting less than 6 hours that will prohibit entry within a small area on Lake Erie. 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 § 165.T09-0624 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0624 Safety Zone; Lake Erie Open Water Classic; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH.

    (a) The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH south of a line drawn between position 41°29′31″ N., 081°44′23″ W. and 41°29′24″ N., 081°45′05″ W. (NAD 83) to the shore.

    (b) Enforcement period. This regulation will be enforced on July 16, 2016 from 5:45 a.m. until 11:15 a.m.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.

    (3) The “on-scene representative” of the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his behalf.

    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. B.W. Roche, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16799 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90; FCC 16-38] Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) published a summary of the Commission's Third Report and Order, 81 FR 33026, May 24, 2016 which fully modernizes the Lifeline program so it supports broadband services and obtains high value from the expenditure of Universal Service funds. This document clarifies the effective dates for the rules as they were published in the Federal Register, in order to promote consistency with the effective dates found in the Commission's Third Report and Order. Additionally, this document clarifies rules subject to certain effective dates in order to reflect implementation changes being made to the program.

    DATES:

    Effective July 15, 2016, except for the corrections to §§ 54.202, 54.405, 54.408, and 54.410, which contain information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a separate document announcing such approval and the relevant effective date(s).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christian Hoefly, Wireline Competition Bureau, Telecommunications Access Policy Division at (202) 418-3607 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of May 24, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-11284, on page 33088, the following corrections are made:

    Ordering Clauses [Corrected]

    1. In the first column, paragraph 432 is corrected to read, “It is further ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1 through 4, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 201 through 205, 254, 303(r), and 403, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 1302, part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is amended, and such rule amendments to Sections 54.201 and 54.423 shall be effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register of this Third Report and Order.”

    2. In the second column, paragraph 433, remove “Sections 54.202(a)(6), (d), and (e) and 54.205(c)” and add in their place “Sections 54.202(a)(6), (d), and (e), 54.205(c), and 54.400(l)”.

    3. In the second column, paragraph 434, add “54.400(f), (j), (m) through (o),” after “54.101”.

    § 54.202 [Corrected]
    4. On page 33089, in the second column, § 54.202 Additional requirements for Commission designation or eligible telecommunications carriers, in paragraph (d), in the second sentence, remove “should” and add in its place the word “shall”.
    § 54.405 [Corrected]
    5. On page 33091, in the first column, § 54.405 Carrier obligation to offer Lifeline, in paragraph (e)(3) remove the words “assess or collect” and add in their place the words “assess and collect”.
    § 54.408 [Corrected]
    6. On page 33092, in the third column, § 54.408 Minimum service standards, in paragraph (f)(1) remove the words “broadband provider” and add in their place the words “broadband Lifeline provider”.
    7. On page 33092, in the third column, § 54.408 Minimum service standards, in paragraph (f)(2) remove the words “A provider” and add in their place the words “A Lifeline provider”. 8. On page 33092, in the third column, § 54.408 Minimum service standards, in paragraph (f)(3) remove the words “broadband provider” and add in their place the words “broadband Lifeline provider”.
    § 54.410 [Corrected]
    9. On page 33093, in the second column, § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification, in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), remove the words “by National Verifier.” and add in their place the words “by the National Verifier.”
    10. On page 33094, in the first column, § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification, in paragraph (f)(2)(iii), remove the words “the National Verifier, state Lifeline administrator, or state agency” and add in their place the words “the eligible telecommunications carrier” 11. On page 33094, in the first column, § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification, in paragraph (f)(4), remove the words “re-certification or subscribers' Lifeline” and add in their place the words “re-certification of subscribers' Lifeline” 12. On page 33094, in the second column, § 54.410 Subscriber eligibility determination and certification, in paragraph (f)(5), remove the words “state agency's inability” and add in their place the words “state agency that it is unable” Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15194 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 48 CFR Parts 902, 909, 916, 917, 922, 925, 931, 936, 942, 952, and 970 RIN 1991-AC00 Acquisition Regulation: Technical and Administrative Changes to Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation AGENCY:

    Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) is adopting as final, a rule amending the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) to make technical and administrative changes to the DEAR, including changes to conform to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), remove out-of-date coverage, update references, and correct minor errors and omissions.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 15, 2016.

    Applicability Date: This final rule is applicable to solicitations issued on or after the effective date.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lawrence Butler, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Acquisition Management, MA-611, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-1945. Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. Summary of Comments and Responses III. Section-by-Section Analysis IV. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563 B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 13211 J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13609 L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy M. Congressional Notification I. Background

    The DEAR has outdated citations and minor errors of a technical nature. The objective of this final rule is to update the outdated citations and correct the errors and omissions in the existing DEAR to conform to the FAR. None of these changes are substantive or of a nature to cause any significant expense for DOE or its contractors.

    II. Summary of Comments and Responses

    DOE published a proposed rule at 80 FR 15737 on March 25, 2015; DOE did not receive any comments in response to the proposed rule. DOE made one change in the final rule in part 916. In the proposed rule, DOE proposed to change the title of the NNSA Task Order Ombudsman in Section 916.505, paragraph (b)(6)(i). However, DOE determined that because NNSA gets this authority from the delegations to the Senior Procurement Executive and Head of the Contracting Activity, it is not necessary to include it in the DEAR. Therefore, DOE has removed it from the final rule.

    III. Section-by-Section Analysis

    DOE amends the DEAR as follows:

    Part 902—Definitions of Words and Terms

    1. Section 902.101, paragraph (2), is revised to change the title of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Senior Procurement Executive (SPE).

    Part 909—Contractor Qualifications

    2. Section 909.403, paragraphs (1) and (2), are revised to change the title of the NNSA SPE.

    Part 916—Types of Contracts

    3. Section 916.505, paragraph (b)(6)(i), DOE proposed to change the title of the NNSA Task Order Ombudsman. However, DOE decided to remove the identification of the NNSA Task Order Ombudsman in the final rule because the delegations to the Senior Procurement Executive and the Head of the Contracting Activity allow NNSA to designate a task and delivery order ombudsman.

    Part 917—Special Contracting Methods

    4. Section 917.602, paragraph (a), is revised to remove language that is no longer needed in the DEAR.

    Part 922—Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisition

    5. Section 922.804 is no longer needed in the DEAR and is removed.

    Part 925—Foreign Acquisition

    6. Section 925.103, paragraph (a), is revised to correct the CFR reference.

    7. Section 925.1001, paragraph (b), is revised to change the title of the NNSA SPE.

    Part 931—Contract Cost Principles and Procedures

    8. Section 931.205-18, paragraph (c)(2), is deleted in its entirety and replaced with a new paragraph (c).

    Part 936—Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts

    9. Section 936.202-70 is no longer needed in the DEAR and is removed.

    Part 942—Contract Administration and Audit Services

    10. Section 942.705-3 is revised to update the circular number and remove the paragraph numbering.

    Part 952—Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses

    11. Section 952.204-2, paragraph (j), is revised to inform contractors of the format for submitting Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) information. Paragraph (h)(2)(vi), is revised to remove Contractor requirement for submitting in writing information to the head of the cognizant local DOE Security Office concerning each uncleared applicant or uncleared employee who is selected for a position requiring an access authorization.

    12. Section 952.204-73, paragraph (a), is revised to inform contractors of the format for submitting FOCI information.

    13. Section 952.236-72 is no longer needed in the DEAR and is removed.

    14. Section 952.250-70, paragraph (d)(1), is revised to raise the threshold as required by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

    Part 970—DOE Management and Operating Contracts

    15. Section 970.5215-3 is revised to update the Order number.

    16. Section 970.5223-1 is revised to correct the prescription.

    17. Section 970.5244-1, paragraph (f) is revised to reflect threshold increase in 48 CFR 28.102-2. Paragraph (g) is revised to reflect the threshold increase in DOE's class deviation for DEAR 970.5244-1.

    18. Section 970.5245-1, Alternate I, paragraph (j)(3), is revised to update the Order number and to add language that clarifies the sentence.

    IV. Procedural Requirements A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    This regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this final rule is not subject to review under that Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. DOE believes that this final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs and, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches maximize net benefits.

    B. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden reduction.

    With regard to the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the United States Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or if it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process (68 FR 7990). DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's Web site at http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.

    This final rule is to amend the DEAR to make technical and administrative changes as described in the summary. These changes are technical/minor in nature; therefore, DOE certifies that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on small entities because no substantive rights or obligations are altered by the amendment. Consequently, DOE did not prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.

    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule does not impose a collection of information requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Existing burdens associated with the collection of certain contractor data under the DEAR have been cleared under OMB control number 1910-4100, with an expiration date of December 31, 2017.

    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    DOE has concluded that promulgation of this final rule falls into a class of actions which would not individually or cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as determined by DOE's regulations (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this final rule is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the amendments to the DEAR are strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). Therefore, this final rule does not require an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.

    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order requires agencies to have an accountability process to ensure meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

    On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations (65 FR 13735). DOE has examined the final rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally requires a Federal agency to perform a written assessment of costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal mandate with costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking does not impose a Federal mandate on State, local or tribal governments or on the private sector.

    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277), requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rulemaking or policy that may affect family well-being. This rulemaking will have no impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

    I. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. This final rule is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

    K. Review Under Executive Order 13609

    Executive Order 13609 of May 1, 2012, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” requires that, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the principles and requirements of Executive Order 13563 and Executive Order 12866, each Federal agency shall:

    (a) If required to submit a Regulatory Plan pursuant to Executive Order 12866, include in that plan a summary of its international regulatory cooperation activities that are reasonably anticipated to lead to significant regulations, with an explanation of how these activities advance the purposes of Executive Order 13563 and this order;

    (b) Ensure that significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts are designated as such in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions, on RegInfo.gov, and on Regulations.gov;

    (c) In selecting which regulations to include in its retrospective review plan, as required by Executive Order 13563, consider:

    (i) Reforms to existing significant regulations that address unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements between the United States and its major trading partners, consistent with section 1 of this order, when stakeholders provide adequate information to the agency establishing that the differences are unnecessary; and

    (ii) Such reforms in other circumstances as the agency deems appropriate; and

    (d) For significant regulations that the agency identifies as having significant international impacts, consider, to the extent feasible, appropriate, and consistent with law, any regulatory approaches by a foreign government that the United States has agreed to consider under a regulatory cooperation council work plan.

    DOE has reviewed this final rule under the provisions of Executive Order 13609 and determined that the rule complies with all requirements set forth in the order.

    L. Approval by the Office of the Secretary of Energy

    Issuance of this final rule has been approved by the Office of the Secretary of Energy.

    M. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 902, 909, 916, 917, 922, 925, 931, 936, 942, 952 and 970

    Government procurement.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 7, 2016. John R. Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy. Joseph Waddell, Senior Procurement Executive and Deputy Associate Administrator National Nuclear Security Administration, Office of Acquisition and Project Management.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.

    Title 48—Federal Acquisition Regulations System 1. The authority citation for parts 902, 903, 916, 917, 922, 925, 931, 936 and 942 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq. and 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    PART 902—DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS
    902.101 [Amended]
    2. Section 902.101 is amended in the definition of “Senior Procurement Executive by removing “Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management” and adding in its place “Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management”.
    PART 909—CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONS
    909.403 [Amended]
    3. Section 909.403 is amended in paragraphs (1) and (2) by removing “Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management” and adding in its place “Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management”.
    PART 916—TYPES OF CONTRACTS
    916.505 [Amended]
    4. Section 916.505 is amended in paragraph (b)(6)(i) by removing the second sentence.
    PART 917—SPECIAL CONTRACTING METHODS
    917.602 [Amended]
    5. Section 917.602 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing “, Deputy Secretary or Under Secretary”.
    PART 922—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION
    922.804 [Removed and Reserved]
    6. Section 922.804 is removed and reserved.
    PART 925—FOREIGN ACQUISITION 7. Section 925.103 is amended by removing paragraph (a) and revising paragraph (b)(2).

    The revision reads as follows:

    925.103 Exceptions.

    (b) Nonavailabilty—(2)(i) Individual determinations. Contracting officers may make the determination required by 48 CFR 25.103(b)(2)(i), provided such determination is factually supported in writing. If the contract is estimated to exceed $1 million, the Head of the Contracting Activity must approve the determination.

    (ii) Proposals to add an article to the list of nonavailable articles at 48 CFR 25.104, with appropriate justifications, must be submitted for approval by the Senior Procurement Executive and submission to the appropriate council.

    925.1001 [Amended]
    8. Section 925.1001 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing “Director, Office of Acquisition and Supply Management” and adding in its place “Deputy Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management”.
    PART 931—CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES 9. Section 931.205-18 is revised to read as follows:
    931.205-18 Independent research and development (IR&D) and bid and proposal (B&P) costs.

    (c) In addition to all the other FAR requirements for allowability of IR&D costs, costs for IR&D are allowable under DOE contracts to the extent: They are not otherwise unallowable; and they have potential benefit or relationship to the DOE program. The term ”DOE program” encompasses the DOE total mission and its objectives. In addition to all the other FAR requirements for allowability of B&P costs, costs for B&P are allowable under DOE contracts to the extent they are not otherwise unallowable.

    PART 936—CONSTRUCTION AND ARCHITECT-ENGINEER CONTRACTS
    936.202-70 [Removed and Reserved]
    10. Section 936.202-70 is removed and reserved.
    PART 942—CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION AND AUDIT SERVICES
    942.705-3 [Amended]
    11. Section 942.705-3 is amended by: a. Removing the paragraph designation “(a)(2)”; and b. Removing “A-88” and adding in its place “A-21”.
    PART 952—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 12. The authority citation for part 952 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    13. Section 952.204-2 is amended by: a. Revising the section heading; b. Revising the clause heading and clause date; and c. Revising paragraphs (h)(2)(vi) introductory text and (j)(1).

    The revisions read as follows:

    952.204-2 Security requirements. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS (Aug. 2016)

    (h) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (vi) The Contractor must maintain a record of information concerning each uncleared applicant or uncleared employee who is selected for a position requiring an access authorization. Upon request only, the following information will be furnished to the head of the cognizant local DOE Security Office:

    (j) Foreign ownership, control, or influence. (1) The Contractor shall immediately provide the cognizant security office written notice of any change in the extent and nature of foreign ownership, control or influence over the Contractor which would affect any answer to the questions presented in the Standard Form (SF) 328, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, executed prior to award of this contract. The Contractor will submit the Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) information in the format directed by DOE. When completed the Contractor must print and sign one copy of the SF 328 and submit it to the Contracting Officer. In addition, any notice of changes in ownership or control which are required to be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, or the Department of Justice, shall also be furnished concurrently to the Contracting Officer.

    14. Section 952.204-73 is amended by revising the date of the clause and paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
    952.204-73 Facility clearance. FACILITY CLEARANCE (Aug. 2016)

    (a) Use of Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, Standard Form 328. (1) The contract work anticipated by this solicitation will require access to classified information or special nuclear material. Such access will require a Facility Clearance for the Contractor's organization and access authorizations (security clearances) for Contractor personnel working with the classified information or special nuclear material. To obtain a Facility Clearance the Contractor must submit the Standard Form 328, Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests, and all required supporting documents to form a complete Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) Package. The Contractor will submit the Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) information in the format directed by DOE. When completed the Contractor must print and sign one copy of the SF 328 and submit it to the Contracting Officer.

    952.236-72 [Removed and Reserved]
    15. Section 952.236-72 is removed and reserved.
    952.250-70 [Amended]
    16. Section 952.250-70 is amended by: a. Revising the date of the clause; and b. Removing in paragraph (d)(1), “$100 million” and adding in its place “$500 million”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    952.250-70 Nuclear hazards indemnity agreement. NUCLEAR HAZARDS INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (Aug. 2016)
    PART 970—DOE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS 17. The authority citation for part 970 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 2201; 2282a; 2282b; 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.

    970.5215-3 [Amended]
    18. Section 970.5215-3, paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) are amended by removing “DOE Order 225.1A” and adding in its place “DOE Order 225.1B, or successor version”.
    970.5223-1 [Amended]
    19. Section 970.5223-1 is amended by removing “970.2303-3(b)” in the clause introductory text and adding in its place, “970.2303-3(a)”. 20. Section 970.5244-1 is amended by: a. Revising the clause date; b. Removing in paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) “$100,000” and adding in its place “$150,000”; and c. Removing in paragraph (g) “$100,000” in both occurrences and adding in each place “$500,000”.

    The revision reads as follows:

    970.5244-1 Contractor purchasing system. CONTRACTOR PURCHASING SYSTEM (Aug. 2016)
    21. Section 970.5245-1 is amended by: a. Revising the clause date; b. Revising Alternate I heading and date; and c. Removing in Alternate I paragraph (j)(3) “Major System Acquisition or Major Project” and adding in its place “Major System Project” and removing “DOE Order 4700.1” and adding in its place “DOE Order 413.3B, or successor version”.

    The revisions read as follows:

    970.5245-1 Property. PROPERTY (Aug. 2016) Alternate I (Aug. 2016).
    [FR Doc. 2016-16768 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 49 CFR Part 8 RIN 2105-AE50 Classified Information: Classification/Declassification/Access; Authority To Classify Information (RRR) AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule updates the regulations regarding classified information to reflect changes in organizational structure, update the legal authorities, incorporate new references, and refer historical researchers and former Presidential appointees to Executive Order 13526.

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joan Harris, Associate Director, Office of Security, 202-366-1827, or electronically at [email protected] You may also contact David Meade, Senior Security Specialist, Office of Security, 202-366-8891, or electronically at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A 2011 DOT final rule (76 FR 19707) announced changes regarding the authority to classify information, but did not update other parts of the rule. As a result, the Department's regulations at 49 CFR part 8 need to be updated. This final rule makes the following corrections: Executive Order 12958, “Classified National Security Information,” has been replaced by Executive Order 13526, so references to the outdated Executive Order have been removed. The “Interagency Classification Review Committee” is now the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. As a result of reorganizations after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Coast Guard is no longer a part of DOT, so references to that agency as a departmental component have been removed, and a representative from the Federal Highway Administration replaces the U.S. Coast Guard's representative on the Department's Personnel Security Review Board. This final rule also updates the names of some departmental offices, which have changed.

    Section 8.19, which contained detailed instructions for submitting and processing requests for classification challenges and mandatory classification reviews, is also eliminated because of inconsistencies with the current regulations at 32 CFR 2001. Sections 8.15 (Mandatory review for classification) and 8.17 (Classification challenges) have been rewritten to cite the appropriate sections of 32 CFR 2001 regarding such requests.

    The detailed instructions in Section 8.29, Access by historical researchers and former Presidential appointees, have been eliminated because they were outdated. Instead, the instructions have been replaced with a reference to Executive Order 13526, which describes the conditions that qualify such persons for access, and Executive Order 12968 which provides general guidelines for access to classified information.

    This final rule is exempt from Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice-and-comment requirements. This final rule does not affect any substantive changes to the regulations or alter any existing compliance obligations. This final rule would only make technical corrections to part 8 by correcting outdated references without affecting the substance of the underlying rulemaking document. For the reasons stated above, notice and comment procedures are unnecessary within the meaning of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

    The Department finds good cause for this final rule to become effective immediately under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). This final rule is only removing outdated, obsolete, and inconsistent language in the regulations without altering any existing compliance obligations contained in the current regulations. Since this final rule is nonsubstantive and will not affect any regulated entity's compliance with the current regulations, the Department finds good cause for it to become effective immediately.

    Regulatory Analyses and Notices A. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    The DOT has determined that this action is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866, and within the meaning of DOT's regulatory policies and procedures. Since this rulemaking merely removes obsolete and inconsistent language and makes editorial corrections and does not have any substantive impact on the regulated community, DOT anticipates that this rulemaking will have no economic impact.

    Additionally, this action fulfills the principles of Executive Order 13563, specifically those relating to retrospective analyses of existing rules. This rule is being issued as a result of the reviews of existing regulations that the Department periodically conducts. In addition, these changes will not interfere with any action taken or planned by another agency and would not materially alter the budgetary impact of any entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs. Consequently, a full regulatory evaluation is not necessary.

    B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that may 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. This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132, dated August 4, 1999, and the DOT has determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect or sufficient federalism implications on the States. The DOT has also determined that this action would not preempt any State law or regulation or affect the States' ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions. Therefore, consultation with the States is not necessary.

    C. Executive Order 13175

    The DOT has analyzed this action under Executive Order 13175, dated November 6, 2000, and believes that the action would not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and would not preempt tribal laws. This final rule merely updates outdated terminology, and removes inconsistent language relating to compliance with the Department's classified information regulations. It does not impose any new requirements on Indian tribal governments. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is not required.

    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Since notice-and-comment rulemaking is not necessary for this rule, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) do not apply. However, the DOT has evaluated the effects of this action on small entities and has determined that the action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule removes obsolete guidance language and updates outdated terminology and, therefore, does not add to or alter any existing obligations.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget for each collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through regulations. The DOT has analyzed this final rule under the PRA and has determined that this rule does not contain collection of information requirements for the purposes of the PRA.

    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule would not impose unfunded mandates, as defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, March 22, 1995), as it will not result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $148.1 million or more in any one year (2 U.S.C. 1532).

    G. National Environmental Policy Act

    The agency has analyzed the environmental impacts of this proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.5 of DOT Order 5610.1C incorporates by reference the categorical exclusions for all DOT Operating Administrations. This action is covered by the categorical exclusion listed in the Federal Highway Administration's implementing procedures, “[p]romulgation of rules, regulations, and directives.” 23 CFR 771.117(c)(20). The purpose of this rulemaking is to make editorial corrections and remove obsolete and inconsistent language in the Department's classified information regulations. The agency does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 8

    Classified Information (Government agencies), Classification/Declassification/Access (Government agencies).

    The Final Rule

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, OST amends 49 CFR part 8 as follows:

    PART 8—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 8 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    E.O. 10450, 18 FR 2489, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 936, amended by E.O. 10491, 18 FR 6583, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 973, E.O. 10531, 19 FR 3069, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 973, E.O. 10548, 19 FR 4871, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 200, E.O. 10550, 19 FR 4981, 3 CFR, 1954-1958 Comp., p. 200, E.O. 11605, 20 FR 2747, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 580, E.O. 11785, 39 FR 20053, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 874, E.O. 12107, 44 FR 1055, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 266; E.O. 12829, 58 FR 3479, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 570, amended by E.O. 12885, 58 FR 65863, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 684; E.O. 13526, 75 FR 707, 3 CFR, 2010 Comp., p. 298; E.O. 12968, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 391, amended by E.O. 13467, 73 FR 38103, 3 CFR, 2009 Comp., p. 196.

    2. Part 8 is amended by: a. Removing “Director of Security and Administrative Management” and adding in its place “Director of Security” wherever it appears; and b. Removing “Executive Order 12958” and adding in its place “Executive Order 13526” wherever it appears. Subpart A—General 3. Section 8.1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 8.1 Scope.

    This part sets forth procedures for the classification, declassification, and availability of information that must be protected in the interest of national security, in implementation of Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2010, “Classified National Security Information;” and for the review of decisions to revoke, or not to issue, national security information clearances, or to deny access to classified information, under Executive Order 12968 of August 2, 1995, “Access to National Security Information,” as amended by Executive Order 13467 of June 30, 2008, “Reforming Processes Related to Suitability for Government Employment, Fitness for Contractor Employees, and Eligibility for Access to Classified National Security Information.”

    4. In § 8.5, add a definition for “Authorized holder” and revise the definitions of “Clearance”, “Damage to the national security”, “Mandatory declassification”, and “Original classification authority” to read as follows:
    § 8.5 Definitions.

    Authorized holder is any individual who has been granted access to specific classified information in accordance with Executive Order 13526 or any successor order.

    Clearance means that an individual is eligible, under the standards of Executive Orders 10450, 12968, 13467, and appropriate DOT regulations, for access to classified information.

    Damage to the national security means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, taking into consideration such aspects of the information as the sensitivity, value, utility, and provenance of that information.

    Mandatory declassification review means the review for declassification of classified information in response to a request for declassification that meets the requirements of section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526.

    Original classification authority means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, the Vice President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President, to classify information in the first instance.

    5. In § 8.7, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
    § 8.7 Spheres of responsibility.

    (a) Pursuant to section 5.4(d) of Executive Order 13526, and to section 6.1 of Executive Order 12968, the Assistant Secretary for Administration is hereby designated as the senior agency official of the Department of Transportation with assigned responsibilities to assure effective compliance with and implementation of Executive Order 13526, Executive Order 12968, Office of Management and Budget Directives, the regulations in this part, and related issuances.

    Subpart B—Classification/Declassification of Information 6. In § 8.9, paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) are revised to read as follows:
    § 8.9 Information Security Review Committee.

    (a) The Department of Transportation Information Security Review Committee has the authority to:

    (b) The Information Security Review Committee will be composed of the Assistant Secretary for Administration, who will serve as Chair; the General Counsel; and the Director of Security. When matters affecting a particular Departmental component are at issue, the Associate Administrator for Administration for that component (or for the Federal Aviation Administration, the Associate Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials Safety) will participate as an ad hoc member, together with the Chief Counsel of that component. Any regular member may designate a representative with full power to serve in his/her place.

    7. In § 8.11, paragraphs (a), (b)(1) and (2), and (c) are revised to read as follows:
    § 8.11 Authority to classify information.

    (a) Presidential Order of December 29, 2009, “Original Classification Authority” confers upon the Secretary of Transportation the authority to originally classify information as SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL with further authorization to delegate this authority.

    (b) * * *

    (1) Office of the Secretary of Transportation. The Deputy Secretary; Assistant Secretary for Administration; Director of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response; Director of Security.

    (2) Federal Aviation Administration. Administrator; Associate Administrator for Security and Hazardous Materials Safety.

    (c) Although the delegations of authority set out in paragraph (b) of this section are expressed in terms of positions, the authority is personal and is invested only in the individual occupying the position. The authority may not be exercised “by direction of” a designated official. The formal appointment or assignment of an individual to one of the identified positions or a designation in writing to act in the absence of one of these officials, however, conveys the authority to originally classify information as SECRET or CONFIDENTIAL.

    8. Revise § 8.15 to read as follows:
    § 8.15 Mandatory review for classification.

    (a) Mandatory declassification review requests will be processed in accordance with 32 CFR 2001.33.

    (b) Except as provided in paragraph b of section 3.5 of Executive Order 13526, all information classified by the Department of Transportation under Executive Order 13526 or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification if:

    (1) The request for review describes the information with sufficient specificity to enable its location with a reasonable amount of effort;

    (2) The information has not been reviewed for declassification within the prior two years. If the information has been reviewed within the prior two years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the requestor will be informed of this fact, and of the Department's decision not to declassify the information and of his/her right to appeal the Department's decision not to declassify the information to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP);

    (3) The document or material containing the information responsive to the request is not contained within an operational file exempted from search and review, publication, and disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 in accordance with law; and

    (4) The information is not the subject of pending litigation.

    (c) All information reviewed for declassification because of a mandatory review will be declassified if it does not meet the standards for classification in Executive Order 13526. The information will then be released unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.

    (d) Mandatory declassification review requests for information that has been classified by the Department of Transportation may be addressed to the Director of Security, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Washington, DC 20590. The Director will forward the request to the appropriate Departmental Original Classification Authority for processing.

    (e) Denied requests may be appealed to the DOT Information Security Review Committee (DISRC) through the Director of Security within 60 days of receipt of the denial. If the DISRC upholds the denial, it will inform the requestor of his or her final appeal rights to the ISCAP.

    9. Revise § 8.17 to read as follows:
    § 8.17 Classification challenges.

    (a) Authorized holders of information classified by the Department of Transportation who, in good faith, believe that its classification status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of the information before the Original Classification Authority (OCA) having jurisdiction over the information. A formal challenge must be in writing, but need not be any more specific than to question why information is or is not classified, or is classified at a certain level.

    (b) Classification challenges to DOT information must be addressed to the DOT Original Classification Authority (OCA) who is responsible for the information. If unsure of the OCA, address the challenge to the DOT Director of Security.

    (c) Classification challenges will be processed according to 32 CFR 2001.14.

    § 8.19 [Removed and Reserved]
    10. Remove and reserve § 8.19.
    § 8.21 [Amended]
    11. Amend § 8.21 by removing “8.13,” and the comma following “8.15”, and by removing the word “agency” and adding “component” in its place.
    § 8.23 [Amended]
    12. Amend § 8.23 as follows: a. In paragraph (a) by adding an “s” to the word “function”; b. In paragraph (b) by removing the word “a” and adding in its place the word “another” in the first sentence and by adding the words “at a lower level” after the word “resolved” in the last sentence; c. In paragraph (c) by adding “, directives issued pursuant to Executive Order 13526,” after the words “Executive Order 13526” in the first sentence and in the second sentence by removing the words “in NARA” and adding in their place “into the National Archives”; and d. In paragraph (d) by removing the words “of this part for automatic declassification” at the end of the first sentence, and adding in their place “for automatic declassification in section 3.3 of Executive Order 13526 and its implementing directives”.
    Subpart C—Access to Information 13. 13. In § 8.25, revise paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b)(1) through (4) and add paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 8.25 Personnel Security Review Board.

    (a) The Department of Transportation Personnel Security Review Board will, on behalf of the Secretary of Transportation (except in any case in which the Secretary personally makes the decision), make the administratively final decision on an appeal arising in any part of the Department from:

    (b) * * *

    (1) Two persons appointed by the Assistant Secretary for Administration: One from the Office of Human Resource Management, and one, familiar with personnel security adjudication, from the Office of Security, who will serve as Chair;

    (2) One person appointed by the General Counsel, who, in addition to serving as a member of the Board, will provide to the Board whatever legal services it may require;

    (3) One person appointed by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration; and

    (4) One person appointed by the Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration.

    (5) Any member may designate a representative, meeting the same criteria as the member, with full power to serve in his/her place.

    14. Section 8.29 is revised to read as follows:
    § 8.29 Access by historical researchers and former Presidential appointees.

    Access to classified information may be granted to historical researchers and former Presidents and Vice-Presidents and their appointees as outlined in Executive Order 13526 or its successor order. The general guidelines for access to classified information are contained in Executive Order 12968.

    15. In § 8.31, amend paragraph (b) by adding the word “an” between “into agreement” in the first sentence and by removing the last three sentences and adding a new sentence in their place.

    The addition reads as follows:

    § 8.31 Industrial security.

    (b) * * * Specifically, this regulation is DOD 5220.22-M, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual, and is effective within the Department of Transportation. Appropriate security staff, project personnel, and contracting officers must assure that actions required by the regulation are taken.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 5, 2016, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.27(c). Molly J. Moran, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16565 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 300 [Docket No. 160205084-6510-02] RIN 0648-XE719 Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; 2016 Bigeye Tuna Longline Fishery Closure AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; fishery closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is closing the U.S. pelagic longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean because the fishery has reached the 2016 catch limit. This action is necessary to ensure compliance with NMFS regulations that implement decisions of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC).

    DATES:

    Effective 12:01 a.m. local time July 22, 2016, through December 31, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    NMFS prepared a plain language guide and frequently asked questions that explain how to comply with this rule; both are available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=NOAA-NMFS-2016-0091.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ariel Jacobs, NMFS Pacific Islands Region, 808-725-5182.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pelagic longline fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean is managed, in part, under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act (Act). Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the Act appear at 50 CFR part 300, subpart O.

    NMFS established a calendar year 2016 limit of 3,554 metric tons (mt) of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) that may be caught and retained in the U.S. pelagic longline fishery in the area of application of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention Area) (81 FR 41239, June 24, 2016). NMFS monitored the retained catches of bigeye tuna using logbook data submitted by vessel captains and other available information, and determined that the 2016 catch limit would be reached by July 22, 2016.

    In accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(e), this rule serves as advance notification to fishermen, the fishing industry, and the general public that the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the Convention Area will be closed during the dates provided in the DATES heading. The fishery is scheduled to reopen on January 1, 2017. This rule does not apply to the longline fisheries of American Samoa, Guam, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, collectively “the territories,” as described below.

    During the closure, a U.S. fishing vessel may not retain on board, transship, or land bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, except that any bigeye tuna already on board a fishing vessel upon the effective date of the restrictions may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed, provided that they are landed within 14 days of the start of the closure, that is, by August 5, 2016. This 14-day landing requirement does not apply to a vessel that has declared to NMFS, pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a), that the current trip type is shallow-setting.

    Longline-caught bigeye tuna may be retained on board, transshipped, and landed if the fish are caught by a vessel with a valid American Samoa longline permit, or landed in the territories. In either case, the following conditions must be met:

    (1) The fish is not caught in the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) around Hawaii;

    (2) Other applicable laws and regulations are followed; and

    (3) The vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

    Bigeye tuna caught by longline gear during the closure may also be retained on board, transshipped, and/or landed if they are caught by a vessel that is included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv).

    During the closure, a U.S. vessel is also prohibited from transshipping bigeye tuna caught in the Convention Area by longline gear to any vessel other than a U.S. fishing vessel with a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

    The catch limit and this closure do not apply to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear outside the Convention Area, such as in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To ensure compliance with the restrictions related to bigeye tuna caught by longline gear in the Convention Area, however, the following requirements apply during the closure period (see 50 CFR 300.224):

    (1) Longline fishing both inside and outside the Convention Area is not allowed during the same fishing trip. An exception would be a fishing trip that is in progress on July 22, 2016. In that case, the catch of bigeye tuna must be landed by August 5, 2016; and

    (2) If a longline vessel fishes outside the Convention Area and the vessel then enters the Convention Area during the same fishing trip, the fishing gear must be stowed and not readily available for fishing in the Convention Area. Specifically, hooks, branch lines, and floats must be stowed and the mainline hauler must be covered.

    The above two additional prohibitions do not apply to the following vessels:

    (1) Vessels on declared shallow-setting trips pursuant to 50 CFR 665.803(a); and

    (2) Vessels operating in the longline fisheries of the territories. This includes vessels included in a specified fishing agreement under 50 CFR 665.819(c), in accordance with 50 CFR 300.224(f)(1)(iv). This group also includes vessels with valid American Samoa longline permits and vessels landing bigeye tuna in one of the territories, as long as the bigeye tuna were not caught in the EEZ around Hawaii, the fishing was compliant with all applicable laws, and the vessel has a valid permit issued under 50 CFR 660.707 or 665.801.

    Classification

    There is good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment on this action, because it would be contrary to the public interest. This rule closes the U.S. longline fishery for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific as a result of reaching the applicable bigeye tuna catch limit. The limit is codified in Federal regulations and is based on agreed limits established by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. NMFS forecasts that the fishery will reach the 2016 limit by July 22, 2016. Longline fishermen have been subject to longline bigeye tuna limits in the western and central Pacific since 2009. They have received ongoing, updated information about the 2016 catch and progress of the fishery in reaching the Convention Area limit via the NMFS Web site, social media, and other means. This constitutes adequate advance notice of this fishery closure. Additionally, the publication timing of this rule provides longline fishermen with seven days' advance notice of the closure date, and allows two weeks to return to port and land their catch of bigeye tuna.

    For the reasons stated above, there is also good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive the 30-day delay in effectiveness for this temporary rule. NMFS must close the fishery as soon as possible to ensure that fishery does not exceed the catch limit. According to NMFS stock-status-determination criteria, bigeye tuna in the Pacific Ocean are currently experiencing overfishing. NMFS implemented the catch limit to reduce the effects of fishing on bigeye tuna and restore the stock to levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. Failure to close the fishery immediately would result in additional fishing pressure on this stock, in violation of Federal law and regulations that implement WCPFC decisions.

    This action is required by 50 CFR 300.224 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16754 Filed 7-12-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 136 Friday, July 15, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Parts 1220 and 1260 [No. AMS-LPS-13-0083] RIN 0581-AD49 Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information; Beef Promotion and Research; Amendments To Allow Redirection of State Assessments to the National Program; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This proposed rule would amend the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Soybean Order) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) to add provisions allowing soybean and beef producers to request, under certain circumstances, that their assessments paid to a State board or council authorized under their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. The proposed rule also would make technical amendments to the Beef Order.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by September 13, 2016. Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection burden that would result from this proposal must be received by September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on the Internet at www.regulations.gov or to Kevin Studer; Research and Promotion Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2608-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; or fax to (202) 720-1125. All comments should reference the docket number, the date, and the page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be available for public inspection at the above office during regular business hours.

    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), send comments regarding the accuracy of the burden estimate, ways to minimize the burden, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, or any other aspect of this collection of information to the above address. Comments concerning the information collection under the PRA should also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

    Please be advised that all comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record and will be made available to the public on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Also, the identity of the individuals or entities submitting the comments will be made public.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kevin Studer, Research and Promotion Division, at (202) 253-2380, fax (202) 720-1125, or by email at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866 for this action.

    Executive Order 12988

    This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.

    Executive Order 13175

    The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has assessed the impact of this proposed rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule would not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, AMS will work with the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications are identified in this proposed rule.

    Soybean Order

    The Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (Soybean Act) (7 U.S.C. 6301-6311) provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 1971 of the Soybean Act, a person subject to the Soybean Order may file a petition with USDA stating that the Soybean Order, any provision of the Soybean Order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Soybean Order, is not in accordance with the law and request a modification of the Soybean Order or an exemption from the Soybean Order. The petitioner is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After a hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Soybean Act provides that district courts of the United States in any district in which such person is an inhabitant, or has their principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, if a complaint for this purpose is filed within 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

    Further, section 1974 of the Soybean Act provides, with certain exceptions, that nothing in the Soybean Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information organized under the laws of the United States or any State. One exception in the Soybean Act concerns assessments collected by Qualified State Soybean Boards (QSSBs). The exception provides that to ensure adequate funding of the operations of QSSBs under the Soybean Act, no State law or regulation may limit or have the effect of limiting the full amount of assessments that a QSSB in that State may collect, and which is authorized to be credited under the Soybean Act. Another exception concerns certain referenda conducted during specified periods by a State relating to the continuation of a QSSB or State soybean assessment.

    Beef Order

    Section 11 of the Beef Research and Promotion Act of 1985 (Beef Act) (7 U.S.C. 2901-2911) provides that nothing in the Beef Act may be construed to preempt or supersede any other program relating to beef promotion organized and operated under the laws of the United States or any State.

    Background and Proposed Action Soybean Order Amendments

    The Soybean Act and the Soybean Order issued thereunder authorize the collection of an assessment from soybean producers of one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans, processed soybeans, or soybean products. In most cases, these assessments are collected by QSSBs that retain up to half of the assessments as authorized by the Soybean Act. The QSSBs as defined under Section 1967 (14) of the Soybean Act will forward the remainder to the United Soybean Board (Soybean Board), which administers the national soybean checkoff program.1

    1 Section 1967(14) of the Soybean Act states:

    (14) QUALIFIED STATE SOYBEAN BOARD. The term “qualified State soybean board” means a State soybean promotion entity that is authorized by State law. If no such entity exists in a State, the term “qualified State soybean board” means a soybean producer-governed entity)—(A) that is organized and operating within a State; (B) that receives voluntary contributions and conducts soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information programs; and (C) that meets criteria established by the Board as approved by the Secretary relating to the qualifications of such entity to perform duties under the order and is recognized by the Board as the soybean promotion and research entity within the State.

    Likewise, 7 CFR 1220.122 of the Soybean Order states:

    The term Qualified State Soybean Board means a State soybean promotion entity that is authorized by State law and elects to be the Qualified State Soybean Board for the State in which it operates pursuant to § 1220.228(a)(1). If no such entity exists in a State, the term Qualified State Soybean Board means a soybean producer-governed entity—

    (a) That is organized and operating within a State; (b) That receives voluntary contributions and conducts soybean promotion, research, consumer information, or industry information programs; and (c) That meets the criteria, established by the Board and approved by the Secretary, relating to the qualifications of such entity to perform its duties under this part as determined by the Board, and is certified by the Board under § 1220.228(a)(2), with the approval of the Secretary.

    The original Soybean Order, which became effective July 9, 1991, mandated that all producers marketing soybeans pay an assessment of one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market price of the market price of soybeans sold. The original Soybean Order contained a provision in § 1220.228(b)(5)(i), which required QSSBs that were authorized or required to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Soybean Board that they would honor any request from a producer for a refund from the QSSB by forwarding to the Soybean Board those contributions for which the producer received a credit, pursuant to § 1220.223(a)(3). In other words, this section implicitly authorized refunds by the QSSB if State law allowed or required the QSSB to pay refunds; it further directed that the producer receive a credit for those refunds, with the amount sent to the Soybean Board.

    Refunds under the soybean program were discontinued on October 1, 1995, after the Secretary determined through a producer poll that continuation of refunds was not favored by a majority of producers. In late 1995, 7 CFR 1220.228(b)(5)(i) was removed as part of rulemaking to eliminate obsolete regulatory language. However, this action had an unintended effect of inadvertently allowing QSSBs to retain a portion of the assessment even if not required by State law, under any circumstances.

    In States where payments to a QSSB are not required by State law, the opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full federal assessment to the Soybean Board is already AMS' current policy; this rule is intended to formalize the policy. Therefore, AMS proposes adding provisions that remedy the removal of the original refund language. A new provision would be added to the Soybean Order to (i) require producers in States where refunds are authorized to forward that refund to the Soybean Board and (ii) provide an opportunity for a refund if the QSSB is not authorized by State statute but is organized and operating within a State and is certified by the Soybean Board, as provided by § 1220.228(a)(2). AMS proposes to require that the form must be postmarked by the 30th day of the month following the month the soybeans were sold. Assessments would not be able to be retroactively redirected from the QSSB to the Soybean Board. Likewise, AMS proposes to require that the QSSB must respond by the last day of the month following the month in which the OMB-approved QSSB-1 form was received.

    Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a producer is required by the Soybean Act to pay an assessment of one-half of one percent (0.5 percent) of the net market value of soybeans, processed soybeans, or soybean products. Several States have additional producer assessments, mandated by State statutes that are collected in addition to the assessment required by the Soybean Act as set forth in the chart provided. If a QSSB offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSSB can only refund to the producer any State assessment collected in excess of the assessment that the producer is required to pay under the Soybean Act. AMS proposes that the portion of the assessment compelled by the Soybean Act that the QSSB would normally keep can be redirected to the national program by the producer if State law allows.

    Examples

    • A soybean producer in California pays an assessment for a soybean sale. The assessment is collected by a certified Western Region Soybean Board, which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. California has no State law requiring a California assessment, so the California producer may request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by the Western Region Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.

    • A soybean producer in Iowa pays an assessment for a soybean sale. The assessment is collected by Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. Iowa has a State law with a refund provision, so the Iowa producer may request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.

    • A soybean producer in Virginia pays an assessment for a soybean sale. The assessment is collected by the Virginia Soybean Board which keeps 50% and forwards the remaining 50% to the Soybean Board. Virginia has a State law with no refund provision, so the Virginia soybean producer may not request that the 50% of the assessment amount retained by the Virginia Soybean Board be redirected to the Soybean Board.

    Beef Order Amendments

    Similarly, the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) issued thereunder authorize the collection of an assessment from cattle producers of $1.00 per head of cattle sold. In most cases, these assessments are collected by Qualified State Beef Councils (QSBCs) that retain up to one-half of the assessments as authorized by the Beef Act. The QSBCs, as defined under Section 3(14) of the Beef Act, are required to forward the remainder to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Beef Board), which administers the national beef checkoff program.2

    2 Section 3(14) of the Beef Act states that “the term “qualified State beef council” means a beef promotion entity that is authorized by State statute or is organized and operating within a State, that receives voluntary contributions and conducts beef promotion, research, and consumer information programs, and that is recognized by the Board as the beef promotion entity within such State.” Likewise, 7 CFR 1260.115 of the Beef Order states “Qualified State beef council means a beef promotion entity that is authorized by State statute or a beef promotion entity organized and operating within a State that receives voluntary assessments or contributions; conducts beef promotion, research, and consumer and industry information programs; and that is certified by the Board pursuant to this subpart as the beef promotion entity in such State.”

    The original Beef Order, which became effective July 18, 1986, mandated that all producers owning and marketing cattle pay an assessment of $1.00 per head of cattle, to be collected each time cattle are sold. The original Beef Order contained a provision in § 1260.181(b)(5), which required QSBCs that were authorized or required by State law to pay refunds to producers to certify to the Beef Board that they would honor any request from a producer for a refund from the QSBC by forwarding to the Beef Board those contributions for which the producer received a credit, pursuant to § 1260.172(a)(3). In other words, this section authorized refunds by the QSBC if State law allowed or required the QSBC to pay refunds; it further directed that the producer receive a credit for those refunds, with the amount redirected to the Beef Board.

    In a May 10, 1988, referendum conducted by the Secretary, cattle producers and importers voted to institute mandatory assessments. In late 1995, 7 CFR 1260.181(b)(5) was removed as part of rulemaking to eliminate obsolete regulatory language. However, this action had an unintended effect of inadvertently allowing QSBCs to retain a portion of the $1.00-per-head assessment even if not required by State law, under any circumstances. Therefore, AMS proposes adding provisions that would remedy the removal of the original language in § 1260.181(b)(5).

    Furthermore, while the Beef Act and Beef Order authorize QSBCs to retain up to 50 cents per head of cattle assessed, neither the Beef Act nor the Beef Order require producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per-head assessment to a QSBC. Thus, unless State statutes require the collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or require producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the State beef council, producers may be able to choose not to contribute up to 50 cents per head of the federal assessment to their QSBC. While the original Beef Order did not address the specific situation that allows producers to choose not to contribute up to 50 cents per head of the federal assessment to a QSBC, AMS proposes to address this in the new language. A new provision would be added to the Beef Order to (i) require QSBCs in States where refunds to producers of the $1.00-per-head assessment collected per the Beef Act and Beef Order are authorized by State statute to forward that refund to the Beef Board, and (ii) provide an opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board in States where State law does not require the collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in the Beef Act (the federal assessment) or in States where State statutes do not require producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per head federal assessment to the State beef council. In States where payments to a QSBC are not required by State law, the opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board is already AMS' current policy; this rule is intended to formalize the policy. As QSBCs are responsible for collecting assessments on cattle sold in or originating in their State (§ 1260.172(a)(5) and § 1260.181(b)(3)), producers who are allowed refunds under State statutes and choose to redirect the full $1.00-per-head assessment to Beef Board must submit to the QSBC a written request on an approved request form. AMS proposes to require that the form must be postmarked by the 15th day of the month following the month the cattle were sold. Assessments would not be able to be retroactively redirected from the QSBC to the Beef Board, and QSBCs would be required to respond to such requests within 60 days.

    Regardless of a State's requirements or refunding provisions, a producer is required by the Beef Act to pay an assessment of $1.00 on each head of cattle sold. Several States have additional producer assessments, mandated by State statutes, that are collected in addition to the $1.00-per-head assessment required by the Beef Act. If a QSBC offers a producer refund under a State statute, the QSBC can only refund to the producer any State assessment collected in addition to the $1.00-per-head assessment that the producer is required to pay under the Beef Act. AMS proposes that the portion of the $1.00-per-head federal assessment that the QSBC would normally keep under § 1260.181(b)(4) can be redirected to the national program by the producer if State law allows.

    Examples

    • A producer in Kansas pays the $1.00 federal assessment for a cattle sale. The Kansas Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Since there is no Kansas law compelling producers to contribute to the Kansas Beef Council, the producer may request that the $0.50 of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board.

    • A producer in Colorado pays $1.00 in assessments for a cattle sale. The Colorado Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. Colorado State law requires an assessment but allows a refund. The producer may request that the $0.50 cents of the original $1.00 assessment be redirected to the Beef Board.

    • A producer in California pays $1.00 in assessments for a cattle sale. The California Beef Council collects $1.00, keeps $0.50, and forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. California law compels the collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment and does not provide for a refund. The producer may not request the California Beef Council to redirect any portion of the $0.50 to the Beef Board.

    • A producer in Idaho pays the $1.00-per-head federal assessment plus the $0.50-per-head State-mandated assessment for a cattle sale. The Idaho Beef Council collects $1.50, keeps $1.00, and forwards $0.50 to the Beef Board. The producer requests a refund of all funds paid to the Idaho Beef Council. The Idaho Beef Council may refund the $0.50-per-head State assessment to the producer, but the producer is required to pay $1.00 under the Beef Act. Since Idaho State law only compels an assessment of $0.50, which is refundable, the producer may request the Idaho Beef Council to redirect the remaining $0.50 of the $1.00 retained from the original $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Beef Board.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator of the AMS has considered the economic effect of this action on small entities and has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The purpose of RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly burdened.

    Soybean Industry

    USDA's Farm Service Agency estimates that there are 569,998 soybean producers subject to the Soybean Order. This estimate comes from including all soybean producers engaged in the production of soybeans in the previous 2 years. The majority of producers subject to the Soybean Order are small businesses under the criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA) [13 CFR 121.201]. SBA defines small agricultural producers as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000.

    This proposed rule imposes no new burden on the soybean industry. It would provide soybean producers, under certain circumstances, the option of requesting that their assessments paid to a State board be directed to the national program.

    However, the proposed rule could result in decreased assessment funds for some QSSBs, depending on whether a State statute is in place, whether refund provisions are included, and whether the producer chooses to exercise the refund provision.

    Potential Financial Impact on QSSBs by State [Current as of 05/01/2016] State 1 State law requirement Refund option Amount of national assessment
  • retained by state (50% of
  • assessments
  • due under
  • Soybean Act) 2
  • (FY 2015)
  • Alabama Statute establishes $0.02 per bushel maximum assessment; regulations establish $0.01 per bushel maximum assessment Yes $445,917 Arizona 4 5% of the annual gross sales dollar value maximum annual assessment No Arkansas $0.02 per bushel; 0.25% of net market price during continuance of federal program Yes, on both 3,946,583 California 4 None Not applicable Colorado 4 None Not applicable Connecticut 3 None Not applicable Delaware None beyond federal Yes (under general promotion statute) 245,921 Georgia 0.05 per bushel No 195,398 Idaho 4 None Not applicable Illinois Statute establishes 1/2 of 1% of the net market price of soybeans produced and sold Yes 13,941,988 Indiana None beyond federal Yes 7,855,049 Iowa If national assessment collection, 0.25% of net market price; if not, 0.5% of net market price Yes 12,788,353 Kansas Statute sets maximum at 0.5% of net market price while federal program effective; regulation sets assessment at 20 mills ($0.02) per bushel as State default assessment Yes, provided refund amount is $5 or more 3,415,025 Kentucky 0.25% of net market price per bushel on all soybeans marketed within Kentucky Yes 2,148,849 Louisiana 0.01 per bushel on all soybeans grown in Louisiana Yes 2,131,537 Maine 3 None beyond federal No Maryland None beyond federal Yes 588,195 Massachusetts 3 None Not applicable Michigan None beyond federal Yes, for funds left over at close of marketing season 2,329,254 Minnesota General statute sets maximum at 1% of the market value of the year's production of participating producers; MN Soybean and Research and Promotion Council sets assessment at 0.5% Yes 8,151,802 Mississippi 0.01 per bushel Yes 2,955,549 Missouri None beyond federal Yes 6,419,003 Montana 4 None beyond federal No Nebraska None beyond federal No 6,952,254 Nevada 4 None Not applicable New Hampshire 3 None Not applicable New Jersey None beyond federal No 110,113 New Mexico 4 None beyond federal No New York None beyond federal Yes, but left to discretion of commissioner 254,297 North Carolina None beyond federal Yes, if assessment enacted 1,768,352 North Dakota 0.5% of sale value No 4,913,972 Ohio None beyond federal; capped at 2 cents per bushel if assessment enacted Yes 6,575,663 Oklahoma None beyond federal Yes 279,962 Oregon 4 None beyond federal No Pennsylvania None beyond federal No 618,190 Rhode Island 3 None Not applicable South Carolina 0.005 per bushel Yes 367,307 South Dakota 0.5% of value of the net market price Yes 5,185,112 Tennessee 0.01 per bushel Yes 1,985,565 Texas None beyond federal Yes 117,588 Utah 4 None beyond federal No Vermont 3 None beyond federal No Virginia Statute allows $0.02 per bushel; regulation specifies $0.01 per bushel No 645,754 Washington 4 None beyond federal No West Virginia 3 None Not applicable Wisconsin Capped by statute at $0.02 per bushel; actual assessment determined annual by board Yes 1,838,960 Wyoming 4 None beyond federal No Eastern Region  5 48,391 Western Region 6 17,121 1 There are 31 QSSBs. Two represent multiple States. 2 Only includes 50 percent of the national assessment that the State retains; does not include State assessment revenue derived from an independent State assessment. In addition, the notation—indicates that the amount of national assessment retained by the state is a de minimis amount. 3 Covered by Eastern Region. 4 Covered by Western Region. 5 Eastern Region includes Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. 6 “Western Region includes Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

    The information collection requirements on QSSBs are minimal. QSSBs are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS has conducted this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small soybean entities. However, we invite comments concerning potential effects of this proposed rule.

    Beef Industry

    In the February 2013, publication of “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimates that the number of operations in the United States with cattle in 2012 totaled approximately 915,000, down from 950,000 in 2009. The majority of these operations that are subject to the Beef Order may be classified as small entities. According to the NASS Web site “Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations,” the issues released between 2005 and 2013 included “Livestock Operations” in the title. Beginning in 2014, livestock operations data will be available in the Census of Agriculture and most recent data can be referenced from Census data. This proposed rule imposes no new burden on the beef industry. It would provide beef producers, under certain circumstances, the option of requesting that their assessments paid to a State council be directed to the national program.

    However, the proposed rule could result in decreased assessment funds for some QSBCs, depending on whether a State statute is in place, whether refund provisions are included, and whether the producer chooses to exercise the refund provision. Currently, a number of States are in various stages of establishing or amending State laws regarding beef checkoff requirements, so this information is likely to change.

    Potential Financial Impact on QSBCs by State [Current as of 05/06/2016] State 1 State law requirement 2 State refund option? Amount of national assessment
  • retained by state (50% of
  • assessments
  • due under
  • Beef Act) 3
  • (FY 2015)
  • Alabama $1.00 per head beyond federal Yes $308,618 Arizona None beyond federal No 326,251 Arkansas None beyond federal Yes 366,702 California None beyond federal No 1,810,135 Colorado None beyond federal Yes 1,364,278 Delaware None beyond federal No 4,325 Florida None beyond federal Yes 3,340,762 Georgia 1.00 beyond federal No 270,011 Hawaii None Not applicable 15,623 Idaho 0.50 per head beyond federal Yes 830,548 Illinois None beyond federal Yes 296,718 Indiana None beyond federal No 215,364 Iowa None beyond federal If State assessment collected, refund available 1,636,842 Kansas None Not applicable 3,385,185 Kentucky None beyond federal Yes 624,147 Louisiana 0.50 per head beyond federal Yes 189,751 Maine None beyond federal No 1,914 Maryland None beyond federal Yes 43,891 Michigan None beyond federal No 284,914 Minnesota None beyond federal Yes 685,484 Mississippi None beyond federal Yes 222,968 Missouri None beyond federal No 1,160,733 Montana None beyond federal Yes 866,981 Nebraska None beyond federal No 3,468,679 Nevada None Not applicable 112,784 New Jersey None beyond federal No 4,771 New Mexico None beyond federal Yes 491,527 New York None beyond federal No 326,982 North Carolina None beyond federal No 162,782 North Dakota None beyond federal Yes, when ND Attorney General certifies federal law does not preclude 534,462 Ohio 1.00 beyond federal Yes 308,689 Oklahoma None beyond federal Yes 1,548,338 Oregon 0.50 beyond federal Yes, for “incorrect” assessments 427,685 Pennsylvania None beyond federal No 372,275 South Carolina None beyond federal Yes, at discretion of Commission 79,772 South Dakota None Not applicable 1,422,366 Tennessee 0.50 beyond federal Yes 405,046 Texas 1.00 beyond federal, effective 10/1/14 Yes 4,620,761 Utah 0.50 beyond federal Yes 264,339 Vermont None beyond federal No 50,235 Virginia None beyond federal No 366,879 Washington 0.50 beyond federal No 513,601 Wisconsin None beyond federal No 696,796 Wyoming None beyond federal No 428,350 1 There are seven States without a QSBC. They are Alaska, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. In these seven States, the Beef Board collects assessments directly. 2 Per head of cattle sold. 3 Only includes 50 percent of the national assessment that the State retains; does not include State assessment revenue derived from an independent State assessment.

    The information collection requirements on QSBCs are minimal. QSBCs are already required to remit assessments to the national programs. We have not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.

    Accordingly, the Administrator of AMS has conducted this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and has determined that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small cattle or beef entities. However, we invite comments concerning potential effects of this proposed rule.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection and recordkeeping requirements that are imposed by the Soybean and Beef Orders have been approved previously under OMB control number 0581-0093. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this proposed rule also announces that AMS is seeking emergency approval for a new information collection request allowing soybean and beef producers, under certain circumstances, to request that assessments paid to a QSSB or QSBC be redirected to the Soybean Board or Beef Board, respectively. The additional burden is optional and is only imposed if a producer wants to divert assessments to the national program. According to the Beef Board, there have been very few requests from producers seeking redirection of assessments to the Beef Board. Additionally, the Soybean Board has not reported any requests from producers seeking redirection of assessments to the Soybean Board. Therefore, we estimate that annually a small number of soybean producers and beef producers might submit such a request and estimate that it would take an average of 5 minutes per person, resulting in an additional burden of 0.83 hour for the soybean program and 1.67 hours for the beef program.

    AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

    Title: Redirection of State Soybean and Beef Assessments to the National Program.

    OMB Number: 0581-NEW.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Abstract: The information collection requirements are essential to carry out this rule.

    The Soybean Act and Order and the Beef Act and Order authorize the collection of assessments from soybean and beef producers. In most cases, these assessments are collected by QSSBs or QSBCs that retain up to half of the assessments. The QSSBs and QSBCs forward the remainder to the Soybean Board and Beef Board, which administer the national soybean and beef checkoff programs.

    The original Soybean and Beef Orders contained provisions directing QSSBs and QSBCs, if authorized or required by State law to pay refunds to producers, to honor producer refund requests by forwarding to the national Board that portion of such refunds equal to the amount of credit received by the producer for contributions to the State entities. Amendments to the Soybean and Beef Orders in 1995 to remove obsolete language concerning refunds had an unintended consequence, inadvertently allowing QSSBs and QSBCs to retain a portion of the assessment even if not required by State law, under certain circumstances. Therefore, we propose adding provisions that would remedy the removal of the original language. New provisions would be added to both Orders to (i) require QSSBs and QSBCs in States where refunds to producers are authorized by State statutes to forward such requested refunds to the national board and (ii) provide an opportunity for producers, in States where the State entity is not authorized by State statute or State statutes allow, to choose to direct the full federal assessment to the national Board.

    An estimated 10 soybean respondents and 20 beef respondents will provide information to a QSSB or QSBC to request redirection of assessments. The estimated cost of providing the information to the QSSB or QSBC by respondents would be $82.17. This total has been estimated by multiplying 2.49 total hours required for reporting by $33.00, the average mean hourly earnings of various occupations involved in keeping this information. Data for computation of this hourly rate was obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

    In turn, QSSBs or QSBCs will respond to those producers with the decision and will forward the assessments and records to the Soybean Board or Beef Board. The estimated cost of the QSSB or QSBC providing the information to producers and the Soybean Board or Beef Board would be $82.17. This total has been estimated by multiplying 2.49 total hours required for reporting by $33.00, the average mean hourly earnings of various occupations involved in keeping this information. Data for computation of this hourly rate was obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

    The design of the forms has been carefully reviewed, and every effort has been made to minimize any unnecessary recordkeeping costs or requirements, including efforts to utilize information already submitted under other soybean and beef programs administered by the USDA and other State programs. In fact, the forms to be used by the QSSBs and QSBCs were designed to serve a dual purpose, both for informing producers of the outcome of their requests and for forwarding assessments and information to the Soybean Board and Beef Board. AMS has determined that there is no practical method for collecting the required information without the use of these forms. The forms would be available from the national boards, QSSBs, and QSBCs. The information collection would be used only by authorized QSSB, QSBC, Soybean Board, and Beef Board employees and representatives of USDA, including AMS staff. Authorized QSSB, QSBC, Soybean Board, and Beef Board employees will be the primary users of the information, and AMS will be the secondary user.

    The forms require the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out producers' wishes to redirect to the national boards the portion of the assessments that the State entities would otherwise retain. Such information can be supplied without data processing equipment or outside technical expertise. In addition, there are no additional training requirements for individuals filling out the forms and remitting assessments to the QSSBs and QSBCs. The forms will be simple, easy to understand, and place as small a burden as possible on the person filing the form. The forms are entirely voluntary for producers, and QSSBs and QSBCs will only complete their forms as a result of producers' requests.

    The form may be submitted at any time, though within the prescribed deadlines, so as to meet the needs of the industry while minimizing the amount of work necessary to complete the forms. In addition, the information to be included on these forms is not available from other sources because such information relates specifically to individual producers who are subject to the provisions of the Soybean or Beef Acts and because there is a need to ensure that producers are paying the full assessment required by law.

    Therefore, there is no practical method for collecting the information without the use of these forms.

    The request for approval of the new information collection is as follows:

    (1) Form QSSB-1, Notification to Qualified State Soybean Board of intent to redirect assessments to the United Soybean Board.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per soybean producer.

    Respondents: Soybean producers in certain States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent per Year: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 0.83 hours.

    (2) Form QSBC-1, Notification to Qualified State Beef Council of intent to redirect assessments to the Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 minutes per cattle producer.

    Respondents: Beef producers in certain States.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 20.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent per Year: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1.66 hours.

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques of other forms of information technology.

    A 60-day period is provided to comment on the information collection burden. Comments should reference OMB No. 0581-NEW and be sent to Kevin Studer; Research and Promotion Division; Livestock, Poultry, and Seed Program; Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, Room 2608-S, STOP 0249, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-0249; or fax to (202) 720-1125. All comments received will be available for public inspection. All responses to this proposed rule will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Comments concerning the information collection under the PRA should also be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

    Beef Technical Amendments

    In addition, several technical amendments are proposed to update information in the Beef Promotion and Research Order and rules and regulations:

    Section 1260.181 (b)(4) currently requires QSBCs to remit assessments to the Beef Board by the last day of the month in which the QSBC received the assessment “unless the Board determines a different date.” The Beef Board's practice has been to require QSBCs to remit assessments by the 15th of the following month. This section would be updated to reflect actual practice.

    Section 1260.315 would be amended to reflect the current QSBCs.

    List of Subjects 7 CFR Part 1220

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Soybeans and soybean products.

    7 CFR Part 1260

    Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Agricultural research, Imports, Marketing agreement, Meat and meat products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For reasons set forth in the preamble, it is proposed that 7 CFR parts 1220 and 1260 be amended as follows:

    PART 1220—SOYBEAN PROMOTION, RESEARCH, AND CONSUMER INFORMATION 1. The authority citation for part 1220 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 6301-6311 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    2. In § 1220.228, add a new paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 1220.228 Qualified State Soybean Boards.

    (b) * * *

    (5) If the entity is authorized or required to pay refunds to producers, certify to the Board that any requests from producers for such refunds for contributions to it by the producer will be honored by forwarding to the Board that portion of such refunds equal to the amount of credit received by the producer for contributions pursuant to § 1220.223(a)(3). Entities not authorized by State statute but organized and operating within a State and certified by the Board pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must provide producers an opportunity for a State refund and must forward that refunded portion to the Board. Producers receiving a refund from a State entity are required to remit that refunded portion to the Board in the manner and form required by the Secretary.

    PART 1260—BEEF PROMOTION AND RESEARCH 3. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 1260 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 2901-2911 and 7 U.S.C. 7401.

    4. In § 1260.181, revise paragraph (b)(4) and add paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:
    § 1260.181 Qualified State Beef Councils.

    (b) * * *

    (4) Certify to the Board that such organization shall remit to the Board assessments paid and remitted to the council, minus authorized credits issued to producers pursuant to § 1260.172(a)(3), by the 15th day of the month following the month in which the assessment was remitted to the qualified State beef council unless the Board determines a different date for remittance of assessments.

    (5) Redirection of assessments. Qualified State beef councils which are authorized or required by State statutes to pay refunds to producers must certify to the Board that any requests from producers for refunds from the council for contributions to such council by the producer will be honored by redirecting to the Board that portion of such refunds equal to the amount of credit received by the qualified State beef councils. In States where State law does not require the collection of the $1.00-per-head assessment set forth in the Act (the federal assessment) or in States where State statutes do not require producers to contribute a portion of the $1.00-per head federal assessment to the State beef council, qualified State beef councils must provide an opportunity for producers to choose to direct the full $1.00-per-head federal assessment to the Board. The request to redirect funds to the Board must be submitted on the appropriate form and postmarked by the 15th day of the month following the month the cattle were sold. Requests may not be retroactive. Requests to redirect funds must be submitted by the producer who paid the assessment.

    5. In § 1260.312, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
    § 1260.312 Remittance to the Cattlemen's Board or Qualified State Beef Council.

    (c) Remittances. The remitting person shall remit all assessments to the qualified State beef council or its designee, or, if there is no qualified State beef council, to the Cattlemen's Board at an address designated by the Board, with the report required in paragraph (a) of this section not later than the 15th day of the following month. All remittances sent to a qualified State beef council or the Cattlemen's Board by the remitting persons shall be by check or money order payable to the order of the qualified State beef council or the Cattlemen's Board. All remittances shall be received subject to collection and payment at par.

    6. Revise § 1260.315 to read as follows:
    § 1260.315 Qualified State Beef Councils.

    The following State beef promotion entities have been certified by the Board as qualified State beef councils:

    Alabama Cattlemen's Association Arizona Beef Council Arkansas Beef Council California Beef Council Colorado Beef Council Delaware Beef Advisory Board Florida Beef Council, Inc. Georgia Beef Board, Inc. Hawaii Beef Industry Council Idaho Beef Council Illinois Beef Council Indiana Beef Council Iowa Beef Cattle Producers Association Kansas Beef Council Kentucky Beef Cattle Association Louisiana Beef Industry Council Maryland Beef Industry Council Michigan Beef Industry Commission Minnesota Beef Council Mississippi Beef Council, Inc. Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc. Montana Beef Council Nebraska Beef Council New Jersey Beef Industry Council Nevada Beef Council New Mexico Beef Council New York Beef Industry Council North Carolina Cattlemen's Association North Dakota Beef Commission Ohio Beef Council Oklahoma Beef Council Oregon Beef Council Pennsylvania Beef Council, Inc. South Carolina Beef Council South Dakota Beef Industry Council Tennessee Beef Industry Council Texas Beef Council Utah Beef Council Vermont Beef Industry Council Virginia Beef Industry Council Washington State Beef Commission Wisconsin Beef Council, Inc. Wyoming Beef Council
    Dated: July 11, 2016. Elanor Starmer, Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16698 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7427; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-041-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-02-08, for all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. AD 2013-02-08 currently requires inspecting the trunnions and upper and lower pins of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA), and replacement or re-identification if necessary; and revising the maintenance program to include safe life limits and inspection requirements for the HSTA. Since we issued AD 2013-02-08, we determined that not all affected attachment pins and trunnions were included in the required inspections. In addition, for certain airplanes on which the replacement in AD 2013-02-08 was done, incorrect attachment hardware may have been used. This proposed AD would require measuring the diameter of certain bolts and attach holes, and, as applicable, measuring the diameter of the attach holes in the trunnions and pins, doing detailed visual inspections of the trunnions, pins, and spacers, doing corrective actions, and re-identifying trunnions and pins. This proposed AD also requires revising the maintenance or inspection program. This proposed AD also removes certain airplanes from the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment pins and trunnions of the HSTA. This condition could result in separation of the horizontal stabilizer, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

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

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7427; 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:

    Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone (516) 228-7318; fax (516) 794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-7427; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-041-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

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

    Discussion

    On, January 16, 2013, we issued AD 2013-02-08, Amendment 39-17329 (78 FR 7647, February 4, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-08”). AD 2013-02-08 requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes.

    Since we issued AD 2013-02-08, we have determined that not all affected attachment pins and trunnions were included in the required inspections of AD 2013-02-08. In addition, for airplanes on which certain service information was incorporated, incorrect attachment hardware may have been used to re-install the HSTA attachment pins and trunnions.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-08, dated March 30, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    After the issuance of [Canadian] AD CF-2011-45, it was discovered that the [Canadian] AD did not address all affected Horizontal Stabilizer Tim Actuator (HSTA) attachment pins and trunnions. In addition, it is possible that aeroplanes having incorporated the Initial issue or Revision A, of Bombardier Service Bulletin (SB) 601R-27-160 used incorrect attachment hardware to re-install the HSTA attachment pins or trunnions.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rectification, as required, and the re-identification, as required, of the HSTA pins and trunnions and incorporation of a revised Airworthiness Limitation task.

    The required actions include measuring the diameter of the bolts that attach the trunnions and pins, measuring the diameter of the attach holes in the aircraft structure, and, as applicable, measuring the diameter of the attach holes in the trunnions and pins, doing detailed visual inspections for gouges, scratches, and corrosion of the trunnions and pins, doing detailed visual inspections for damage of the spacers, doing corrective actions, and re-identifying trunnions and pins. Corrective actions include replacing bolts, trunnions, pins, and spacers, increasing the diameter of the attach holes, and repairing trunnions and pins.

    This proposed AD also removes certain airplanes from the applicability to correspond with the MCAI, which removed them from its applicability.

    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-2016-7427.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision D, dated October 22, 2015. The service information describes procedures for measuring the diameter of certain bolts and attach holes, and, as applicable, measuring the diameter of the attach holes in the trunnions and pins, doing detailed visual inspections of the trunnions, pins, and spacers, doing corrective actions, and re-identifying trunnions and pins.

    Bombardier has also issued Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2245, dated October 17, 2014, to Appendix B—Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual to incorporate a revised Airworthiness Limitation task. The service information describes safe life limits for the HSTA trunnion support and attaching hardware.

    Bombardier has also issued Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2186, dated August 8, 2011, to Appendix B—Airworthiness Limitations, Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual to incorporate a revised Airworthiness Limitation task. The service information describes an inspection of the upper and lower installation pins of the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim actuator.

    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 489 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate that it would take about 8 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 $332,520, or $680 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 20 work-hours and require parts costing $4,391, for a cost of $6,091 per product. We have no way of determining the number of products that may 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 2013-02-08, Amendment 39-17329 (78 FR 7647, February 4, 2013), and adding the following new AD: Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-7427; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-041-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-02-08, Amendment 39-17329 (78 FR 7647, February 4, 2013) (“AD 2013-02-08”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 7003 through 8113 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that not all affected attachment pins and trunnions were included in the inspections required by AD 2013-02-08. In addition, for certain airplanes on which the replacement in AD 2013-02-08 was done, incorrect attachment hardware may have been used. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the attachment pins and trunnions of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (HSTA). This condition could result in separation of the horizontal stabilizer, and consequent loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection

    (1) For airplanes on which the detailed inspection specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, dated September 29, 2011; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision A, dated October 3, 2012, has not been done as of the effective date of this AD: At the earliest of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i), (g)(1)(ii), and (g)(1)(iii) of this AD, measure the diameter of the bolts that attach the trunnions and pins, measure the diameter of the attach holes in the aircraft structure, and, as applicable, measure the diameter of the attach holes in the trunnions and pins, do detailed visual inspections for gouges, scratches, and corrosion of the trunnions and pins, do detailed visual inspections for damage of the spacers, do corrective actions, and re-identify trunnions and pins, in accordance with Part A of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision D, dated October 22, 2015; except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (i) Within 5,000 flight hours after March 11, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-08).

    (ii) Within 60 months after March 11, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-08).

    (iii) Before the accumulation of 40,000 total flight cycles, or within 60 days after March 11, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-08), whichever occurs later.

    (2) For airplanes on which the detailed inspection specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, dated September 29, 2011; or Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision A, dated October 3, 2012, has been done as of the effective date of this AD: Within 9,600 flight hours or 60 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first; measure the diameter of the bolts that attach the trunnions and pins, measure the diameter of the attach holes in the aircraft structure, and, as applicable, measure the diameter of the attach holes in the trunnions and pins, do detailed visual inspections for gouges, scratches, and corrosion of the trunnions and pins, do detailed visual inspections for damage of the spacers, do corrective actions, and re-identify trunnions and pins, in accordance with Part B of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision D, dated October 22, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD. Do all applicable corrective actions before further flight.

    (h) Exception to Service Information

    Where Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision D, dated October 22, 2015, specifies to contact Bombardier for disposition, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (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 the service information identified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, which are not incorporated by reference in this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision B, dated February 20, 2015.

    (2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 601R-27-160, Revision C, dated May 3, 2015.

    (j) Revision of Maintenance or Inspection Program

    (1) Within 30 days after March 11, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-02-08), revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2186, dated August 8, 2011, to Appendix B—Airworthiness Limitations, Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual. The compliance time for doing the initial inspection of the upper and lower installation pins of the horizontal stabilizer pitch trim actuator is before the accumulation of 40,000 landings or within 60 days after March 11, 2013, whichever occurs later.

    (2) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Bombardier Temporary Revision 2B-2245, dated October 17, 2014; to Appendix B—Airworthiness Limitations, Part 2, Airworthiness Requirements, of the Bombardier CL-600-2B19 Maintenance Requirements Manual. The compliance time for doing the initial replacement for the HSTA trunnion support and attaching hardware is before the accumulation of 80,000 landings or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

    (k) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

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

    (l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. 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: As of the effective date of this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

    (m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2016-08, dated March 30, 2016, 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-2016-7427.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16733 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8178; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-197-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination by the manufacturer that shims might not have been installed between certain longerons and longeron joint fittings. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the external surface of the fuselage skin panel for loose or working fasteners, and corrective action if necessary; a detailed visual inspection of the longeron joint fittings for the existence of shims and, if necessary, repetitive inspections of the longeron and the longeron joint fittings for any cracking, and corrective action if necessary. This proposed AD would also provide terminating action for certain repetitive inspections. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct missing shims between the longerons and longeron joint fittings. Such missing shims could result in a gapping condition and lead to stress corrosion cracking of the longeron joint fittings, and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 29, 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 Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8178; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-8178; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-197-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-22, dated August 3, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The aeroplane manufacturer has determined that shims may not have been installed between the longerons and longeron joint fittings at fuselage station X373-380, stringers 7 on the left and right hand side, on certain aeroplanes. The missing shims could result in a gapping condition and could lead to stress corrosion cracking of the longeron joint fittings.

    Failure of the longeron joint fitting could compromise the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joint.

    This [Canadian] AD mandates inspections in the area of the longeron joint fittings.

    Corrective actions include replacing any loose or working fasteners (fasteners that show signs of wear or fatigue corrosion), repairing any structural damage, and replacing any cracked longeron or longeron with an amplitude of 50% or more of the calibration signal. 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-2016-8178. Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections of the external surface of the fuselage skin panel for loose or working fasteners; a detailed visual inspection of the longeron joint fittings for the existence of shims; high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the longeron and the longeron joint fittings for any cracking; and replacement of longeron fittings, shims, and fasteners. 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 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 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 $12,920, or $170 per product.

    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would take about 3 work-hours for the inspection for missing shims, 9 work-hours for the replacement of longeron fittings and shims, and 1 work-hour for a reporting requirement; and would require parts costing $3,222; for a cost of up to $4,327 per product. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions. We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide cost estimates for repair of loose or working fasteners or structural damage specified in this proposed AD.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8178; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-197-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4156 through 4453 inclusive, 4456, and 4457.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination by the manufacturer that shims might not have been installed between the longerons and longeron joint fittings at station X373-380, stringer 7, on the left and right sides of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct missing shims between the longerons and longeron joint fittings. Such missing shims could result in a gapping condition and lead to stress corrosion cracking of the longeron joint fittings, and could adversely affect the structural integrity of the wing-to-fuselage attachment joints.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspection of the External Surface of the Fuselage Skin Panels

    At the time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, as applicable, do a detailed visual inspection of the external surface of the fuselage skin panel for loose or working fasteners (fasteners that show signs of wear or fatigue corrosion) and structural damage, in accordance with paragraph 3.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015.

    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total flight hours, or less than 5 years in service since new, as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to accumulating 12,000 total flight hours or 6 years in service since new, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight hours or more, or 5 years or more in service since new, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,000 flight hours or 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    (h) Corrective Actions

    If any loose or working fastener or any structural damage is found during any inspection required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO); and therafter do the inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD. Accomplishment of a repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (i) of this AD for the repaired area only.

    (i) Repetitive Detailed Visual Inspections

    Repeat the detailed visual inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (g) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 12 months or 2,000 flight cycles, whichever occurs first after accomplishment of the most recent inspection, until the actions required by the introductory text to paragraph (j) of this AD are done.

    (j) Inspection for Missing Shims

    At the time specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, do a detailed visual inspection of the longeron joint fittings for the existence of shims, in accordance with paragraph 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015.

    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 10,000 total flight hours, or less than 5 years in service since new, as of the effective date of this AD: Prior to accumulating 18,000 total flight hours or 9 years in service since new, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 10,000 total flight hours or more, or 5 years or more in service since new, as of the effective date of this AD: Within 8,000 flight hours or 4 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first; but not to exceed 30,000 total flight hours or 144 months in service since new, whichever occurs first.

    (k) Airplanes With Installed Shims: No Further Action Required

    If the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (j) of this AD reveals that shims are installed in the longeron joint fittings, no further action is required by this AD.

    (l) Airplanes With Missing Shims: High Frequency Eddy Current (HFEC) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    If the inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (j) of this AD reveals that any shim is missing from the longeron joint fittings: Before further flight, do an HFEC inspection of the longeron and the longeron joint fittings for any cracking, in accordance with paragraph 3.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015.

    (1) If any crack is found, or any indication is found with an amplitude of 50% or more of the calibration signal: Before further flight, replace the longeron joint fittings, in accordance with paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015.

    (2) After each inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (l) and paragraph (l)(1) of this AD, report the inspection results at the applicable time specified in paragraph (l)(2)(i) or (l)(2)(ii) of this AD to Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after that inspection.

    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

    (3) If any crack, or any indication with an amplitude of 50% or more of the calibration signal is not found: Repeat the HFEC inspection required by the introductory text to paragraph (l) of this AD at intervals not to exceed 12,000 flight hours or 6 years, whichever occurs first after accomplishment of the most recent HFEC inspection, in accordance with paragraph 3.D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015. If any crack is found, or any indication is found with an amplitude of 50% or more of the calibration signal: Before further flight, replace the longeron joint fittings, in accordance with paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015.

    (m) Terminating Action for Repetitive HFEC Inspections

    Replacement of the longeron joint fittings, in accordance with paragraph 3.E. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-53-65, dated February 27, 2015, constitutes terminating action for the repetitive HFEC inspections required by paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

    (o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-22, dated August 3, 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-2016-8178.

    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16732 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8177; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-129-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that the existing instruction in a certain task in the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) will not accomplish the intent of a certification maintenance requirement (CMR). This CMR task tests the pitch feel (PF) and rudder travel limiter actuator (RTLA) back-up modules in the flight control unit (FCU) to detect dormant failures. This proposed AD would require doing an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, and repair if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct a dormant failure of both FCU back-up modules. This condition, in combination with other failures in the FCU, may result in the inability to maintain the minimum control requirements for the PF and RTLA, which could create hazardous flight control inputs during flight.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 29, 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 Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8177; 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:

    Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Services Branch, ANE-172, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7301; fax 516-794-5531.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-8177; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-129-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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-06R1, dated April 22, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    It was discovered that the existing instruction in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) Task 27-61-05-710-801 will not accomplish the intent of the Certification Maintenance Requirement (CMR) task number 27-61-05-201. This CMR task was required to test the Pitch Feel (PF) and Rudder Travel Limiter Actuator (RTLA) back-up modules in the Flight Control Unit (FCU) to detect dormant failures. If not detected, a dormant failure of both FCU back-up modules, in combination with other failures in the FCU, may result in the inability to maintain the Minimum Control Requirements for the PF and RTLA, which could create hazardous flight control inputs during flight.

    The original issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the performance of an operational test of the FCU back-up modules using the proper AMM task instructions [and repair if necessary].

    Revision 1 of this [Canadian] AD is to correct the model number designation in the Applicability section.

    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-2016-8177.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information. This service information describes procedures for doing an operational test of the FCU back-up modules.

    • Bombardier Global 5000, BD-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-48, dated October 5, 2015.

    • Bombardier Global 5000, GL 5000 FEATURING GLOBAL VISION FLIGHT DECK—Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-24, dated October 5, 2015.

    • Bombardier Global 6000, GL 6000 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-24, dated October 5, 2015.

    • Bombardier Global Express, BD-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-78, dated October 5, 2015.

    • Bombardier Global Express XRS, BD-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-47, dated October 5, 2015.

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

    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.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The MCAI specifies accomplishing an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, but does not specify a corrective action if the test is failed. If any FCU fails any operational test, this proposed AD would require repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 76 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 3 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 $19,380, or $255 per product.

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

    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): Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-8177; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-129-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 29, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 9002 and subsequent.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight controls.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that the existing instruction in a certain task in the aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) will not accomplish the intent of a certification maintenance requirement (CMR). This CMR task tests the pitch feel (PF) and rudder travel limiter actuator (RTLA) back-up modules in the flight control unit (FCU) to detect dormant failures. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct a dormant failure of both FCU back-up modules. This condition, in combination with other failures in the FCU, may result in the inability to maintain the minimum control requirements for the PF and RTLA, which could create hazardous flight control inputs during flight.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) FCU Operational Test

    (1) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated 3,000 total flight hours or more as of the effective date of this AD: Within 15 months or 700 hours flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (2) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated less than 3,000 hours total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and on which an operational test has been accomplished as specified in AMM Task 27-61-05-710-801 prior to the applicable AMM revisions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Within 15 months or 700 hours flight hours, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (3) For airplanes with an FCU that has accumulated less than 3,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and on which an operational test has not been accomplished as specified in AMM task 27-61-05-710-801: Before the FCU accumulates 3,000 total flight hours, perform an operational test of the FCU back-up modules, in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (h) Service Information for Accomplishing Paragraph (g) of This AD

    Do the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD in accordance with the applicable service information specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(5) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier Global 5000, BD-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-48, dated October 5, 2015.

    (2) Bombardier Global 5000 FEATURING GLOBAL VISION FLIGHT DECK, GL 5000 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-24, dated October 5, 2015.

    (3) Bombardier Global 6000, GL 6000 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-24, dated October 5, 2015.

    (4) Bombardier Global Express, BD-700 Aircraft Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-78, dated October 5, 2015.

    (5) Bombardier Global Express ERS, BD0700 Airplane Maintenance Manual—Part II, Temporary Revision No. 27-47, dated October 5, 2015.

    (i) AMM Revisions Referred to in Paragraph (g)(2) of This AD

    The following AMM revisions are used to comply with paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes: Use the AMM revision specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i), (ii), or (iii), as applicable.

    (i) Bombardier Global Express GL700 AMM—Part II, Revision 61, dated March 3, 2014.

    (ii) Bombardier Global Express GL XRS AMM—Part II, Revision 39, dated March 3, 2014.

    (iii) Bombardier Global Express GL 6000 AMM—Part II, Revision 9, dated March 3, 2014.

    (2) For Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes: Use Bombardier Global Express GL 5000 AMM—Part II, Revision 42, dated March 3, 2014; or GL 5000 GVFD AMM—Part II, Revision 9, dated March 3, 2014; as applicable.

    (j) Corrective Action

    If any FCU fails any operational test required by this AD: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

    (k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

    (l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-06R1, dated April 22, 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-2016-8177.

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16731 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-13-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracking and material release from an engine upper bifurcation fairing. This proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the engine upper bifurcation fairing and repairing or replacing any fairing that fails inspection. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of the engine fire protection system, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this NPRM by September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may send comments by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare. 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.

    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-2016-6692; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The 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:

    Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-6692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-13-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM 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 with FAA personnel concerning this NPRM.

    Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2016-0084, dated April 28, 2016 (referred to hereinafter as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Inspection of in-service Rolls-Royce RB211 Trent 800 engines has identified cracking and/or material release from the upper bifurcation fairing. This fairing hardware mates to the aeroplane thrust reverser upper bifurcation forward fire seal. Both sets of hardware create the engine firewall to isolate the engine compartment fire zone, which is a firewall feature of the aeroplane type design. Damage (missing materials and holes/openings) to the upper bifurcation fairing creates a breach of the engine fire wall, which may decrease the effectiveness of the engine fire detection and suppression systems due to excess fan air entering the engine compartment fire zone. This could delay or prevent the fire detection and suppression system from functioning properly, and can result in an increased risk of prolonged burning, potentially allowing a fire to reach unprotected areas of the engine, strut and wing.

    Failure to inspect the engine upper bifurcation fairing as proposed by this AD could result in failure of the engine fire protection system, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-6692.

    Related Service Information

    RR has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ165, dated March 31, 2016. The NMSB describes procedures for inspecting and, if necessary, repairing or replacing the engine upper bifurcation fairing.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the United Kingdom and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. This NPRM would require repetitive inspections of the engine upper bifurcation fairing and repairing or replacing any fairing that fails inspection.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 125 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We estimate that it would take about 3.25 hours to inspect the upper bifurcation fairing do the inspection. We estimate that 5 engine fairings will require repair at 8 hours per engine and that an additional 5 engine fairings will require replacement at 30 hours per engine. We also estimate that materials and parts costs would be $500 for each engine. The cost for repair or replacement would be about $5,900 or $15,250 respectively. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $55,681.

    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 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.

    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): Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2016-6692; Directorate Identifier 2016-NE-13-AD. (a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 13, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 875-17, RB211-Trent 877-17, RB211-Trent 884-17, RB211-Trent 884B-17, RB211-Trent 892-17, RB211-Trent 892B-17, and RB211-Trent 895-17 turbofan engines.

    (d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking and material release from an engine upper bifurcation fairing. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine fire protection system, engine fire, and damage to the airplane.

    (e) Actions and Compliance

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

    (1) Within 7,500 engine flight hours (EFHs) time since new, or since last inspection, or within 150 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, inspect the engine upper bifurcation fairing for cracks or missing material. Use paragraph (e)(3) of this AD to perform the inspections.

    (2) Repeat the inspection required by this AD within every 7,500 EFH time since last inspection.

    (3) Inspect the engine upper bifurcation fairing as follows. Refer to Figure 1 of RR Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AJ165, dated March 31, 2016, for guidance on upper bifurcation fairing inspection locations.

    (i) Visually inspect upper bifurcation fairing seal face 22, seal support 23, and zone A for any cracks or material loss on the right side.

    (A) If fairing seal face 22 is found to have released material, repair or replace the fairing before further flight.

    (B) If there is a single crack found on fairing seal face 22, shorter than 6 mm, repair or replace the fairing within 100 engine flight cycles, or at the next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    (C) If there is a single crack found on fairing seal face 22, longer than 6 mm, repair or replace the fairing within 15 engine flight cycles or at the next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    (D) If there are two or more cracks found on fairing seal face 22, replace the fairing within 15 engine flight cycles or at next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    (E) If there is any cracking or material loss found on seal support 23, replace the fairing within 15 engine flight cycles or at next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    (ii) If the visual inspection required by paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this AD does not detect any crack, fluorescent penetrant inspect zone A. Refer to AMM TASK 70-20-02, Water Washable Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection (Maintenance Process 213), or OMat 632, high sensitivity fluorescent penetrant inspection, for guidance on fluorescent penetrant inspection.

    (A) If a crack shorter than 6 mm is detected, repair or replace the fairing within 100 engine flight cycles, or at the next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    (B) If a crack longer than 6 mm is detected, repair or replace the fairing within 15 engine flight cycles or at the next shop visit, whichever occurs sooner.

    Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a “shop visit” is defined as induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop visit.

    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, 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]

    (g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7134; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2016-0084, dated April 28, 2016, for more 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-2016-6692.

    (3) RR NMSB RB.211-72-AJ165, dated March 31, 2016, can be obtained from RR, using the contact information in paragraph (g)(4) of this proposed AD.

    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE24 8BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-249936; email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp; Internet: https://customers.rolls-royce.com/public/rollsroycecare.

    (5) 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.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 1, 2016. Ann C. Mollica, Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16646 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8501; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-042-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Helicopters AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky) Model S-92A helicopters. This proposed AD would require inspecting the main transmission forward (fwd) and aft frame assembly and adjacent skins for a crack and loose fasteners and establishing life limits for certain frame assemblies. This proposed AD is prompted by fatigue analysis indicating stress concentrations as well as the discovery of a crack in the station (STA) 362 frame and skin on a Model S-92A helicopter. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in a frame assembly and prevent failure of a frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    DATES:

    We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 13, 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-2016-8501; or in person at the Docket Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected] 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, Texas 76177.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristopher Greer, Aviation Safety Engineer, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7799; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Discussion

    We propose to adopt a new AD for Sikorsky Model S-92A helicopters with certain part-numbered frame assemblies installed. This proposed AD is prompted by a fatigue analysis that indicates stress concentrations may develop at the steel doublers on the main transmission airframe support structure top deck, adjacent to the transmission feet. Additionally, a helicopter was discovered with a crack in the STA 362 frame and skin. This proposed AD would require inspecting the main transmission fwd and aft frame assemblies and adjacent skins for a crack and loose fasteners and replacing or repairing any cracked part or loose fastener. This proposed AD would also require establishing life limits for certain frame assemblies. The proposed actions are intended to detect a crack in the frame assemblies and to prevent failure of the main transmission frame assemblies and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    FAA's Determination

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

    Related Service Information

    Sikorsky issued S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 92-53-008, Basic Issue, dated June 13, 2012 (ASB 92-53-008); S-92 ASB 92-53-009, Basic Issue, dated December 6, 2012 (ASB 92-53-009); and S-92 ASB 92-53-012, Basic Issue, dated February 10, 2014 (ASB 92-53-012). ASB 92-53-008 provides procedures for a one-time inspection of the main transmission frames and beams for a crack, missing or loose fastener or collar, damage, deformation, and corrosion. ASB 92-53-009 specifies an inspection before the first flight of the day and a recurring 150-hour inspection of the interior and exterior surfaces of the upper flanges and beams. ASB 92-53-012 specifies altering the fwd and aft transmission support frames by replacing the fasteners in accordance with Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-074-E, Revision E, dated April 9, 2014. After this alteration, the parts are re-identified with a new part number. Sikorsky refers to this alteration as a service life extension program modification.

    Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would establish a life limit for certain part-numbered frame assemblies by removing from service any part that has reached or exceeded its new life limit. Frame assemblies that are altered under Sikorsky's service life extension program and re-identified with a new part number must be removed from service upon accumulating the life limit of the old part-number or within certain hours TIS since the alteration, whichever occurs first.

    This proposed AD would also require, for helicopters with certain part-numbered frame assemblies, within 24 clock-hours and thereafter before the first flight of each day or at intervals not to exceed 24 clock-hours, whichever occurs later, inspecting the top deck skin, straps, and fasteners for a crack and loose fasteners in two locations. If there is a loose fastener or a crack, this proposed AD would require repairing or replacing the cracked or loose part and performing additional inspections of the STA 328 frame, STA 362 frame, and the butt line (BL) 16.5 beams.

    Finally, this proposed AD would require repetitively inspecting the STA 328 frame, STA 362 frame, and the BL 16.5 beams once the frame assembly exceeds certain hours TIS.

    Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    The service information requires providing certain information to Sikorsky and this proposed AD would not. The service information specifies performing a fluorescent penetrant inspection if there is a suspected crack and contacting Sikorsky if there is a crack, while this proposed AD would only require repairing or replacing any cracked part. Contacting Sikorsky would not be required.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 80 helicopters of U.S. Registry.

    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour. We estimate a minimal cost to establish and revise the life limit of the frame assembly. We estimate it would take 1 work-hour to visually inspect the skin and 1 work-hour to inspect STA 328 and 362 frames. No parts would be needed for a total cost of $6,800 for the fleet for each inspection per inspection cycle. If a fastener is replaced, we estimate the cost to be minimal. If a frame is replaced, it would take 3,360 work-hours and a required parts cost of $296,000 for a total cost of $581,600 per helicopter.

    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): Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2016-8501; Directorate Identifier 2014-SW-042-AD. (a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model S-92A helicopters, certificated in any category, with a forward (fwd) station (STA) 328 or aft STA 362 frame assembly with a part number (P/N) as shown in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 3 to paragraph (e)(2), or Table 4 to paragraph (e)(3) of this AD.

    (b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a crack in a main transmission airframe support structure. This condition could result in failure of a main transmission frame and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

    (c) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 13, 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) For helicopters with a frame assembly with a P/N shown in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, before further flight, remove from service any part that has reached or exceeded its new life limit. Fwd STA 328 frame assemblies that are altered and changed to P/N 92070-20124-064, 92070-20124-067, 92070-20127-045, 92070-20124-065, 92070-20124-047, or 92070-20127-046 must be removed from service upon accumulating 12,000 hours TIS from the alteration or 28,500 hours TIS total (regardless of P/N), whichever occurs first.

    Table 1 to Paragraph (e)(1) Life limit hours TIS Fwd STA 328 frame assembly P/N: 92070-20124-064 12,000 92070-20124-067 12,000 92070-20127-045 12,000 92070-20124-065 12,000 92070-20124-047 12,000 92070-20127-046 12,000 92070-20124-063 12,000 92070-20124-066 12,000 92070-20127-041 12,000 Aft STA 362 frame assembly P/N: 92070-20124-041 10,400 92070-20124-044 10,400 92070-20127-042 10,400 92070-20124-042 10,400 92070-20124-045 10,400 92070-20127-049 10,400 92070-20124-043 10,400 92070-20124-046 10,400 92070-20127-050 10,400 92070-20141-050 17,000 92070-20141-051 17,000 92070-20141-052 17,000 Table 2 to Paragraph (e)(1) Life limit hours TIS Fwd STA 328 frame assembly P/N: 92070-20097-058 28,500 92080-20047-047 28,500 92070-20097-060 28,500 92080-20047-048 28,500

    (2) For helicopters with a frame assembly with a P/N shown in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1), Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1), or Table 3 to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD: Within 24 clock-hours, and thereafter before the first flight of each day or at intervals not to exceed 24 clock-hours, whichever occurs later, using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspect the skin, straps, and fasteners of the top deck for a crack and loose fasteners in two locations from the STA 328 frame to the STA 305 frame between the right butt line (BL) 16.5 beam and the left BL 16.5 beam, and from the STA 362 frame to the STA 379 frame between the right BL 16.5 beam and the left BL 16.5 beam. If there is a loose fastener or a crack:

    (i) Repair or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener before further flight.

    (ii) Inspect the STA 328 frame and STA 362 frame between the left and right BL16.5 beams and inspect the area on the left and right BL 16.5 beams six inches on either side of the mounting pads for a crack and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener or a crack, repair or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener before further flight.

    (iii) Inspect the STA 328 and STA 362 outboard frames, left and right sides, from the BL 16.5 beam to water line 252.25 for a crack and loose fasteners. If there is a loose fastener or a crack, repair or replace any cracked part and any loose fastener before further flight.

    Table 3 to Paragraph (e)(2) Fwd STA 328 frame
  • assembly P/N
  • Aft STA 362 frame assembly P/N
    92209-02106-042 92070-20097-062 92209-02106-043 92080-20047-051 92070-20097-041 92209-02109-043 92080-20047-041 92209-02109-044 92070-20097-042 92080-20047-042 92070-20097-064 92080-20047-052

    (3) For each frame assembly listed in Table 1 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 4 to paragraph (e)(3) of this AD with 1,801 or more hours TIS, and for each frame assembly listed in Table 2 to paragraph (e)(1) or Table 3 to paragraph (e)(2) of this AD with 1,301 or more hours TIS, within 150 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS, perform the inspections in paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (e)(2)(iii) of this AD.

    Table 4 to Paragraph (e)(3) Fwd STA 328 frame
  • assembly P/N
  • Aft STA 362 frame assembly P/N
    92209-02107-042 92070-02108-042 92209-02107-103 92080-02108-103
    (f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOC)

    (1) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Kristopher Greer, Aviation Safety Engineer, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7799; 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

    Sikorsky S-92 Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) 92-53-008, Basic Issue, dated June 13, 2012; ASB 92-53-009, Basic Issue, dated December 6, 2012; ASB 92-53-012, Basic Issue, dated February 10, 2014, and Sikorsky Special Service Instructions No. 92-074-E, Revision E, dated April 9, 2014, which are not incorporated by reference, contain additional information about the subject of this AD. For service information identified in this AD, contact Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, Customer Service Engineering, 124 Quarry Road, Trumbull, CT 06611; telephone 1-800-Winged-S or 203-416-4299; email [email protected]

    You may review a copy of information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, Texas 76177.

    (h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5311 Fuselage Main, Frame.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 7, 2016. Scott A. Horn, Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16749 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-134016-15] RIN 1545-BN47 Guidance Under Section 355 Concerning Device and Active Trade or Business AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains proposed regulations under section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code). The proposed regulations would clarify the application of the device prohibition and the active business requirement of section 355. The proposed regulations would affect corporations that distribute the stock of controlled corporations, their shareholders, and their security holders.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134016-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20224. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-134016-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20224. Submissions may also be sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-134016-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the proposed regulations, Stephanie D. Floyd or Russell P. Subin at (202) 317-6848; concerning submissions of comments and/or requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background A. Introduction

    This document contains proposed regulations that would amend 26 CFR part 1 under section 355 of the Code. The proposed regulations would provide additional guidance regarding the device prohibition of section 355(a)(1)(B) and provide a minimum threshold for the assets of one or more active trades or businesses, within the meaning of section 355(a)(1)(C) and (b), of the distributing corporation and each controlled corporation (in each case, within the meaning of section 355(a)(1)(A)).

    This Background section of the preamble (1) summarizes the requirements of section 355, (2) discusses the development of current law and IRS practice under section 355 and the regulations thereunder, and (3) explains the reasons for the proposed regulations.

    B. Section 355 Requirements

    Generally, if a corporation distributes property with respect to its stock to a shareholder, section 301(b) provides that the amount of the distribution is equal to the amount of money and the fair market value of other property received. Under section 301(c), this amount is treated as (1) the receipt by the shareholder of a dividend to the extent of the corporation's earnings and profits, (2) the recovery of the shareholder's basis in the stock, and/or (3) gain from the sale or exchange of property. The corporation recognizes gain under section 311(b) to the extent the fair market value of the property distributed exceeds the corporation's adjusted basis in the property. However, section 355 provides that, under certain circumstances, a corporation (Distributing) may distribute stock and securities in a corporation it controls within the meaning of section 368(c) (Controlled) to its shareholders and security holders without causing either Distributing or its shareholders or security holders to recognize income, gain, or loss on the distribution.

    Section 355 has numerous requirements for a distribution to be tax-free to Distributing and its shareholders. Some of these requirements are intended to prevent a distribution from being used inappropriately to avoid shareholder-level tax on dividend income. As examples, section 355(a)(1)(B) provides that the transaction must not be used principally as a device for the distribution of the earnings and profits of Distributing or Controlled or both (a device), and section 355(a)(1)(C) and (b) require Distributing and Controlled each to be engaged, immediately after the distribution, in the active conduct of a trade or business (an active business). To qualify for this purpose, an active business must have been actively conducted throughout the five-year period ending on the date of the distribution and must not have been acquired, directly or indirectly, within this period in a transaction in which gain or loss was recognized. Section 355(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D).

    Distributions of the stock of Controlled generally take three different forms: (1) A pro rata distribution to Distributing's shareholders of the stock of Controlled (a spin-off), (2) a distribution of the stock of Controlled in redemption of Distributing stock (a split-off), or (3) a liquidating distribution in which Distributing distributes the stock of more than one Controlled, either pro rata or non-pro rata (in either case, a split-up).

    C. Development of Current Law and IRS Practice 1. Early Legislation

    The earliest predecessor of section 355 was section 202(b) of the Revenue Act of 1918, ch. 18 (40 Stat. 1057, 1060), which permitted a tax-free exchange by a shareholder of stock in a corporation for stock in another corporation in connection with a reorganization. This section did not allow tax-free spin-offs. In section 203(c) of the Revenue Act of 1924, ch. 234 (43 Stat. 253, 256), Congress amended this provision to allow tax-free spin-offs pursuant to plans of reorganization.

    Taxpayers tried to use this provision to avoid the dividend provisions of the Code by having Distributing contribute surplus cash or liquid assets to a newly formed Controlled and distribute the Controlled stock to its shareholders. See, e.g.,Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465 (1935). Congress reacted to this abuse by eliminating the spin-off provision in the Revenue Act of 1934, ch. 277 (48 Stat. 680). The legislative history states that the provision had provided a method for corporations “to pay what would otherwise be taxable dividends, without any taxes upon their shareholders” and that “this means of avoidance should be ended.” H.R. Rep. No. 73-704, at 14 (1934).

    In section 317(a) of the Revenue Act of 1951, ch. 521 (65 Stat. 452, 493), Congress re-authorized spin-offs pursuant to plans of reorganization:

    . . . unless it appears that (A) any corporation which is a party to such reorganization was not intended to continue the active conduct of a trade or business after such reorganization, or (B) the corporation whose stock is distributed was used principally as a device for the distribution of earnings and profits to the shareholders of any corporation a party to the reorganization.

    During debate on this legislation, Senator Hubert Humphrey expressed concerns about spin-offs and argued that these restrictions were necessary. See, e.g., 97 Cong. Rec. 11812 (1951) (“Unless strictly safeguarded, [a spin-off provision] can result in a loophole that will enable a corporation to distribute earnings and profits to stockholders without payment of the usual income taxes.”); Id. (“Clauses (A) and (B) of section 317 provide very important safeguards against the tax avoidance which would be possible if section 317 were adopted without clauses (A) and (B).”). See also 96 Cong. Rec. 13686 (1950) (“It was the viewpoint of the committee that [a spin-off] must be strictly a bona fide transaction, not colorable, not for the purpose of evading the tax.”).

    Until 1954, a spin-off, split-off, or split-up was eligible for tax-free treatment only if Distributing transferred property to Controlled as part of a reorganization. In 1954, Congress adopted section 355 as part of the 1954 Code. As a significant innovation, section 355 allowed spin-offs, split-offs, and split-ups to be tax-free without a reorganization, and this innovation remains in effect.

    2. Case Law

    Courts applying section 355 (or a predecessor provision) have generally placed greater emphasis on the substance of the transaction than on compliance with the technical requirements of the statute. Thus, some courts have determined that a transaction does not qualify under section 355 (or a predecessor provision), notwithstanding strict statutory compliance, on the basis that the substance of the transaction was inconsistent with congressional intent. For example, in Gregory, the Supreme Court held that compliance with the letter of the spin-off statute was insufficient if the transaction was otherwise indistinguishable from a dividend. The Supreme Court observed that the transaction in Gregory was “an operation having no business or corporate purpose-a mere device which put on the form of a corporate reorganization as a disguise for concealing its real character.” Gregory, 293 U.S. at 469.

    Other courts have found that a transaction does qualify under section 355 despite its failure to comply with all of the statutory requirements. For example, in Commissioner v. Gordon, 382 F.2d 499 (2d Cir.1967), rev'd on other grounds, 391 U.S. 83 (1968), the court addressed section 355(b)(2)(C). Pursuant to that section, a corporation is treated as engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business only if the trade or business was not acquired in a transaction in which gain or loss was recognized in whole or in part within the five-year period ending on the date of the distribution. The court concluded that, despite the fact that gain was recognized when Distributing transferred a trade or business to Controlled, section 355(b)(2)(C) was not violated because new assets were not brought within the combined corporate shells of Distributing and Controlled. The court stated:

    We think that the draftsmen of Section 355 intended these subsections to apply only to the bringing of new assets within the combined corporate shells of the distributing and the controlled corporations. Therefore, it is irrelevant in this case whether gain was recognized on the intercorporate transfer.

    Id. at 507. 3. Device Regulations a. 1955 Regulations

    Regulations under section 355 of the 1954 Code were issued in 1955 (the 1955 regulations). TD 6152 (20 FR 8875). These regulations included § 1.355-2(b)(3), which provided the following:

    In determining whether a transaction was used principally as a device for the distribution of the earnings and profits of the distributing corporation or of the controlled corporation or both, consideration will be given to all of the facts and circumstances of the transaction. In particular, consideration will be given to the nature, kind and amount of the assets of both corporations (and corporations controlled by them) immediately after the transaction. The fact that at the time of the transaction substantially all of the assets of each of the corporations involved are and have been used in the active conduct of trades or businesses which meet the requirements of section 355(b) will be considered evidence that the transaction was not used principally as such a device.

    b. 1989 Regulations

    Additional regulations under section 355 were issued in 1989 (the 1989 regulations). TD 8238 (54 FR 283). These regulations provide substantially more guidance than the 1955 regulations to determine whether a distribution was a device. Section 1.355-2(d)(1) provides that “a tax-free distribution of the stock of a controlled corporation presents a potential for tax avoidance by facilitating the avoidance of the dividend provisions of the Code through the subsequent sale or exchange of stock of one corporation and the retention of the stock of another corporation. A device can include a transaction that effects a recovery of basis.”

    This provision clarifies that, although the device prohibition primarily targets the conversion of dividend income to capital gain, a device can still exist if there would be a recovery of stock basis in lieu of receipt of dividend income and even if the shareholder's federal income tax rates on dividend income and capital gain are the same.

    The 1989 regulations also expand on the statement in the 1955 regulations that the device analysis takes into account all of the facts and circumstances by specifying three factors that are evidence of device and three factors that are evidence of nondevice. One of the device factors, described in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B), expands the statement in the 1955 regulations that consideration will be given to the nature, kind, and amount of the assets of Distributing and Controlled immediately after the transaction (the nature and use of assets device factor). First, this provision provides that “[t]he existence of assets that are not used in a trade or business that satisfies the requirements of section 355(b) is evidence of device. For this purpose, assets that are not used in a trade or business that satisfies the requirements of section 355(b) include, but are not limited to, cash and other liquid assets that are not related to the reasonable needs of a business satisfying such section.” This provision continues to provide that “[t]he strength of the evidence of device depends on all the facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, the ratio for each corporation of the value of assets not used in a trade or business that satisfies the requirements of section 355(b) to the value of its business that satisfies such requirements.” Finally, the provision provides that “[a] difference in the ratio described in the preceding sentence for the distributing and controlled corporation is ordinarily not evidence of device if the distribution is not pro rata among the shareholders of the distributing corporation and such difference is attributable to a need to equalize the value of the stock distributed and the value of the stock or securities exchanged by the distributees.”

    Although this provision describes the factor, it provides little guidance relating to the quality or quantity of the relevant assets and no guidance on how the factor relates to other device factors or nondevice factors.

    The nondevice factors in § 1.355-2(d)(3) are the presence of a corporate business purpose, the fact that the stock of Distributing is publicly traded and widely held, and the fact that the distribution is made to certain domestic corporate shareholders.

    Section 1.355-2(d)(5) specifies certain distributions that ordinarily are not considered a device, notwithstanding the presence of device factors, because they ordinarily do not present the potential for federal income tax avoidance in converting dividend income to capital gain or using stock basis to reduce shareholder-level tax. These transactions include a distribution that, in the absence of section 355, with respect to each distributee, would be a redemption to which sale-or-exchange treatment applies.

    4. Active Business Requirement Regulations

    Section 1.355-3 provides rules for determining whether Distributing and Controlled satisfy the active business requirement. Proposed regulations issued in 2007 would amend § 1.355-3. REG-123365-03 (72 FR 26012). The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study the active business requirement issues considered in those proposed regulations.

    5. Administration of the Active Business Requirement

    The fact that Distributing's or Controlled's qualifying active business is small in relation to all the assets of Distributing or Controlled is generally recognized as a device factor. A separate issue is whether a relatively small active business satisfies the active business requirement. In Rev. Rul. 73-44 (1973-1 CB 182), Controlled's active business represented a “substantial portion” but less than half of the value of its total assets. The revenue ruling states:

    There is no requirement in section 355(b) that a specific percentage of the corporation's assets be devoted to the active conduct of a trade or business. In the instant case, therefore, it is not controlling for purposes of the active business requirement that the active business assets of the controlled corporation, Y, represent less than half of the value of the controlled corporation immediately after the distribution.

    The IRS has taken the position, in letter rulings and internal memoranda, that an active business can satisfy the active business requirement regardless of its absolute or relative size. However, no published guidance issued by the Treasury Department or the IRS takes this position.

    In 1996, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 96-43 (1996-2 CB 330), which provided that (1) the IRS ordinarily would not issue a letter ruling or determination letter on whether a distribution was described in section 355(a)(1) if the gross assets of the active business would have a fair market value that was less than five percent of the total fair market value of the gross assets of the corporation directly conducting the active business, but (2) a ruling might be issued “if it can be established that, based upon all relevant facts and circumstances, the trades or businesses are not de minimis compared with the other assets or activities of the corporation and its subsidiaries.” This no-rule provision was eliminated in Rev. Proc. 2003-48 (2003-2 CB 86). Since that time, until the publication of Rev. Proc. 2015-43 (2015-40 IRB 467) and Notice 2015-59 (2015-40 IRB 459), discussed in Part D.1 of this Background section of the preamble, the IRS maintained its position that the relative size of an active business is a device factor rather than a section 355(b) requirement. The IRS issued numerous letter rulings on section 355 distributions involving active businesses that were de minimis in value compared to the other assets of Distributing or Controlled.

    The IRS interpreted section 355(b) in this manner in part as a result of the mechanical difficulties of satisfying the active business requirement. These mechanical difficulties are discussed further in Part D.3.c of this Background section of the preamble.

    As an example, until section 355(b) was amended by section 202 of the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, Public Law 109-222 (120 Stat. 345, 348); Division A, section 410 of the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, Public Law 109-432 (120 Stat. 2922, 2963); and section 4(b) of the Tax Technical Corrections Act of 2007, Public Law 110-172 (121 Stat. 2473, 2476) (the Separate Affiliated Group, or SAG, Amendments), if, immediately after the distribution, a corporation did not directly engage in an active business, it could satisfy the active business requirement only if substantially all of its assets consisted of stock and securities of corporations it controlled that were engaged in an active business (the holding company rule). See section 355(b) prior to the SAG Amendments. Because of the limited application of the holding company rule, corporations often had to undergo burdensome restructurings prior to section 355 distributions merely to satisfy the active business requirement. See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 109-304, at 54 (2005).

    As another example, until 1992, no guidance provided that Distributing or Controlled could rely on activities conducted by a partnership to satisfy the active business requirement, even if Distributing or Controlled held a substantial interest in the partnership and participated in its management. This situation changed after the Treasury Department and the IRS published revenue rulings permitting this reliance. See Rev. Rul. 92-17 (1992-1 CB 142) amplified by Rev. Rul. 2002-49 (2002-2 CB 288) and modified by Rev. Rul. 2007-42 (2007-2 CB 44).

    6. Administration of the Device Prohibition

    The device prohibition continues to be important even though the federal income tax rates for dividend income and capital gain may be identical for many taxpayers. In Rev. Proc. 2003-48, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that the IRS would no longer rule on whether a transaction is a device or has a business purpose. As a result, since the publication of Rev. Proc. 2003-48, the IRS has made only limited inquiries as to device and business purpose issues raised in requests for private letter rulings under section 355.

    D. Reasons for Proposed Regulations 1. Rev. Proc. 2015-43 and Notice 2015-59

    As explained in Part C of this Background section of the preamble, section 355 and its predecessors have had a long and contentious history. Despite the safeguards in the Code and regulations, and the courts' interpretations in accordance with congressionally-articulated statutory purposes, taxpayers have attempted to use section 355 distributions in ways that the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined to be inconsistent with the purpose of section 355.

    On September 14, 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2015-43 and Notice 2015-59 in response to concerns relating to distributions involving relatively small active businesses, substantial amounts of investment assets, and regulated investment companies (RICs) or real estate investment trusts (REITs). The notice states that the Treasury Department and the IRS are studying issues under sections 337(d) and 355 relating to these transactions and that these transactions may present evidence of device, lack an adequate business purpose or a qualifying active business, or circumvent the purposes of Code provisions intended to implement repeal of the General Utilities doctrine, a doctrine under which a corporation generally could distribute appreciated property to its shareholders without recognizing gain (General Utilities repeal). The notice invited comments with respect to these issues and one commenter (the commenter) submitted a comment letter.

    The proposed regulations in this notice of proposed rulemaking would address the device prohibition (including the business purpose requirement as it pertains to device) and the active business requirement. Congress has addressed certain other issues discussed in Notice 2015-59. See section 311 of the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Public Law 114-113 (129 Stat. 3040, 3090), in which Congress added section 355(h), which generally denies section 355 treatment if either Distributing or Controlled is a REIT unless both are REITs immediately after the distribution, and section 856(c)(8), which generally provides that Distributing or Controlled will not be eligible to make a REIT election within the ten-year period after a section 355 distribution. Separate temporary and proposed regulations address transactions that avoid the application of sections 355(h) and 856(c)(8). See REG-126452-15 (Certain Transfers of Property to RICs and REITs) (81 FR 36816), cross-referencing TD 9770 (81 FR 36793). The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study issues relating to General Utilities repeal presented by other transactions involving the separation of nonbusiness assets from business assets, and are considering issuing guidance under section 337(d) to address these issues. See Part D.4 of this Background section of the preamble.

    2. Comments Regarding Device

    The commenter believes that new rules are not needed for transactions that raise the purely shareholder-level concerns that are the subject of the device prohibition. According to the commenter, those transactions likely do not qualify under section 355 under current law and are infrequent. Although largely agreeing with this statement, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that certain clarifying changes should be made to the device rules. As discussed in Part C.3.b of this Background section of the preamble, the current regulations relating to device are not specific as to the quality or quantity of assets relevant in the nature and use of assets device factor or the appropriate weighing of the device and nondevice factors. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, in some situations, insufficient weight has been given to the nature and use of assets device factor and that device factors have not been balanced correctly against nondevice factors.

    For example, if, after a distribution, Distributing or Controlled holds mostly liquid nonbusiness assets, the shareholders of that corporation can sell their stock at a price that reflects the value of the nonbusiness assets, and such a sale is economically similar to a distribution of the liquid nonbusiness assets to the shareholders that would have been treated as a dividend to the extent of earnings and profits of the corporation. See, e.g., Gregory. If Distributing's ratio of nonbusiness assets to total assets differs substantially from Controlled's ratio, the distribution could facilitate a separation of the nonbusiness assets from the business assets by means of the sale of the stock in the corporation with a large percentage of nonbusiness assets. No corporate-level gain, and possibly little or no shareholder-level gain, would be recognized.

    Taxpayers have taken the position that nondevice factors in the regulations can outweigh the substantial evidence of device presented in such distributions. For example, certain taxpayers have viewed even a weak business purpose, combined with the fact that the stock of Distributing is publicly traded, as offsetting evidence of device presented by distributions effecting a separation of nonbusiness assets from business assets, even if pressure from public shareholders was a significant motivation for the distribution. The Treasury Department and the IRS do not agree that these types of nondevice factors should outweigh the substantial evidence of device presented by a distribution that separates nonbusiness assets from business assets.

    Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the regulations should provide clearer, more objective guidance regarding the nature and use of assets device factor and the appropriate weighing of device factors and nondevice factors. The Treasury Department and the IRS also have determined that if a high enough proportion of assets of Distributing or Controlled consists of nonbusiness assets, and if the assets of the other corporation include a much lower proportion of nonbusiness assets, the evidence of device is so strong that nondevice factors generally should not be allowed to overcome the evidence of device.

    The commenter also noted that the importance of device, traditionally understood as reflecting shareholder-level policies, has diminished in the context of a unified rate regime for long-term capital gains and qualified dividend income for some taxpayers. However, because of continuing differences in the federal income tax treatment of capital gains and dividends, including the potential for basis recovery (see § 1.355-2(d)(1)) and the availability of capital gains to absorb capital losses, the device prohibition continues to be important.

    3. Comments Regarding Active Business a. Section 355(b) Requires Minimum Size Active Business

    The commenter stated that section 355 is meant to apply to genuine separations of businesses, and that section 355(b) should not function as a formality. Nevertheless, the commenter does not believe that the active business requirement needs to be strengthened through the adoption of a requirement of a minimum amount of active business assets.

    After studying this issue, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that Distributing or Controlled should not satisfy the active business requirement by holding a relatively de minimis active business. As described in the remainder of this Part D.3, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that interpreting section 355(b) as having meaning and substance and therefore requiring an active business that is economically significant is consistent with congressional intent, case law, and the reorganization provisions. In addition, given the developments in the tax law described in Part D.3.c of this Background section of the preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that allowing a de minimis active business to satisfy the active business requirement is not necessary to reduce the burden of compliance with the active business requirement. Furthermore, requiring a minimum relative size for an active business is not inconsistent with the facts of Rev. Rul. 73-44 or with its conclusion. See Part D.3.d of this Background section of the preamble.

    b. Consistent With Congressional Intent, Case Law, and the Reorganization Provisions

    Allowing section 355(b) to be satisfied with an active business that is economically insignificant in relation to other assets of Distributing or Controlled is not consistent with the congressional purpose for adopting the active business requirement. It is generally understood that Congress intended section 355 to be used to separate businesses, not to separate inactive assets from a business. See S. Rep. No. 83-1622, at 50-51 (section 355 “contemplates that a tax-free separation shall involve only the separation of assets attributable to the carrying on of an active business” and does not permit “the tax free separation of an existing corporation into active and inactive entities”); see also Coady v. Commissioner, 33 T.C. 771, 777 (1960), aff'd, 289 F.2d 490 (6th Cir. 1961) (stating that a function of section 355(b) is “to prevent the tax-free separation of active and inactive assets into active and inactive corporate entities”) (emphasis in original); § 1.355-1(b) (“[s]ection 355 provides for the separation . . . of one or more existing businesses”). Additionally, when the active business of Distributing or Controlled is economically insignificant in relation to its other assets, it is unlikely that any non-federal tax purpose for separating that business from other businesses is a significant purpose for the distribution. See § 1.355-2(b)(1) (“Section 355 applies to a transaction only if it is carried out for one or more corporate business purposes. . . . The potential for the avoidance of Federal taxes by the distributing or controlled corporations. . . is relevant in determining the extent to which an existing corporate business purpose motivated the distribution.”).

    Further, as the Supreme Court held in Gregory, transactions are to be taxed in accordance with their substance. The reorganization regulations adopt the same principle. For example, § 1.368-1(b) provides that “[b]oth the terms of the specifications [of the reorganization provisions] and their underlying assumptions and purposes must be satisfied in order to entitle the taxpayer to the benefit of the exception from the general rule.” Additionally, § 1.368-1(c) provides that “[a] scheme, which involves an abrupt departure from normal reorganization procedure in connection with a transaction on which the imposition of tax is imminent, such as a mere device that puts on the form of a corporate reorganization as a disguise for concealing its real character, and the object and accomplishment of which is the consummation of a preconceived plan having no business or corporate purpose, is not a plan of reorganization.”

    Accordingly, when a corporation that owns only nonbusiness assets and a relatively de minimis active business is separated from a corporation with another active business, the substance of the transaction is not a separation of businesses as contemplated by section 355.

    c. Developments in the Tax Law Reduce the Burden of Complying With Section 355

    In the past, the active business requirement was more difficult to satisfy than it is today, in part because of the limited application of the holding company rule, discussed in Part C.5 of this Background section of the preamble. However, several developments in the tax law have occurred that make the active business requirement easier to satisfy and negate the historical need to reduce the administrative burden of complying with section 355(b).

    In the SAG Amendments, Congress amended section 355(b) to adopt the separate affiliated group rules of section 355(b)(3). Section 355(b)(3)(A) provides that, for purposes of determining whether a corporation meets the requirements of section 355(b)(2)(A), all members of the corporation's separate affiliated group (SAG) are treated as one corporation. Section 355(b)(3)(B) provides that a corporation's SAG is the affiliated group which would be determined under section 1504(a) if the corporation were the common parent and section 1504(b) did not apply.

    Additionally, as discussed in Part C.5 of this Background section of the preamble, section 355(b) now can be satisfied through the ownership of certain interests in a partnership that is engaged in an active business. See Rev. Rul. 2007-42 and Rev. Rul. 92-17. Similarly, § 301.7701-3 now allows an eligible entity to elect to be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner and permits a corporation to satisfy the active business requirement through a tax-free acquisition without having to assume liabilities relating to an active business. Finally, the expansion rules of § 1.355-3(b)(3)(ii) have been developed so that it is easier to acquire the assets of an active business in a taxable transaction while complying with section 355(b). See, e.g., Rev. Rul. 2003-18 (2003-1 CB 467) and Rev. Rul. 2003-38 (2003-1 CB 811) (both describing facts and circumstances to be considered in determining whether one trade or business is in the same line of business as another).

    d. Rev. Rul. 73-44

    Rev. Rul. 73-44 is sometimes cited in support of the proposition that a de minimis active business satisfies the section 355(b) requirement. However, Rev. Rul. 73-44 states only that there is no requirement in section 355(b) that a specific percentage of a corporation's assets be devoted to the active conduct of a trade or business, not that any size active business can satisfy section 355(b). In fact, the size of the active business in that ruling represented a substantial portion of Controlled's assets, although less than half of Controlled's value. Accordingly, Rev. Rul. 73-44 does not validate a section 355 distribution involving a de minimis active business, and the proposed regulations in this notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the minimum relative size of active businesses would not change the conclusion set forth in that revenue ruling. Nevertheless, the Treasury Department and the IRS intend to modify Rev. Rul. 73-44 with regard to the statement in the revenue ruling that there is no requirement that a specific percentage of a corporation's assets be devoted to the active conduct of a trade or business.

    4. General Utilities Repeal

    The Treasury Department and the IRS have observed, as noted in Notice 2015-59, that taxpayers may attempt to use section 355 distributions in ways that are inconsistent with the purpose of General Utilities repeal. Specifically, the Treasury Department and the IRS are concerned that certain taxpayers may be interpreting the current regulations under sections 337(d) and 355 in a manner allowing tax-free distributions motivated in whole or substantial part by a purpose of avoiding corporate-level taxation of built-in gain in investment or nonbusiness assets. See § 1.355-1(b) (“Section 355 provides for the separation . . . of one or more existing businesses formerly operated, directly or indirectly, by a single corporation . . . .”). The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to study whether permitting tax-free separations of large amounts of nonbusiness assets from business assets, especially when the gain in the nonbusiness assets is expected to be eliminated, is consistent with General Utilities repeal in all circumstances. Comments are welcome on potential additional guidance under section 337(d) addressing such transactions.

    Explanation of Provisions A. Modification of Device Regulations

    The proposed regulations would modify § 1.355-2(d), which addresses transactions that are or are not a device. The proposed regulations would modify the nature and use of assets device factor in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv), modify the corporate business purpose nondevice factor in § 1.355-2(d)(3)(ii), and add a per se device test.

    1. Nature and Use of Assets

    The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that device potential generally exists either if Distributing or Controlled owns a large percentage of assets not used in business operations compared to total assets or if Distributing's and Controlled's percentages of these assets differs substantially. A proposed change to the nature and use of assets device factor in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv) would focus on assets used in a Business (Business Assets) (each as defined in proposed § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B)) rather than assets used in an active business meeting the requirements of section 355(b) (a Five-Year-Active Business, as defined in proposed § 1.355-9(a)(2)). In general, Business would have the same meaning as a Five-Year-Active Business, but without regard to whether the business has been operated or owned for at least five years prior to the date of the distribution or whether the collection of income requirement in § 1.355-3(b)(2)(ii) is satisfied. Business Assets would be gross assets used in a Business, including reasonable amounts of cash and cash equivalents held for working capital and assets required to be held to provide for exigencies related to a Business or for regulatory purposes with respect to a Business. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the presence of Business Assets generally does not raise any more device concerns than the presence of assets used in a Five-Year-Active Business (Five-Year-Active-Business Assets). Thus, the proposed regulations would modify § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B) to take into account Business Assets, not just Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    Rev. Proc. 2015-43 (now incorporated into Rev. Proc. 2016-3 (2016-1 IRB 126)) and Notice 2015-59 focus on investment assets (using a modified section 355(g) definition) of a corporation as assets that may raise device concerns. However, after further study, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that investment assets as defined therein may include certain assets that do not raise device concerns, such as cash needed by a corporation for working capital, and may not include other assets that do raise device concerns, such as real estate not related to the taxpayer's Business. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that focusing on Nonbusiness Assets, as defined in the proposed regulations, is a better method of evaluating device or nondevice as compared to using investment assets as described in Rev. Proc. 2016-3 and Notice 2015-59. Thus, the proposed regulations would focus on Nonbusiness Assets rather than investment assets.

    The proposed regulations would provide thresholds for determining whether the ownership of Nonbusiness Assets (gross assets that are not Business Assets) and/or differences in the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages (the percentage of a corporation's Total Assets (its Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets) that are Nonbusiness Assets) for Distributing and Controlled are evidence of device. If neither Distributing nor Controlled has Nonbusiness Assets that comprise 20 percent or more of its Total Assets, the ownership of Nonbusiness Assets ordinarily would not be evidence of device. Additionally, a difference in the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages for Distributing and Controlled ordinarily would not be evidence of device if such difference is less than 10 percentage points or, in the case of a non-pro rata distribution, if the difference is attributable to a need to equalize the value of the Controlled stock and securities distributed and the consideration exchanged therefor by the distributees. Accordingly, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to treat such circumstances as ordinarily not constituting evidence of device.

    2. Corporate Business Purpose

    The Treasury Department and the IRS also propose to revise the nondevice factor in § 1.355-2(d)(3)(ii), which relates to corporate business purpose for a transaction as evidence of nondevice. Under the proposed revision, a corporate business purpose that relates to a separation of Nonbusiness Assets from one or more Businesses or from Business Assets would not be evidence of nondevice, unless the business purpose involves an exigency that requires an investment or other use of the Nonbusiness Assets in a Business. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that, absent such an exigency, such separations are not consistent with the intent of Congress to prevent section 355 from applying to a distribution that is used principally as a device.

    3. Per se Device Test

    The Treasury Department and the IRS also propose to add a per se device test to the device determination in proposed § 1.355-2(d)(5). Under proposed § 1.355-2(d)(5), if designated percentages of Distributing's and/or Controlled's Total Assets are Nonbusiness Assets, the transaction would be considered a device, notwithstanding the presence of any other nondevice factors, for example, a corporate business purpose or stock being publicly traded and widely held. By their nature, these transactions present such clear evidence of device that the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that the nondevice factors can never overcome the device potential. The only exceptions to this per se device rule would apply if the distribution is also described in § 1.355-2(d)(3)(iv) (distributions in which the corporate distributee would be entitled to a dividends received deduction under section 243(a) or 245(b)) or in redesignated § 1.355-2(d)(6) (§ 1.355-2(d)(5) of the current regulations, relating to transactions ordinarily not considered as a device).

    The per se device test would have two prongs, both of which must be met for the distribution to be treated as a per se device.

    The first prong would be if Distributing or Controlled has a Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of 662/3 percent or more. If 662/3 percent or more of the Total Assets of either corporation consist of Nonbusiness Assets, a strong device potential exists.

    The second prong of the test would compare the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of Distributing with that of Controlled. The comparison would be similar to the comparison, in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B) of the current regulations, between Distributing's ratio of assets not used in a Five-Year-Active Business to assets used in a Five-Year-Active Business and Controlled's ratio of such assets. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS recognize that valuation of assets may be difficult and that determining whether certain assets are Business Assets also may be difficult. Accordingly, rather than requiring Distributing and Controlled to make exact determinations of their Nonbusiness Asset Percentages, which would then be compared to the other corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage, the second prong of the per se device test would provide for three bands in making this comparison. These bands generally would provide for the comparison of the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages of Distributing and Controlled but require less precision in asset valuation.

    In the first band, if one corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 662/3 percent or more, but less than 80 percent, the distribution would fall within the band if the other corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is less than 30 percent. In the second band, if one corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 80 percent or more, but less than 90 percent, the distribution would fall within the band if the other corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is less than 40 percent. In the third band, if one corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 90 percent or more, the distribution would fall within the band if the other corporation's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is less than 50 percent. All of these bands represent cases in which the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages of Distributing and Controlled are significantly different.

    If both prongs of the per se device test are met, that is, if the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage for either Distributing or Controlled is 662/3 percent or more and the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages of Distributing and Controlled fall within one of the three bands, the distribution would be a per se device. Otherwise, the general facts-and-circumstances test of § 1.355-2(d), as modified by these proposed regulations, would apply to determine if the transaction was a device.

    4. Certain Operating Rules

    In making the determination of which assets of a corporation are Business Assets and which are Nonbusiness Assets, if Distributing or Controlled owns a partnership interest or stock in another corporation, the proposed regulations would provide four operating rules.

    First, all members of a SAG with respect to which Controlled is the common parent (CSAG) and all members of a SAG with respect to which Distributing is the common parent excluding Controlled and its SAG (DSAG) would be treated as a single corporation. Thus, any stock owned by one member of a SAG in another member of the same SAG and any intercompany obligations between the same SAG members would be disregarded.

    Second, a partnership interest would generally be considered a Nonbusiness Asset. However, if, by reason of a corporation's ownership interest or its ownership interest and participation in management of the partnership, the corporation is considered to be engaged in the Business conducted by such partnership (based on the criteria that would be used to determine whether such corporation is considered to be engaged in the Five-Year-Active Business of such partnership under Rev. Ruls. 92-17, 2002-49, and 2007-42), the fair market value of the partnership interest would be allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of the Business Assets and the Nonbusiness Assets of the partnership.

    Third, a rule similar to the partnership interest rule would apply for corporate stock owned by Distributing or Controlled. That is, stock in a corporation, other than a member of the DSAG or the CSAG, would generally be a Nonbusiness Asset. However, there would be an exception for stock in a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group. For this purpose, a 50-Percent-Owned Group would have the same meaning as SAG, except substituting “50-percent” for “80-percent,” and a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group would be a corporation that would be a member of a DSAG or CSAG, with such substitution. If a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group with respect to Distributing or Controlled owns stock in another Member of such 50-Percent-Owned Group (other than a member of the DSAG or the CSAG, respectively), the fair market value of such stock would be allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of the Business Assets and the Nonbusiness Assets of the issuing corporation.

    Fourth, the proposed regulations would provide for adjustments to prevent distortion if Distributing or Controlled owes money to or is owed money by a partnership or Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group.

    The partnership rules and the 50-Percent-Owned Group rules are designed to recognize that ownership of a partnership interest or stock in a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group may reflect an investment in Business Assets, Nonbusiness Assets, or both, while minimizing the significance of changes in the form of ownership of Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets.

    5. Multiple Controlleds

    If a transaction involves distributions by Distributing of the stock of more than one Controlled, proposed §§ 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv) and 1.355-2(d)(5) would apply to all such Controlleds. To the extent any rule would require a comparison between characteristics of Distributing and Controlled, there would have to be a comparison between Distributing and each Controlled and between each Controlled and each other Controlled. If any comparison under proposed § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv) or § 1.355-2(d)(5) would result in a determination that a distribution is a device, then all distributions involved in the transaction would be considered a device.

    B. Minimum Size for Active Business

    Section 355(b) does not literally provide a minimum absolute or relative size requirement for an active business to qualify under section 355(b). Nevertheless, as discussed in Part D.3 of the Background section of the preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that Congress intended that section 355(b) would require that distributions have substance and that a distribution involving only a relatively de minimis active business should not qualify under section 355 because such a distribution is not a separation of businesses as contemplated by section 355.

    To ensure that congressional intent is satisfied and to reduce uncertainty, the Treasury Department and the IRS propose to add new § 1.355-9. This section would provide that, for the requirements of section 355(a)(1)(C) and (b) to be satisfied with respect to a distribution, the Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage (the percentage determined by dividing the fair market value of a corporation's Five-Year-Active-Business Assets by the fair market value of its Total Assets) of each of Controlled (or the CSAG) and Distributing (or the DSAG excluding Controlled and other CSAG members) must be at least five percent. Similar to the proposed definition of Business Assets, Five-Year-Active-Business Assets would include reasonable amounts of cash and cash equivalents held for working capital and assets required to be held to provide for exigencies related to a Five-Year-Active Business or for regulatory purposes with respect to a Five-Year-Active Business.

    In making the determination of the percentage of a corporation's assets that are Five-Year-Active-Business Assets, if a corporation is considered to be engaged in a Five-Year-Active Business of a partnership, the fair market value of the partnership interest would be allocated between Five-Year-Active-Business Assets and Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets (assets other than Five-Year-Active-Business Assets) in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of Five-Year-Active-Business Assets and Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets of the partnership.

    Except in the case of a member of its SAG, neither Distributing nor Controlled would be considered to be engaged in the Five-Year-Active Business of a corporation in which it owns stock. Accordingly, such stock in a corporation would be considered a Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Asset. Although the proposed regulations relating to the device prohibition would provide an allocation rule for assets held by a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group, discussed in Part A.4 of this Explanation of Provisions section of the preamble, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe the SAG Amendments, discussed in Parts C.5 and D.3.c of the Background section of the preamble, limit the ability to take into account assets held by subsidiaries for purposes of the active business requirement. Accordingly, proposed § 1.355-9 would not provide a similar allocation rule for stock owned by Distributing or Controlled.

    The commenter stated that the regulations should not provide a minimum size requirement for an active business in any distribution and that such a requirement could be especially problematic in intra-group distributions in preparation for a distribution outside of a group. Internal distributions often are necessary to align the proper assets within Distributing and Controlled prior to a distribution of the stock of Controlled outside the group. If a minimum size requirement is imposed on each of these internal distributions, taxpayers may have to undertake movements of active businesses within groups to meet the minimum size requirement for each internal distribution.

    In enacting the SAG Amendments, Congress did not provide an exception to the requirements of section 355(b) for internal distributions that are preparatory to external distributions, although Congress permitted Distributing and Controlled to rely on active businesses held by members of their respective SAGs, even if such assets were distributed or sold within the SAG in a taxable transaction. Under the commenter's rationale, the regulations should not only permit an internal distribution with a de minimis active business, but could also permit tax-free treatment for taxable distributions or sales of assets within the SAG if such assets need to be moved in preparation of the external distribution. The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that each distribution must meet all the requirements of section 355, including the requirement that Distributing and each Controlled conduct an active business immediately after the distribution. Accordingly, the proposed regulations would provide a five-percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage requirement for all distributions.

    C. Timing of Asset Identification, Characterization, and Valuation

    For purposes of determining whether a transaction would be considered a device and whether one or more Five-Year-Active Businesses would meet the five-percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage requirement of proposed § 1.355-9, the assets held by Distributing and by Controlled must be identified, and their character and fair market value must be determined. The assets under consideration would be the assets held by Distributing and by Controlled immediately after the distribution. Thus, for example, the stock of Controlled that is distributed would not be an asset of Distributing for this purpose. The character of the assets held by Distributing and by Controlled, as Business Assets or Nonbusiness Assets or as Five-Year-Active-Business Assets or Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets, also would be the character as determined immediately after the distribution.

    The proposed regulations would provide, however, that the fair market value of assets would be determined, at the election of the parties on a consistent basis, either (a) immediately before the distribution, (b) on any date within the 60-day period before the distribution, (c) on the date of an agreement with respect to the distribution that was binding on Distributing on such date and at all times thereafter, or (d) on the date of a public announcement or filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the distribution. The parties would be required to make consistent determinations between themselves, and use the same date, for purposes of applying the device rules of proposed § 1.355-2(d) and the five-percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage requirement of proposed § 1.355-9. If the parties do not meet these consistency requirements, the valuation would be determined as of immediately before the distribution unless the Commissioner determines that the use of such date is inconsistent with the purposes of section 355 and the regulations thereunder.

    D. Anti-Abuse Rules

    The proposed regulations would also provide anti-abuse rules. Under the anti-abuse rules, a transaction or series of transactions (such as a change in the form of ownership of an asset; an issuance, assumption or repayment of indebtedness; or an issuance or redemption of stock) would not be given effect if undertaken with a principal purpose of affecting the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of any corporation in order to avoid a determination that a distribution was a device or affecting the Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage of any corporation in order to avoid a determination that a distribution does not meet the requirements of § 1.355-9. The transactions covered by the anti-abuse rules generally would not include an acquisition or disposition of assets, other than an acquisition from or disposition to a person the ownership of whose stock would, under section 318(a) (other than paragraph (4) thereof), be attributed to Distributing or Controlled, or a transfer of assets between Distributing and Controlled. However, such transactions would not be given effect if they are transitory, for example, if Distributing contributes cash to Controlled and retains some of the stock of Controlled or Controlled debt instruments, and there is a plan or intention for Controlled to return the cash to Distributing in redemption of the stock or repayment of the debt.

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

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

    Effect on Other Documents

    Section 3 of Notice 2015-59 is obsolete as of July 15, 2016. The IRS will modify Rev. Rul. 73-44, as of the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register, as necessary to conform to § 1.355-9 of these proposed regulations. The IRS solicits comments as to whether other publications should be modified, clarified, or obsoleted.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, 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. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these proposed regulations. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6), it is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on the fact that these regulations primarily affect larger corporations operating more than one business and with a substantial number of shareholders. Thus, these regulations are not expected to affect a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations will be submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS as prescribed in this preamble under the ADDRESSES heading. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations, including—

    1. Whether there should be any exceptions to the application of proposed § 1.355-9.

    2. Whether additional exceptions should be incorporated into the per se device rule in proposed § 1.355-2(d)(5).

    3. The scope of the safe harbors relating to presence of Nonbusiness Assets as evidence of device under proposed § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(C)(1) and (2) and whether additional safe harbors should be added to proposed § 1.355-2(d).

    4. Whether the definition of Business Assets in proposed § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B)(2) should be revised, for example, to include additional categories of assets or to include cash or cash equivalents expected to be used for other categories of expenditures.

    5. Whether the operating rules applicable to proposed § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(6) through (8) concerning the allocation of the value of a partnership interest between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets to its partners, the allocation of the value of the stock of a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets to its shareholders, and certain borrowings should be modified, including whether the partnership rule should allocate an allocable share of the partnership's gross assets to its partners, whether different allocation rules should be used for partnership interests with different characteristics(for example, limited liability vs. non-limited liability), and whether the rules relating to borrowing between a partnership and a partner or between a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group and a shareholder should be made more specific.

    6. Whether the anti-abuse rules in the proposed regulations pertaining to device and the five-percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Assets requirement should be revised, for example, to include or exclude additional transactions or to include a reference to acquisitions of assets by Distributing or Controlled on behalf of shareholders.

    7. Whether the absence of any device factor, for example, a small difference in Nonbusiness Asset Percentages for Distributing and Controlled, should be considered a nondevice factor.

    All comments will be available at www.regulations.gov or upon request.

    A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written or electronic comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal authors of these proposed regulations are Stephanie D. Floyd and Russell P. Subin of the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate). Other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

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

    PART 1—INCOME TAXES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read in part as follows: Authority:

    6 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.355-0 is amended by: 1. Removing from the introductory text “1.355-7” and adding “1.355-9” in its place. 2. Revising the entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B). 3. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), and (7). 4. Redesignating the entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(C) as the entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(F). 5. Adding a new entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(C). 6. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(C)(1), (2), and (3). 7. Adding an entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D). 8. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(1), (2), (3), and (4). 9. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(4)(i) and (ii). 10. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(5) and (6). 11. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(6)(i) and (ii). 12. Adding an entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(7). 13. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(7)(i) and (ii). 14. Adding an entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(8). 15. Adding an entry for § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(E). 16. Redesignating the entry for § 1.355-2(d)(5) as the entry for § 1.355-2(d)(6). 17. Adding a new entry for § 1.355-2(d)(5). 18. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(d)(5)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv). 19. Adding entries for § 1.355-2(i)(1), (i)(1)(i) and (ii), and (i)(2). 20. Adding an entry for § 1.355-8. 21. Adding entries for § 1.355-9.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.355-0 Outline of sections. § 1.355-2 Limitations.

    (d) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    (B) Definitions.

    (1) Business.

    (2) Business Assets.

    (3) Nonbusiness Assets.

    (4) Total Assets.

    (5) Nonbusiness Asset Percentage.

    (6) Separate Affiliated Group, SAG, CSAG, and DSAG.

    (7) 50-Percent-Owned Group, Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group.

    (C) Presence of Nonbusiness Assets as evidence of device.

    (1) Ownership of Nonbusiness Assets.

    (2) Difference between Nonbusiness Asset Percentages.

    (3) Cross-reference.

    (D) Operating rules.

    (1) Multiple controlled corporations.

    (2) Treatment of SAG as a single corporation.

    (3) Time to identify assets and determine character of assets.

    (4) Time to determine fair market value of assets.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Consistency.

    (5) Fair market value.

    (6) Interest in partnership.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Exception for certain interests in partnerships.

    (7) Stock in corporation.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Exception for stock in Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group.

    (8) Obligation between distributing corporation or controlled corporation and certain partnerships or Members of 50-Percent-Owned Groups.

    (E) Anti-abuse rule.

    (5) Distributions involving separation of Business Assets from Nonbusiness Assets.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Definitions and operating rules.

    (iii) Certain distributions involving separation of Nonbusiness Assets from Business Assets.

    (iv) Anti-abuse rule.

    (i) * * *

    (1) Paragraph (d) of this section.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Transition rule.

    (2) Paragraph (g) of this section.

    § 1.355-8 Reserved. § 1.355-9 Minimum percentage of Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (a) Definitions.

    (1) Distributing, Controlled.

    (2) Five-Year-Active Business.

    (3) Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (4) Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (5) Total Assets.

    (6) Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage.

    (7) Separate Affiliated Group, CSAG, and DSAG.

    (b) Five percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage.

    (c) Operating rules.

    (1) Treatment of SAG and fair market value.

    (2) Time to identify assets, determine character of assets, and determine fair market value of assets.

    (3) Interest in partnership.

    (i) In general.

    (ii) Exception for certain interests in partnerships.

    (d) Anti-abuse rule.

    (e) Effective/applicability date.

    (1) In general.

    (2) Transition rule.

    Par. 3. Section 1.355-2 is amended by: 1. Adding the language “federal” before the language “tax avoidance” in the second sentence of paragraph (d)(1). 2. Removing the last sentence of paragraph (d)(1) and adding two sentences at the end of the paragraph. 3. Revising paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(A) and (B). 4. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(C) as (d)(2)(iv)(F). 5. Adding new paragraphs (d)(2)(iv)(C), (D), and (E). 6. Revising paragraph (d)(3)(ii). 7. Removing from paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) the language “the business” and adding the language “one or more Businesses (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(1) of this section) of the distributing corporation, the controlled corporation, or both” in its place. 8. Revising paragraph (d)(4). 9. Redesignating paragraph (d)(5) as (d)(6). 10. Adding a new paragraph (d)(5). 11. Revising newly designated paragraph (d)(6)(i). 12. Removing from newly designated paragraph (d)(6)(v) the language “subparagraph (5)” and adding the language “paragraph (d)(6)” in its place. 13. Removing from the last sentence of newly designated paragraph (d)(6)(v) Example 1 the language “(d)(5)(i)” and adding the language “(d)(6)(i)” in its place. 14. Removing from the sixth sentence of newly designated paragraph (d)(6)(v) Example 2 the language “(d)(5)(i)” and adding the language “(d)(6)(i)” in its place. 15. Removing from the last sentence of newly designated paragraph (d)(6)(v) Example 2 the language “made from all the facts” and adding the language “made from either the presence of a separation of Business Assets from Nonbusiness Assets as described in paragraph (d)(5) of this section or from all the facts” in its place. 16. Adding to paragraph (h) the language “and § 1.355-9 (relating to Minimum Percentage of Five-Year-Active-Business Assets)” immediately before the language “are satisfied”. 17. Revising paragraph (i).

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    § 1.355-2 Limitations.

    (d) * * *

    (1) * * * However, if a transaction is specified in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section, then it is considered to have been used principally as a device unless it is also specified in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section or paragraph (d)(6) of this section. If a transaction is specified in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, then it is ordinarily considered not to have been used principally as a device.

    (2) * * *

    (iv) * * * (A) In general. The determination of whether a transaction was used principally as a device will take into account the nature, kind, amount, and use of the assets of the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation.

    (B) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iv):

    (1) Business. Business means the active conduct of a trade or business, within the meaning of section 355(b) and § 1.355-3, without regard to—

    (i) The requirements of section 355(b)(2)(B), (C), and (D), and § 1.355-3(b)(3) and (4) (relating to active conduct throughout the five-year period preceding a distribution and acquisitions during such period);

    (ii) The collection of income requirement in § 1.355-3(b)(2)(ii); and

    (iii) The requirement of § 1.355-9 (relating to Minimum Percentage of Five-Year-Active-Business Assets (as defined in § 1.355-9(a)(3))).

    (2) Business Assets. Business Assets of a corporation means its gross assets used in one or more Businesses. Such assets include cash and cash equivalents held as a reasonable amount of working capital for one or more Businesses. Such assets also include assets required (by binding commitment or legal requirement) to be held to provide for exigencies related to a Business or for regulatory purposes with respect to a Business. For this purpose, such assets include assets the holder is required (by binding commitment or legal requirement) to hold to secure or otherwise provide for a financial obligation reasonably expected to arise from a Business and assets held to implement a binding commitment to expend funds to expand or improve a Business.

    (3) Nonbusiness Assets. Nonbusiness Assets of a corporation means its gross assets other than its Business Assets.

    (4) Total Assets. Total Assets of a corporation means its Business Assets and its Nonbusiness Assets.

    (5) Nonbusiness Asset Percentage. The Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of a corporation is the percentage determined by dividing the fair market value of its Nonbusiness Assets by the fair market value of its Total Assets.

    (6) Separate Affiliated Group, SAG, CSAG, and DSAG. Separate Affiliated Group (or SAG) means a separate affiliated group as defined in section 355(b)(3)(B), CSAG means a SAG with respect to which a controlled corporation is the common parent, and DSAG means a SAG with respect to which a distributing corporation is the common parent, excluding the controlled corporation and any other members of the CSAG.

    (7) 50-Percent-Owned Group, Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group. 50-Percent-Owned Group has the same meaning as SAG, except that “50-percent” is substituted for “80-percent” each place it appears in section 1504(a)(2), for purposes of section 355(b)(3)(B). A Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group is a corporation that would be a member of a DSAG or a CSAG, with the substitution provided in this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(7).

    (C) Presence of Nonbusiness Assets as evidence of device—(1) Ownership of Nonbusiness Assets. Ownership of Nonbusiness Assets by the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is evidence of device. The strength of the evidence will be based on all the facts and circumstances, including the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage for each corporation. The larger the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of either corporation, the stronger is the evidence of device. Ownership of Nonbusiness Assets ordinarily is not evidence of device if the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of each of the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation is less than 20 percent.

    (2) Difference between Nonbusiness Asset Percentages. A difference between the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the distributing corporation and the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the controlled corporation is evidence of device, and the larger the difference, the stronger is the evidence of device. Such a difference ordinarily is not itself evidence of device (but may be considered in determining the presence or the strength of other device factors) if—

    (i) The difference is less than 10 percentage points; or

    (ii) The distribution is not pro rata among the shareholders of the distributing corporation, and the difference is attributable to a need to equalize the value of the controlled stock and securities (if any) distributed and the value of the distributing stock and securities (if any) exchanged therefor by the distributees.

    (3) Cross-reference. See paragraph (d)(5) of this section for a rule under which a distribution is considered to have been used principally as a device when the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation has a large Nonbusiness Asset Percentage and there is a large difference between Nonbusiness Asset Percentages of the two corporations.

    (D) Operating rules. The following operating rules apply for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iv):

    (1) Multiple controlled corporations. If a transaction involves distributions by a distributing corporation of the stock of more than one controlled corporation, this paragraph (d)(2)(iv) applies to all such controlled corporations. If any provision in this paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires a comparison between characteristics of the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation, the provision also requires such a comparison between the distributing corporation and each of the controlled corporations and between each controlled corporation and each other controlled corporation. If any distribution involved in the transaction is determined to have been used principally as a device by reason of this paragraph (d)(2)(iv), all distributions involved in the transaction are considered to have been used principally as a device.

    (2) Treatment of SAG as a single corporation. The members of a DSAG are treated as a single corporation, the members of a CSAG are treated as a single corporation, references to the distributing corporation include all members of the DSAG, and references to the controlled corporation include all members of the CSAG.

    (3) Time to identify assets and determine character of assets. The assets of the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation that are relevant in connection with this paragraph (d)(2)(iv), and the character of these assets as Business Assets or Nonbusiness Assets, must be determined by the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation immediately after the distribution. Accordingly, for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iv), the assets of the distributing corporation do not include any asset, including stock of the controlled corporation, that is distributed in the transaction.

    (4) Time to determine fair market value of assets—(i) In general. The distributing corporation and the controlled corporation each must determine the fair market value of its assets at the time of the distribution as of one of the following dates: Immediately before the distribution; on any date within the 60-day period before the distribution; on the date of an agreement with respect to the distribution that was binding on the distributing corporation on such date and at all times thereafter; or on the date of a public announcement or filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to the distribution.

    (ii) Consistency. The distributing corporation and the controlled corporation must make the determinations described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(4)(i) of this section in a manner consistent with each other and as of the same date for purposes of this paragraph (d)(2)(iv), paragraph (d)(5) of this section, and § 1.355-9. If these consistency requirements are not met, the fair market value of assets will be determined immediately before the distribution for purposes of all such provisions, unless the Commissioner determines that the use of such date is inconsistent with the purposes of section 355 and the regulations thereunder.

    (5) Fair market value. The fair market value of an asset is determined under general federal tax principles but reduced (but not below the adjusted basis of the asset) by the amount of any liability that is described in section 357(c)(3) (relating to exclusion of certain liabilities, including liabilities the payment of which would give rise to a deduction, from the amount of liabilities assumed in certain exchanges) and relates to the asset (or to a Business with which the asset is associated). Any other liability is disregarded for purposes of determining the fair market value of an asset.

    (6) Interest in partnership—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(6)(ii) of this section, an interest in a partnership is a Nonbusiness Asset.

    (ii) Exception for certain interests in partnerships. A distributing corporation or controlled corporation may be considered to be engaged in one or more Businesses conducted by a partnership. This determination will be made using the same criteria that would be used to determine for purposes of section 355(b) and § 1.355-3 whether the corporation is considered to be engaged in the active conduct of a trade or business conducted by the partnership (relating to the corporation's ownership interest or to its ownership interest and participation in management of the partnership). If a distributing corporation or controlled corporation is considered to be engaged in one or more Businesses conducted by a partnership, the fair market value of the corporation's interest in the partnership will be allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of the Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets of the partnership.

    (7) Stock in corporation—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(7)(ii) of this section, stock in a corporation other than a member of the DSAG or the CSAG is a Nonbusiness Asset.

    (ii) Exception for stock in Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group. If a Member of a 50-Percent-Owned Group with respect to the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation owns stock in another Member of the 50-Percent-Owned Group (other than a member of the DSAG or the CSAG, respectively), the fair market value of such stock will be allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of the Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets of the issuing corporation. This computation will be made with respect to lower-tier Members of the 50-Percent-Owned Group before the computations with respect to higher-tier members.

    (8) Obligation between distributing corporation or controlled corporation and certain partnerships or Members of 50-Percent-Owned Groups. If an obligation of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is held by a partnership described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(6)(ii) of this section or by a Member of its 50-Percent-Owned Group, or if an obligation of a partnership described in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(6)(ii) of this section or of a Member of its 50-Percent-Owned Group, with respect to the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, is held by the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, proper adjustments will be made to prevent double inclusion of assets or inappropriate allocation between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation on account of such obligation. See Examples 6 and 7 of paragraph (d)(4) of this section.

    (E) Anti-abuse rule. A transaction or series of transactions undertaken with a principal purpose of affecting the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of any corporation will not be given effect for purposes of applying this paragraph (d)(2)(iv). For this purpose, a transaction or series of transactions includes a change in the form of ownership of an asset; an issuance, assumption, or repayment of indebtedness or other obligations; or an issuance or redemption of stock. However, this paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(E) generally does not apply to a non-transitory acquisition or disposition of assets, other than an acquisition from or disposition to a person the ownership of whose stock would, under section 318(a) (other than paragraph (4) thereof), be attributed to the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation, or to a non-transitory transfer of assets between the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation.

    (3) * * *

    (ii) Corporate business purpose. A corporate business purpose for the transaction is evidence of nondevice. The stronger the evidence of device (such as the presence of the device factors specified in paragraph (d)(2) of this section), the stronger the corporate business purpose must be to prevent the determination that the transaction is being used principally as a device. Evidence of device presented by ownership of Nonbusiness Assets (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(3) of this section) can be outweighed by the existence of a corporate business purpose for the ownership. Evidence of device presented by a difference between the Nonbusiness Asset Percentages (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(5) of this section) of the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation can be outweighed by the existence of a corporate business purpose for the difference. A corporate business purpose that relates to a separation of Nonbusiness Assets from one or more Businesses or Business Assets (as defined in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section) is not evidence of nondevice unless the business purpose involves an exigency that requires an investment or other use of the Nonbusiness Assets in one or more Businesses of the distributing corporation, the controlled corporation, or both. The assessment of the strength of a corporate business purpose will be based on all of the facts and circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following factors:

    (4) Examples. The provisions of paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section may be illustrated by the following examples. For purposes of these examples, A and B are individuals; P is a partnership; D and C are the distributing corporation and the controlled corporation, respectively; D and C each has no assets other than those described; there is no other evidence of device or nondevice other than as described; D has accumulated earnings and profits; and D distributes the stock of C in a distribution which, but for the issue of whether the transaction has been used principally as a device, satisfies the requirements of section 355(a).

    Example 1.

    Sale after distribution (device). A owns all of the stock of D, which is engaged in the warehousing business. D owns all of the stock of C, which is engaged in the transportation business. All of D's and C's assets are Business Assets. D employs B, who is extremely knowledgeable of the warehousing business in general and the operations of D in particular. B has informed A that he will seriously consider leaving D if he is not given the opportunity to purchase a significant amount of stock of D. Because of his knowledge and experience, the loss of B would seriously damage the business of D. B cannot afford to purchase any significant amount of stock of D as long as D owns C. Accordingly, D distributes the stock of C to A and A subsequently sells a portion of his D stock to B. However, instead of A selling a portion of the D stock, D could have issued additional shares to B after the distribution. In light of the fact that D could have issued additional shares to B, the sale of D stock by A is substantial evidence of device. The transaction is considered to have been used principally as a device. See paragraph (d)(1), (2)(i), (ii), and (iii)(A), (B), and (D), and (3)(i) and (ii) of this section.

    Example 2.

    Disproportionate division of Nonbusiness Assets (device)—(i) Facts. D owns and operates a fast food restaurant in State M and owns all of the stock of C, which owns and operates a fast food restaurant in State N. The value of the Business Assets of D's and C's fast food restaurants are $100 and $105, respectively. D also has $195 cash which D holds as a Nonbusiness Asset. D and C operate their businesses under franchises granted by competing businesses F and G, respectively. G has recently changed its franchise policy and will no longer grant or renew franchises to subsidiaries or other members of the same affiliated group of corporations operating businesses under franchises granted by its competitors. Thus, C will lose its franchise if it remains a subsidiary of D. The franchise is about to expire. The lease for the State M location will expire in 24 months, and D will be forced to relocate at that time. While D has not made any plans, it is weighing its option to purchase a building for the relocation. D contributes $45 to C, which C will retain, and distributes the stock of C pro rata among D's shareholders.

    (ii) Analysis. After the distribution, D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 60 percent ($150/$250), and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 30 percent ($45/$150). D's and C's ownership of Nonbusiness Assets of at least 20 percent of their respective Total Assets is evidence of device with respect to each. The difference between D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 30 percentage points, which is also evidence of device. The corporate business purpose for the distribution does not relate to a separation of Nonbusiness Assets from one or more Businesses or Business Assets and is evidence of nondevice. However, D has no corporate business purpose for the difference of Nonbusiness Asset Percentages. While D is considering purchasing a building for use in the State M location, this purchase is not required by any exigency. The fact that the distribution is pro rata is also evidence of device. Based on all the facts and circumstances, the transaction is considered to have been used principally as a device. See paragraph (d)(1), (2)(i), (ii), (iv)(A) and (C), and (3)(i) and (ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.

    Example 3.

    Proportionate division of Nonbusiness Assets (nondevice). The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that D contributes $95 of the cash to C instead of $45. After the distribution, D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 50 percent ($100/$200) and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 47.5 percent ($95/$200), each of which is evidence of device. The difference between D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage (2.5 percentage points) is less than 10 percentage points and thus is not evidence of device. The corporate business purpose for the distribution is evidence of nondevice. Based on all the facts and circumstances, the transaction is considered not to have been used principally as a device. See paragraph (d)(1), (2)(i), (ii), (iv)(A) and (C), and (3)(i) and (ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.

    Example 4.

    Disproportionate division of Nonbusiness Assets (nondevice). The facts are the same as in Example 2, except that the lease for the State M location will expire in 6 months instead of 24 months, and D will use $80 of the $150 cash it retains to purchase a nearby building for the relocation. After the distribution, D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 60 percent, and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 30 percent. D's and C's ownership of Nonbusiness Assets of at least 20 percent of their respective Total Assets is evidence of device with respect to each. The difference between D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage and C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 30 percentage points, which is also evidence of device. However, D has a corporate business purpose for a significant part of the difference of Nonbusiness Asset Percentages because D's use of $80 is required by business exigencies. The fact that the distribution is pro rata is also evidence of device. The corporate business purpose for the distribution is evidence of nondevice. Based on all the facts and circumstances, the transaction is not considered to have been used principally as a device. See paragraph (d)(1), (2)(i), (ii), (iv)(A) and (C), and (3)(i) and (ii)(A), (B), and (C) of this section.

    Example 5.

    Nonbusiness Asset Percentage (50-Percent-Owned Group)—(i) Facts. C's assets consist of 50% of the stock of S1 and other assets consisting of $10,000 of Business Assets and $5,000 of Nonbusiness Assets. S1's assets consist of 40% of the stock of S2, 60% of the stock of S3 and other assets consisting of $1,000 of Business Assets and $500 of Nonbusiness Assets. S1 has $500 of liabilities, owed to unrelated persons. S2's assets consist of $500 Business Assets and $100 Nonbusiness Assets. S2 has $200 of liabilities. S3's assets consist of $3,000 Business Assets and $1,500 Nonbusiness Assets. S3 has $3,500 of liabilities, owed to unrelated persons.

    (ii) Determination of S1's Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets. Because C owns at least 50% of the stock of S1, S1 is a member of C's 50-Percent-Owned Group. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(7) of this section. In determining the amount of C's Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets, whether S1's stock in S2 and S3 are Nonbusiness Assets or partially Nonbusiness Assets and partially Business Assets must first be determined. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(7)(ii) of this section (computations are made with respect to lower-tier Members of a 50-Percent-Owned Group before the computations with respect to higher-tier members). The fair market value of S1's stock in S2 is $160 (40% of $400 ($500 + $100 − $200)). Because S1 owns less than 50% of the stock of S2, S2 is not a member of C's 50-Percent-Owned Group, and thus the S2 stock is a $160 Nonbusiness Asset in the hands of S1. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(7) and (D)(7)(i) of this section. The fair market value of S1's stock in S3 is $600 (60% of $1,000 ($3,000 + $1,500 − $3,500)). Because C owns at least 50% of the stock of S1 and S1 owns at least 50% of the stock of S3, S3 is a member of C's 50-Percent-Owned Group. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(7) of this section. Thus, the fair market value of the S3 stock is allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as S3's proportion of Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(7)(ii) of this section. Because S3 has Business Assets of $3,000 and Nonbusiness Assets of $1,500, this proportion is 662/3% Business Assets ($3,000/$4,500) and 331/3% Nonbusiness Assets ($1,500/$4,500). The $600 fair market value of S1's stock in S3 is allocated $400 to Business Assets ($600 × 662/3%) and $200 to Nonbusiness Assets ($600 × 331/3%). Thus, S1's assets consist of $1,400 of Business Assets ($1,000 held directly + $400 allocated from S3) and $860 of Nonbusiness Assets ($500 held directly + $160 fair market value of its S2 stock + $200 allocated from S3).

    (iii) Determination of C's Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets. The fair market value of C's stock in S1 is $880 (50% of $1,760 ($160 + $600 + $1,000 + $500 − $500)). Because C owns at least 50% of the stock of S1, S1 is a member of C's 50-Percent-Owned Group. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B)(7) of this section. Thus, the fair market value of the S1 stock is allocated between Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of S1's Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets. See paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(7)(ii) of this section. Because S1 has Business Assets of $1,400 and Nonbusiness Assets of $860, this proportion is 61.95% Business Assets ($1,400/$2,260) and 38.05% Nonbusiness Assets ($860/$2,260). The $880 fair market value of C's S1 stock is allocated $545 to Business Assets ($880 × 61.95%) and $335 to Nonbusiness Assets ($880 × 38.05%). Thus, C's assets consist of $10,545 of Business Assets ($10,000 + $545) and $5,335 of Nonbusiness Assets ($5,000 + $335), for Total Assets of $15,880. C's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 33.6% ($5,335/$15,880).

    Example 6.

    Partnership interest held by Distributing. (i) Facts. D has directly-held Business Assets of $1,000, directly held Nonbusiness Assets of $2,000, and a 40% partnership interest in P. P has $450 of Business Assets and $1,350 of cash, which P holds as a Nonbusiness Asset, and owes a liability of $800.

    (ii) Analysis. Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(6)(ii) of this section, D is allocated $100 of Business Assets from P ($400 (value of D's 40% interest in P) × 25% ($450/$1,800)) and $300 of Nonbusiness Assets from P ($400 (value of D's 40% interest in P) × 75% ($1,350/$1,800)), which are added to D's directly held Business Assets and Nonbusiness Assets, respectively. D's Nonbusiness Asset Percentage is 67.6% ($2,300 Nonbusiness Assets/$3,400 Total Assets).

    Example 7.

    Borrowing by Distributing from partnership. (i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 6, except that D borrows $500 from P and invests the proceeds in a Nonbusiness Asset. P's directly-held Nonbusiness Assets increase by $500. The D obligation is a Nonbusiness Asset in P's hands.

    (ii) Analysis. D's directly-held Nonbusiness Assets increase by $500, to $2,500. There is no corresponding decrease in the amount of Business Assets or Nonbusiness Assets allocated to D from P, because a Nonbusiness Asset of P ($500 cash) has been replaced by another $500 Nonbusiness Asset, the obligation from D. Effectively, because D has a 40% interest in P, D has borrowed $200 (40% of $500) from itself. Accordingly, D's Nonbusiness Assets must be decreased by $200. D's Business Assets will continue to be $1,100 ($1,000 directly held plus $100 allocated from P), and D's Nonbusiness Assets will be $2,600 ($2,500 directly held, plus $300 allocated from P less the $200 decrease to prevent double inclusion of the obligation and the obligation proceeds).

    (5) Distributions involving separation of Business Assets from Nonbusiness Assets—(i) In general. A distribution specified in paragraph (d)(5)(iii) of this section is considered to have been used principally as a device, notwithstanding the presence of nondevice factors described in paragraph (d)(3) of this section or other facts and circumstances. However, this paragraph (d)(5)(i) does not apply to a distribution that is described in paragraph (d)(3)(iv) of this section (distributions to domestic corporations entitled to certain dividends received deductions absent application of section 355(a)) or paragraph (d)(6) of this section (transactions ordinarily not considered to be a device).

    (ii) Definitions and operating rules. The definitions in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(B) of this section and the operating rules in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D) of this section apply for purposes of this paragraph (d)(5). For purposes of paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(D)(1), (2), and (3), references to paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section are treated as references to this paragraph (d)(5).

    (iii) Certain distributions involving separation of Nonbusiness Assets from Business Assets. A distribution is specified in this paragraph (d)(5)(iii) if both—

    (A) The Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is 662/3 percent or more, and

    (B) If the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the distributing corporation or the controlled corporation is—

    (1) 662/3 percent or more but less than 80 percent, and the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the other corporation (the controlled corporation or the distributing corporation, as the case may be) is less than 30 percent;

    (2) 80 percent or more but less than 90 percent, and the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the other corporation (the controlled corporation or the distributing corporation, as the case may be) is less than 40 percent; or

    (3) 90 percent or more, and the Nonbusiness Asset Percentage of the other corporation (the controlled corporation or the distributing corporation, as the case may be) is less than 50 percent.

    (iv) Anti-abuse rule. The anti-abuse rule in paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(E) of this section applies for purposes of this paragraph (d)(5), with references to paragraph (d)(2)(iv) of this section treated as references to this paragraph (d)(5) and references to paragraph (d)(2)(iv)(E) of this section treated as references to this paragraph (d)(5)(iv).

    (6) Transactions ordinarily not considered as a device—(i) In general. This paragraph (d)(6) specifies three distributions that ordinarily do not present the potential for federal tax avoidance described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section. Accordingly, such distributions are ordinarily considered not to have been used principally as a device, notwithstanding the presence of any of the device factors described in paragraph (d)(2) of this section or a separation of Business Assets from Nonbusiness Assets as described in paragraph (d)(5) of this section. A transaction described in paragraph (d)(6)(iii) or (iv) of this section is not protected by this paragraph (d)(6) from a determination that it was used principally as a device if it involves the distribution of the stock of more than one controlled corporation and facilitates the avoidance of the dividend provisions of the Code through the subsequent sale or exchange of stock of one corporation and the retention of the stock of another corporation. * * *

    (i) Effective/applicability date—(1) Paragraph (d) of this section—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section, paragraph (d) of this section applies to transactions occurring on or after the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register.

    (ii) Transition rule. Paragraph (d) of this section does not apply to a distribution that is—

    (A) Made pursuant to an agreement, resolution, or other corporate action that is binding on or before the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register and at all times thereafter;

    (B) Described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal Revenue Service on or before July 15, 2016; or

    (C) Described in a public announcement or filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register.

    (2) Paragraph (g) of this section. Paragraph (g) of this section applies to distributions occurring after October 20, 2011. For rules regarding distributions occurring on or before October 20, 2011, see § 1.355-2T(i), as contained in 26 CFR part 1, revised as of April 1, 2011.

    Par. 5. Reserved § 1.355-8 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.355-8 [Reserved]
    Par. 6. Section 1.355-9 is added to read as follows:
    § 1.355-9 Minimum percentage of Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (a) Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this section:

    (1) Distributing, Controlled. Distributing means the distributing corporation within the meaning of § 1.355-1(b). Controlled means the controlled corporation within the meaning of § 1.355-1(b).

    (2) Five-Year-Active Business. Five-Year-Active Business means the active conduct of a trade or business that satisfies the requirements and limitations of section 355(b)(2) and § 1.355-3(b).

    (3) Five-Year-Active-Business Assets. Five-Year-Active-Business Assets of a corporation means its gross assets used in one or more Five-Year-Active Businesses. Such assets include cash and cash equivalents held as a reasonable amount of working capital for one or more Five-Year-Active Businesses. Such assets also include assets required (by binding commitment or legal requirement) to be held to provide for exigencies related to a Five-Year-Active Business or for regulatory purposes with respect to a Five-Year-Active Business. For this purpose, such assets include assets the holder is required (by binding commitment or legal requirement) to hold to secure or otherwise provide for a financial obligation reasonably expected to arise from a Five-Year-Active Business and assets held to implement a binding commitment to expend funds to expand or improve a Five-Year-Active Business.

    (4) Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets. Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets of a corporation means its gross assets other than its Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (5) Total Assets. Total Assets of a corporation means its Five-Year-Active-Business Assets and its Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets.

    (6) Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage. The Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage of a corporation is the percentage determined by dividing the fair market value of its Five-Year-Active-Business Assets by the fair market value of its Total Assets.

    (7) Separate Affiliated Group, SAG, CSAG, and DSAG. Separate Affiliated Group (or SAG), CSAG, and DSAG have the same meanings as in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(B)(6).

    (b) Five percent minimum Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage. For the requirements of section 355(a)(1)(C) and section 355(b) to be satisfied with respect to a distribution, the Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage of each of Distributing and Controlled must be at least five percent.

    (c) Operating rules. The following operating rules apply for purposes of this section:

    (1) Treatment of SAG and fair market value. The operating rules in § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(2) (treatment of SAG as a single corporation) and (5) (fair market value) apply.

    (2) Time to identify assets, determine character of assets, and determine fair market value of assets. The provisions of § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(3) (time to identify assets and determine character of assets) apply, except that references to paragraph (d)(2)(iv) are treated as references to this section and “Business Assets or Nonbusiness Assets” is replaced with “Five-Year-Active-Business Assets or Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets,” and the provisions of § 1.355-2(d)(2)(iv)(D)(4) (time to determine fair market value of assets) apply.

    (3) Interest in partnership—(i) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section, an interest in a partnership is a Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Asset.

    (ii) Exception for certain interests in partnerships. If Distributing or Controlled is considered to be engaged in one or more Five-Year-Active-Businesses conducted by a partnership, the fair market value of the corporation's interest in the partnership will be allocated between Five-Year-Active-Business Assets and Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets in the same proportion as the proportion of the fair market values of the Five-Year-Active-Business Assets and Non-Five-Year-Active-Business Assets of the partnership.

    (d) Anti-abuse rule. A transaction or series of transactions undertaken with a principal purpose of affecting the Five-Year-Active-Business Asset Percentage of any corporation will not be given effect for purposes of applying this § 1.355-9. For this purpose, a transaction or series of transactions includes a change in the form of ownership of an asset; an issuance, assumption, or repayment of indebtedness or other obligations; or an issuance or redemption of stock. However, this paragraph (d) generally does not apply to a non-transitory acquisition or disposition of assets, other than an acquisition from or disposition to a person the ownership of whose stock would, under section 318(a) (other than paragraph (4) thereof), be attributed to Distributing or Controlled, or to a non-transitory transfer of assets between Distributing and Controlled.

    (e) Effective/applicability date—(1) In general. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, this section applies to transactions occurring on or after the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register.

    (2) Transition rule—This section does not apply to a distribution that is—

    (i) Made pursuant to an agreement, resolution, or other corporate action that is binding on or before the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register and at all times thereafter;

    (ii) Described in a ruling request submitted to the Internal Revenue Service on or before July 15, 2016; or

    (iii) Described in a public announcement or filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or before the date the Treasury decision adopting these regulations as final regulations is published in the Federal Register.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16512 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 32 [Docket No.: OJP (BJA) 1716] RIN 1121-AA85 Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program AGENCY:

    Office of Justice Programs, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule proposes to make the following changes to current regulations implementing the Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Act: Adopting the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program's List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List), the WTC Health Program's standards for certifying that an injury is covered for treatment under the Program, and related regulatory provisions, establishing payment offset provisions between the PSOB Program and the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, and revising the provisions that define when the statutory presumption of line-of-duty death resulting from certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures is rebutted. The proposed changes based on the WTC Health Program's List and related provisions would provide a means for claimants to establish that certain public safety officers with chronic, often latent, health conditions sustained a line-of-duty injury under the PSOB Act. The proposed payment offset provisions are intended to implement statutory amendments to the PSOB Act requiring such offset and to facilitate claims processing. Similarly, the proposed rule implementing the statutory presumption associated with certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures is intended to amend the current regulation to conform to recent amendments to the PSOB Act and to improve the processing of such claims.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before September 13, 2016. Comments received by mail will be considered timely if they are postmarked on or before that date. The electronic Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) will accept comments until Midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please address all comments regarding this rule by U.S. mail, to: Hope Janke, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, 810 7th Street NW., Washington, DC 20531; or by telefacsimile to (202) 354-4135. To ensure proper handling, please reference OJP Docket No. 1716 on your correspondence. Comments may also be sent electronically through http://regulations.gov using the electronic comment form provided on that site. An electronic copy of this document is also available at the http://regulations.gov Web site. OJP will accept attachments to electronic comments in Microsoft Word, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hope Janke, BJA, OJP, at (202) 514-6278, or toll-free at 1 (888) 744-6513.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Posting of Public Comments

    Please note that all comments received are considered part of the public record and made available for public inspection online at http://www.regulations.gov. Information made available for public inspection includes personal identifying information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter.

    The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) does not require commenters to submit personal identifying information (such as your name, address, medical information, etc.) as part of your comment. However, if you wish to submit such information, but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also locate all the personal identifying information that you do not want posted online in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what information you want the agency to redact. Personal identifying information identified and located as set forth above will be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online.

    If you wish to submit confidential business information as part of your comment but do not wish it to be posted online, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify confidential business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment has so much confidential business information that it cannot be effectively redacted, the agency may choose not to post that comment (or to only partially post that comment) on http://www.regulations.gov. Confidential business information identified and located as set forth above will not be placed in the public docket file, nor will it be posted online.

    If you wish to inspect the agency's public docket file in person by appointment, please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph.

    II. Background A. General

    The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Program, 42 U.S.C. 3796 et seq. (established pursuant to the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Act of 1976), is administered by the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice. Generally speaking, the PSOB Program provides a one-time financial payment to the statutorily-eligible survivors of public safety officers who die as the direct and proximate result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance for their spouses and eligible children.

    Alternatively, the PSOB Program also provides a one-time financial payment directly to public safety officers determined to be permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of personal injury sustained in the line of duty, as well as educational assistance for their spouses and eligible children.

    B. Establishing a Line-of-Duty Injury Under the PSOB Act and Implementing Regulations

    42 U.S.C. 3796(a) authorizes the payment, to statutory survivors, of a benefit of $250,000, currently adjusted for inflation at $339,881, when the administering agency determines, under its regulations “that a public safety officer has died as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.” Similarly, 42 U.S.C. 3796(b) authorizes the agency to pay the same inflation-adjusted benefit, when it determines, under its regulations, that a public safety officer has “become permanently and totally disabled as the direct and proximate result of a personal injury sustained in the line of duty.” The agency has exercised its regulatory authority in regulations published in 28 CFR part 32 defining, among other things, “injury,” “line of duty injury,” and “direct and proximate result of an injury.” Those regulations specify the criteria that must be met in the ordinary course for a claimant to establish that a public safety officer sustained a line-of-duty injury and that the injury caused the officer's death or permanent and total disability.

    Under the definition of injury in 28 CFR 32.3, a claimant must establish that a public safety officer sustained a “traumatic physical wound (or a traumatized physical condition of the body) directly and proximately caused by external force.” Under definitions related to causation in 28 CFR 32.3 (defining direct and proximate result of an injury and substantial factor), a claimant must also establish that the injury was the “substantial factor” in the officer's death or disability. “A factor substantially brings about a death, injury, [or] disability” if it was sufficient in and of itself to cause the death, injury, or disability, or no other factor (or combination of factors) “contributed to the death, injury, [or] disability . . . to so great a degree as it did.” 28 CFR 32.3 (defining substantial factor). Taken together, these regulations require that a claimant seeking benefits establish an injury, i.e., a traumatic physical wound or traumatized physical condition of the body directly and proximately caused by an external force or other agent, e.g., chemicals, as well as a death or disability, and a direct and proximate causal nexus between the injury and the death or disability.

    In PSOB claims involving acute injuries caused by readily identifiable external forces such as a gunshot, motor vehicle accident, or other trauma with death occurring simultaneously or closely following injury, a claimant's burden in establishing the injury and causal link between injury and death may be straightforward and readily demonstrated. In such cases, a death certificate or an autopsy is generally sufficient to establish a traumatic wound or traumatized condition, the external force that caused the wound or condition, the officer's death, and a direct and proximate causal link between the injury and death.

    In PSOB claims asserting injury or death resulting from exposure to unspecified toxins or hazards associated with line-of-duty activity, however, an autopsy may not sufficiently identify the mechanism of the injury, or adequately establish the direct and proximate causal link between the injury and the death (or permanent and total disability) necessary to support the approval of a claim under the PSOB Act. In such claims, more detailed medical evaluation may be required, and substantial medical evidence may need to be gathered and produced before PSOB determining officials may make the necessary findings to find the PSOB Act standards are met. For example, an autopsy usually is not sufficient evidence when the claims are based on the chronic, often latent, illnesses and conditions of 9/11 first responders; e.g., respiratory disorders and certain cancers. Similar burdens in gathering, producing, and evaluating medical evidence exist for 9/11 first responders claiming to be permanently and totally disabled as a result of exposure to unidentified toxins or hazards encountered in responding to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

    C. Establishing Injury Under the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010

    Pursuant to the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-347), as amended, the World Trade Center (WTC) Health Program, which is administered by the Director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), provides medical monitoring and treatment for WTC Health Program members with certain health conditions that are certified as related to the unique circumstances of the 9/11 explosions, ensuing conflagrations, and clean-up (9/11 disaster).1 In so doing, the Administrator of the WTC Health Program has an advisory committee including medical and scientific experts appointed to review and consider the latest research on connections that may exist between various medical conditions and exposure to the 9/11 disaster. The Administrator of the WTC Health Program may seek guidance and recommendations from these medical and scientific experts, in determining whether to propose adding conditions to the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions through rulemaking.

    1 The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 was amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public Law 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015) (The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Reauthorization Act) (available at thefederalregister.org).

    The List of WTC-Related Health Conditions is a list of illnesses or health conditions that, pursuant to an examination by a medical professional with expertise in treating or diagnosing the listed conditions, may be found to be related to a WTC Health Program member's exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazards, or any other adverse conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That a WTC Health Program member has a health condition or illness on the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions does not, by itself, establish that such health condition or illness was related to the 9/11 disaster and, therefore, is eligible for treatment in the WTC Health Program. Rather, the WTC Health Program also makes a specific decision as to whether a particular WTC Health Program member's exposure to the toxins, hazards, or other adverse conditions associated with the 9/11 disaster was “substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition.” 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(1)(A)(1). By law, such decision is based on an assessment of: (1) The individual's exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazard, or any other condition resulting from the terrorist attacks; and (2) the type of symptoms and temporal sequence of symptoms. 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(2). Together, the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions and individual assessment as to exposure and symptomatology comprise the general and specific findings that the WTC Health Program makes in establishing that a WTC Health Program member's particular illness or health condition is related to the 9/11 disaster.

    D. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)

    To establish eligibility for death benefits under the PSOB Act, claimants must establish that a public safety officer suffered a personal injury in the line of duty that directly and proximately caused the officer's death. This statutory requirement excluded from coverage those conditions caused by stress and strain and occupational disease, such as practically speaking, most heart attacks and strokes.

    The Hometown Heroes Survivors' Benefits Act of 2003 (Pub. L. 108-182) (Hometown Heroes Act) amended the PSOB Act by creating a statutory presumption in 42 U.S.C. 3796(k) of death by a line-of-duty injury, which may be rebutted by “competent medical evidence to the contrary,” in cases where a public safety officer dies of heart attack or stroke while engaging in, (or within 24 hours of engaging in) “nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical [line-of-duty] activity.” Implementation of the rebuttal language has proved challenging for OJP. In fact, the House Judiciary Committee in 2012 noted that “[one] particular term introduced into the PSOBA in 2003, `competent medical evidence to the contrary,' has not proven workable as introduced.” 2

    2 H.R. Rpt. 112-548 at 14 (June 25, 2012).

    In 2006 and 2008, OJP published final rules implementing the Hometown Heroes Act. The 2008 rule provided that the presumption attaches “unless it . . . is overcome by competent medical evidence to the contrary, when evidence indicates to a degree of medical probability that extrinsic circumstances, considered in combination (as one circumstance) or alone, were a substantial factor in bringing the heart attack or stroke about.” 3 The rule defined extrinsic circumstances as “[a]n event or events; or . . . [a]n intentional risky behavior or intentional risky behaviors.” Thus, under regulations implementing the previous presumption, the presumption was rebutted when competent medical evidence of record established that an event(s) or intentional risky behavior(s) 4 (as defined in the regulations) were the substantial factor in an officer's fatal heart attack or stroke.

    3 28 CFR 32.13 (defining Competent medical evidence to the contrary).

    4 In general, “risky behavior” was defined as (1) an officer's failure to undertake treatment, without reasonable excuse, of any known commonly accepted cardiovascular disease risk factor exceeding minimum high-risk levels or of diseases associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, or where certain biological relatives had a history of cardiovascular disease, (2) consumption over certain levels of cigarettes or alcohol, and (3) use or abuse of certain controlled substances associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

    OJP's experience is that consideration of cardiovascular disease risk factors and the concept of “risky behavior” have largely proven unworkable. In practice, medical examiners, even with a complete medical record, are rarely able to determine with medical precision whether an inadequately treated cardiovascular disease risk factor(s) was the substantial factor in the officer's fatal condition. As a result, the PSOB Program has expended significant time and resources on inconclusive results, i.e., claims in which a recognized cardiovascular disease risk factor is found to have somehow contributed to the officer's fatal condition but not to the degree that it rebutted the presumption. OJP's conclusion that the current interpretation is unworkable is further reflected in the low numbers of claims it has denied based on “risky behaviors.” Despite routinely seeking from claimants additional medical evidence and engaging in time-consuming independent medical review of such evidence, from Fiscal Year 2011 to date, BJA denied at the PSOB Office level less than 1% of all Hometown Heroes claims determined on the basis that an officer's “risky behaviors” were a substantial factor in bringing about the heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture.

    In January 2013, the Dale Long Public Safety Officers' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Section 1086 of Pub. L. 112-239) (Dale Long Act) amended the rebuttal language in section 3796(k). As amended, the presumption is rebutted when “competent medical evidence establishes that the [public safety officer's] heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was unrelated to the [officer's] engagement or participation or was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.” As the amendment repealed the statutory language upon which OJP regulations implementing the presumption are based, e.g., Competent medical evidence to the contrary, such regulations are now obsolete.

    III. Provisions of the Proposed Rule A. Adoption of the WTC Health Program's List of WTC-Related Health Conditions and Standards

    Because of the medical and scientific evaluation that informs the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (List), BJA proposes to use the List as a means for streamlining its own claim-specific evaluation, where a claim for PSOB Program benefits is based on a medical condition (not otherwise excluded from coverage under the PSOB Program) included in the List. Similarly, BJA also proposes, consistent with the law, regulations, policies, and procedures governing the WTC Health Program's certification of an individual's injuries as covered for treatment under the Program, and in conjunction with the List, to assess the individual public safety officer's exposure to toxins, hazards, and other adverse conditions resulting from the terrorist attacks as well as the type of symptoms and temporal sequence of symptoms. Under the proposed rule, BJA will independently use the WTC Health Program's “standards” for certification, which includes the Program's regulations, policies, and procedures, to establish an injury under the PSOB Act.

    The proposed rule would establish a means by which claimants could establish that a public safety officer who suffered physical injury as a result of line-of-duty activity at a 9/11 crash site sustained an injury under the PSOB Act. More specifically, the rule would adopt the WTC Health Program standards for establishing injury or illness for public safety officers who responded to the9/11 disaster based on the medical and scientific evidence underlying those standards and to promote consistency in the process for determining claims resulting from exposure to a 9/11 crash site. Under the proposed rule, evidence demonstrating that a public safety officer (1) performed line-of-duty activity at a 9/11 crash site, (2) was diagnosed with a physical illness or condition on the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions as defined in 42 CFR part 88, (3) whose physical injury was directly and proximately caused by an illness or condition on the List, and (4) whose exposure to the hazards, toxins, and adverse conditions of the 9/11 disaster are found by the PSOB determining official to be substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the responder's health condition, would establish an injury for purposes of the PSOB Act. Consistent with the VCF, which payments are treated by law as duplicative of PSOB Program payments and required to be offset, 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), a claimant's injury would be limited to “physical harm” as defined 28 CFR 104.2(c).

    BJA proposes to adopt the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions (other than mental health conditions) because these are illnesses or health conditions for which exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazard, or any other adverse condition resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, have been found by another federal program to potentially be related to 9/11 exposures. Because the PSOB Program already excludes mental health conditions from its coverage, the proposed rule would not extend its application to any mental health conditions on the List.

    In addition, the adoption of the List and the WTC Health Program standards for assessing injury is warranted based on the unique circumstances associated with the response to the 9/11 disaster, the chronic, often latent, nature of health conditions linked to the response, and the rigorous evidentiary burden faced by PSOB claimants in establishing an injury under current regulations implementing the PSOB Act. PSOB claimants would still be required to satisfy the statutory requirement that such injury have been the direct and proximate cause of the public safety officer's death or permanent and total disability.

    The proposed rule would cover those circumstances in which a claimant lacked a WTC Health Program certification or its equivalent, e.g., a determination by the Victim Compensation Fund that an individual's injury was eligible for compensation, that a public safety officer's 9/11 exposure is substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing a particular health condition. The proposed rule would also codify OJP's interpretation that its current regulations providing that a PSOB determining official may consider the factual findings of a public agency, 28 CFR 32.5(b), enable the PSOB Program to accept as evidence of a line-of-duty injury a “certification” by the WTC Program Administrator, as defined in 42 CFR 88.1, or its equivalent, that a particular public safety officer's exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazards, or any other adverse conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is substantially likely to be a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the condition.

    This regulatory approach would promote the efficient resolution of issues related to injury (and in some cases, causation) without the need for the PSOB Program to conduct an individual review and investigation of the available medical literature in every claim associated with a 9/11 injury. It would promote consistency in federal decision making by allowing the complex medical decisions of another federal program (the WTC Health Program) to streamline the PSOB Program's own evaluation of the same medical issues. It also would lessen the burden on claimants who otherwise may face significant challenges in obtaining and producing significant medical documentation necessary to establish an injury.

    Under the proposed rule, the PSOB Program would rely upon and apply the List and WTC Health Program standards to its independent determination of injury only where the claimant otherwise has established all of the applicable elements normally required for a PSOB claim; e.g., proof of status as a public safety officer and line-of-duty activity.

    To maintain consistency with the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (VCF), as amended,5 the proposed rule would incorporate certain relevant definitions found in the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-347, as amended, and definitions found in implementing regulations: “Physical harm, and “WTC-related health condition.” In particular, OJP proposes to adopt the physical harm provision, which requires that the physical condition upon which the claim of injury is based was treated by a medical professional and may be verified by medical records that were created by or at the direction of the medical care provider, for purposes of maintaining the integrity of the PSOB Program.

    5 The September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 was amended by the by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Public L. 114-113 (Dec. 18, 2015) (The James Zadroga 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Reauthorization Act) (available at thefederalregister.org).

    B. Prohibition Against Duplicate (Dual) Payments

    The 2013 amendment to the PSOB Act established, in the PSOB Act itself, a limitation on payments by declaring that benefit payments made under the PSOB Act are in addition generally to any other benefit except payments under the VCF. 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3). Therefore, OJP proposes to add a new provision in 28 CFR 32.6, describing how and when the PSOB Program would pay benefits under the PSOB Act to persons who have received payments from the VCF.

    Under the proposed rule, no death or disability benefits under the PSOB program would be payable when the VCF has made payments to or with respect to a public safety officer that are equal to or exceed the amount of such benefits payable under the PSOB Act. To account for circumstances when a PSOB claimant has a pending claim for VCF benefits, or the VCF has made payment to a PSOB claimant that is less than the amount payable under the PSOB Act, the proposed rule would clarify that nothing in the PSOB Act or the rule itself precludes payment of PSOB benefits before the VCF makes payment of compensation. In so doing, the PSOB Program could pay benefits to VCF claimants without waiting for the VCF to issue its payments. To prevent overpayments and ensure the offset is applied, before the PSOB Program pays any benefits based on injuries sustained in the 9/11 disaster, it would verify with the VCF the amount of any payments made or payable to a VCF claimant.

    The proposed rule would also clarify that the offset does not extend to educational assistance payable under the PSOB Act, 42 U.S.C. 3796d—3796d-7. When viewed in the context of a statutory scheme providing for the payment of a particular one-time death or disability benefit, the agency believes that the ordinary meaning of “the benefit payable under this subchapter” suggests that the scope of the offset is limited to the death and disability benefit payable under 42 U.S.C. 3796. However, under current regulations that were promulgated before the offset statute was enacted, educational assistance may, with one exception, be paid only when PSOB Program death or disability benefits have been paid. As OJP has determined the offset does not extend to educational assistance, the proposed rule would revise the definition of “Eligible public safety officer” in current § 32.33 to authorize payment of educational assistance where death or disability benefits would have been paid but for the operation of the offset in 42 U.S.C. 3796(f).

    C. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)

    As the Dale Long Act has amended 42 U.S.C. 3796(k), OJP proposes to amend its implementing regulations in 28 CFR 32.13 and 32.14 to reflect the revised statutory language. In implementing revised section 3796(k), the proposed rule would define in proposed § 32.13 the two circumstances when the presumption of death directly and proximately resulting from a line-of-duty injury associated with certain heart attacks, strokes, and vascular ruptures as provided in section 3796(k) is rebutted—i.e., when “competent medical evidence establishes that the [officer's] heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture [1] was unrelated to the [officer's] engagement or participation or [2] was directly and proximately caused by something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors.”

    Under the proposed rule, an officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture would be considered as “unrelated to an [officer's] engagement or participation” if competent medical evidence established that an independent event or occurrence significantly contributed in bringing about the officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture. OJP believes that defining this rebuttal factor in terms of “an independent event or occurrence,” that is, something that happens to an officer, appropriately ensures that an off-duty heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture caused by a clearly unrelated event, such as an off-duty officer's accident, is not covered by the presumption.

    For example, a police officer's fatal heart attack due to electrocution suffered while performing home repair, established by competent medical evidence, would not be covered by the presumption despite occurring only 12 hours after the officer engaged in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement activity. The heart attack is not covered by the presumption because competent medical evidence establishes that an independent event or occurrence (electrocution sustained while repairing home wiring) separate and apart from the officer's qualifying activity, i.e., engagement in a situation involving nonroutine stressful or strenuous physical law enforcement activity, significantly contributed in bringing about the officer's fatal heart attack. At the same time, such a construction would ensure that an officer's ordinary and routine off-duty activities such as yard work or exercise, that take place following qualifying, on-duty engagement or participation, would not be evaluated for their contribution to the officer's fatal heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture.

    Turning to the other rebuttal factor in the proposed rule, an officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture would be considered to be caused by “something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular-disease risk factors” when competent medical evidence establishes that the officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture was directly and proximately caused by the officer's ingestion of controlled substances on Schedule I of the drug control and enforcement laws or the officer's abuse of controlled substances on Schedules II-V of the drug control and enforcement laws. OJP believes that by defining this particular rebuttal factor in terms of intentional behaviors that are well established as adversely affecting cardiovascular health, that exceed the mere presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors, and that are readily attributable to an officer's actions, the proposed rule would appropriately rebut the presumption and preclude payment consistent with the language of the statute.

    In addition to implementing the amended statutory language of the presumption, the proposed changes to § 32.13 would reduce the evidentiary burden on claimants seeking death benefits under section 3796(k) and streamline the processing of such claims by reducing the circumstances under which the PSOB Program would seek expert medical review and additional medical evidence. Towards this end, the proposed rule would eliminate as a basis for rebutting the presumption certain actions of the officer previously defined in regulations as “risky behaviors,” e.g., an officer's failure to adequately treat known cardiovascular-disease risk factors. OJP believes that eliminating this basis for rebuttal is justified based on its experience implementing the previous regulation which revealed that medical examiners, even with a complete medical record, itself a rare occurrence, were rarely able to determine whether a public safety officer was sufficiently non-compliant with treatment such that it could be said to be the direct and proximate cause of the officer's fatal heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture. By omitting from the proposed rule those rebuttal factors which often required the collection and evaluation of extensive medical records as part of an independent medical examination and produced largely inconclusive results, the proposed rule would measurably reduce the burden on claimants and the agency.

    Consistent with the amendments to the statutory rebuttal provision, the proposed rule would also eliminate from § 32.13 provisions defining “Competent medical evidence to the contrary,” “Excessive consumption of alcohol,” “Extrinsic circumstances,” “Risky behavior,” and “Undertaking of treatment.” In addition, the proposed rule would eliminate § 32.14(c), requiring the PSOB Office to provide notice to claimants when it determines the existence of competent medical evidence to the contrary. As the statute no longer includes such language, the provision is unnecessary.

    IV. Regulatory Requirements Executive Order 12866 and 13563—Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” section 1(b), Principles of Regulation, and in accordance with Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). As explained below, OJP has assessed the costs and benefits of this proposed rule as required by Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the proposed rule justify the costs.

    A. Adoption of the WTC Health Program's List and Standards

    OJP's experience is that PSOB claimants have been largely unsuccessful in establishing an “injury” for delayed-onset medical conditions or illnesses, particularly cancer. As the proposed rule establishes an evidentiary standard intended for the unique circumstances of public safety officers who sustained an injury related to the 9/11 disaster, OJP estimates that the proposed rule would likely affect all of the 29 claims based on 9/11 injury (27 death/2 disability) currently pending in the PSOB Program without a WTC Health Program certification or its equivalent by enabling these claimants to establish an “injury” under the PSOB Act. Although there are currently 161 total PSOB death and disability claims pending with assertions of injuries based on 9/11 exposure, this estimate pertains only to the 29 claims not covered under OJP's current regulatory authority, as benefits paid through OJP's process of determining PSOB claims based on “certifications” issued by the WTC Health Program Administrator (or equivalent) under 28 CFR 32.5(b) would not be impacted as a result of this regulatory change.

    If all 29 such claims were paid, the total PSOB Program death and disability benefit cost would be $8,778,198.80. Based on amounts appropriated in FY2016 for PSOB Program death benefits (“such sums as necessary”—estimated at $71,323,000) and disability and education benefits ($16,300,000), OJP knows that it could pay the death claims from its current appropriations, and estimates that it could pay the disability claims from its current appropriations. OJP's estimate does not account for any offset to PSOB Program payments based on VCF payments, which would reduce the amount of PSOB Program payments made; however, OJP is unable to estimate how many of the 29 claims would be approved by VCF. Regardless of whether a PSOB payment were offset by a VCF payment, there is no additional benefit cost, as the amounts that would be required are covered by current appropriations (with respect to death claims) and appear to be covered by such appropriations with respect to disability claims, and, barring unforeseen circumstances, would not exceed such amounts. As PSOB claims based on 9/11 injury would be processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional administrative or personnel costs in processing these claims.

    B. Provisions Implementing the Offset at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3)

    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is that, pursuant to statute, it permits the PSOB Program to pay benefits to PSOB claimants who are awaiting a decision on eligibility for VCF benefits, pending receipt of VCF payments, or are in receipt of VCF payments less than the maximum PSOB Program death or disability payment. A secondary benefit is that it clarifies that claimants who would be eligible for payment of death or disability benefits under the PSOB Act but for the operation of the offset, would be eligible for educational assistance.

    Estimating annual costs for public safety officers' educational assistance is difficult because of the nature of the payment.6 If all of the 29 currently pending claims based on 9/11 injury and lacking a WTC Health Program certification, or its equivalent, were approved, thereby creating potential eligibility for educational assistance, OJP estimates that the impact could be to add approximately 49 educational assistance claimants for FY2016 and beyond. Using the current maximum monthly payment rate of $1,021/month, OJP estimates that annual benefit costs could increase by approximately $450,261, annually (based on 49 claimants completing 9 months of educational assistance payable at the current maximum rate of $1,021/month).7 Based on the amount of funds appropriated for disability benefits and educational assistance in FY2016 ($16,300,000), OJP estimates that, barring unforeseen circumstances, it could pay these additional education claims from its current appropriation. As PSOB claims based on 9/11 injury would be processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional costs in processing these claims.

    6 The educational assistance benefit is payable only as a reimbursement to spouses and children of eligible public safety officers for eligible educational expenses such as tuition and fees. Further complicating matters related to estimation, eligible children have until they are 27 to complete qualifying coursework and spouses of eligible public safety officers have no age cutoff for completing qualifying coursework. In addition, claimants may submit claims for educational assistance up to six months before attending qualifying coursework, or at any time after a course has been completed. On occasion, the PSOB Program receives a single claim for all 45 months of benefits; however, the majority of claims are submitted on an academic-term by academic-term basis.

    7 Payments for PSOB educational assistance are calculated on the basis prescribed in 38 U.S.C. 3532 and are subject to increase based on increases in certain consumer price indexes as provided in 38 U.S.C. 3564.

    C. Fatal Heart Attacks, Strokes, and Vascular Ruptures Under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)

    The primary benefit of the proposed rule is the reduced burden on both claimants and the agency in determining claims under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k). In defining the circumstances that warrant rebuttal in terms of readily ascertainable facts, OJP believes that the PSOB Program will, in most cases, be able to rely upon the evidence of injury and death ordinarily submitted with a claim, e.g., a death certificate or autopsy. Based on its experience, OJP estimates that, under the previous regulatory interpretation, it seeks additional evidence from claimants and independent medical review of medical evidence in approximately 50 percent of claims. Under the proposed rule, OJP estimates that the PSOB Program would need to seek additional evidence from claimants and independent medical review of medical evidence in less than 5 percent of claims. As the PSOB Program receives on average approximately 92 claims for benefits under 42 U.S.C. 3796(k) annually, OJP estimates that it would need to seek additional evidence and review in fewer than 1 in 20 such claims, which is significantly fewer than it seeks under the previous rule.

    This reduction in evidentiary development is also expected to result in cost savings for medical reviews as well as the costs associated with obtaining medical records for such reviews. For every claim that does not require independent medical review, OJP estimates a savings of $1,652, which represents the average cost to the program of obtaining certain medical opinions in claims for PSOB Program death benefits from 2009 through 2015. OJP also estimates a savings to the claimant of $603 for the cost of obtaining medical records (an average of 900 pages in the claims sampled). This estimate is based on the maximum fees permitted by law, which vary by state,8 and the number of pages of medical records in claims for PSOB Program death benefits as determined in a random sampling of claims involving medical issues that require a claimant to provide such records. In addition, OJP believes that the streamlined criteria would increase the rate at which such claims are processed, however, it is difficult to quantify any additional cost savings resulting from such efficiencies.

    8See e.g., Joy Pritts, et al., Privacy and Security Solutions for Interoperable Health Information Exchange: Report on State Medical Record Access Laws, https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/290-05-0015-state-law-access-report-1.pdf; Table A-5, Overview of State Law: Maximum Fees Doctors and Hospitals May Charge Patients for Copies of Medical Records https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/appa5-1.pdf. (accessed June 16, 2016).

    In terms of benefit costs, OJP estimates that there will not be a significant increase in claims approved as compared to the previous regulatory criteria. Accordingly, the proposed rule does not significantly increase benefit costs. And, as these claims would be processed by existing staff, OJP would not incur additional administrative or personnel costs in processing these claims.

    This proposed rule would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Although not an economically significant rulemaking under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, The Office of Justice Programs has determined that this proposed rule is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order, and accordingly this rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Executive Order 13132—Federalism

    This proposed rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the federal government and the States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The PSOB program statutes provide benefits to individuals and do not impose any special or unique requirements on States or localities. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order No. 13132, it is determined that this proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

    Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) & (b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988. Pursuant to section 3(b)(1)(I) of the Executive Order, nothing in this proposed rule or any previous rule (or in any administrative policy, directive, ruling, notice, guideline, guidance, or writing) directly relating to the Program that is the subject of this rule is intended to create any legal or procedural rights enforceable against the United States, except as the same may be contained within part 32 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Office of Justice Programs hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This proposed rule addresses federal agency procedures; furthermore, this proposed rule would make amendments to clarify existing regulations and agency practice concerning public safety officers' death, disability, and education benefits and would do nothing to increase the financial burden on any small entities. Therefore, an analysis of the impact of this proposed rule on such entities is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would impose reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The PRA requires certain actions before an agency can adopt or revise a collection of information, including publishing a summary of the collection of information and a brief description of the need for and proposed use of the information. 44 U.S.C. 3507.

    The proposed rule includes paperwork requirements in three collections of information previously approved by OMB for the PSOB Program. OJP published in the Federal Register on January 11, 2016, a 60-day notice of “Agency Information Collection Activities” for each of the following forms: Claim for Death Benefits (OMB Number 1121-0024), Report of Public Safety Officer's Death (OMB Number 1121-0025), and Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits (OMB Number 1121-0166). In calculating the burden associated with these forms/collections, OJP reviewed its previous burden estimates and updated these to reflect the time required for claimants to gather the many different documents necessary to establish eligibility for these benefits, e.g., birth certificates, marriage certificates, divorce decrees (where applicable), public agency determinations as to death or disability benefits, medical records, etc. Information about the proposed collections is as follows:

    Claim for Death Benefits—Overview of Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Claim for Death Benefits.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract:Primary: Eligible survivors of fallen public safety officers.

    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will use the Claim Form information to confirm the eligibility of applicants to receive Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits. Eligibility is dependent on several factors, including public safety officer status, an injury sustained in the line of duty, and the claimant status in the beneficiary hierarchy according to the PSOB Act. In addition, information to help the PSOB Office identify an individual is collected, such as Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and email addresses. Changes to the claim form have been made in an effort to streamline the application process and eliminate requests for information that are either irrelevant or already being collected by other means.

    OJP estimates that no more than 350 respondents will apply each year. Each application takes approximately 120 minutes to complete. OJP estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 350 x 120 minutes per application = 42,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 700 hours.

    Public Safety Officer's Death—Overview of Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Report of Public Safety Offices Death.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Public safety agencies experiencing the death of a public safety officer according to the PSOB Act.

    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will use the Report of Public Safety Officer's Death Form information to confirm the eligibility of applicants to receive Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits. Eligibility is dependent on several factors, including public safety officer status, an injury sustained in the line of duty, and the claimant status in the beneficiary hierarchy according to the Act. In addition, information to help the PSOB Office identify an individual is collected, such as Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and email addresses. Changes to the report form have been made in an effort to streamline the application process and eliminate requests for information that are either irrelevant or already being collected by other means.

    OJP estimates that no more than 350 respondents will apply each year. Each application takes approximately 240 minutes to complete. OJP estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 350 × 240 minutes per application = 84,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 1400 hours.

    Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits—Overview of Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection: Reinstatement with change of a previously approved collection.

    2. The Title of the Form/Collection: Public Safety Officer's Disability Benefits.

    3. The agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department sponsoring the collection: Bureau of Justice Assistance. Office of Justice Programs, United States Department of Justice.

    4. Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Public safety officers who were permanently and totally disabled in the line of duty.

    Abstract: BJA's Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) Office will use the PSOB Disability Application information to confirm the eligibility of applicants to receive Public Safety Officers' Disability Benefits. Eligibility is dependent on several factors, including public safety officer status, injury sustained in the line of duty, and the total and permanent nature of the line-of-duty injury. In addition, information to help the PSOB Office identify individuals is collected, such as Social Security numbers, telephone numbers, and email addresses. Changes to the application form have been made in an effort to streamline the application process and eliminate requests for information that are either irrelevant or already being collected by other means.

    OJP estimates that no more than 100 respondents will apply each year. Each application takes approximately 300 minutes to complete. OJP estimates that the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection can be calculated as follows: Total Annual Reporting Burden: 100 × 300 minutes per application = 30,000 minutes/by 60 minutes per hour = 500 hours.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This proposed rule would not result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The PSOB program is a federal benefits program that provides benefits directly to qualifying individuals. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

    List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 32

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits, Education, Emergency medical services, Firefighters, Law enforcement officers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rescue squad.

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 32—PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' DEATH, DISABILITY, AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BENEFITS CLAIMS 1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 32 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. ch. 46, subch. XII; 42 U.S.C. 3782(a), 3787, 3788, 3791(a), 3793(a)(4) & (b), 3795a, 3796c-1, 3796c-2; sec. 1601, title XI, Pub. L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 239; secs. 4 through 6, Pub. L. 94-430, 90 Stat. 1348; secs. 1 and 2, Pub. L. 107-37, 115 Stat. 219.

    2. Amend § 32.3 as follows: a. Amend the definition of Act by removing “and Apr. 5, 2006 (designated beneficiaries))” and adding in its place “Apr. 5, 2006 (designated beneficiaries); and Jan. 2, 2013)”. b. Add definitions of List of WTC-related health conditions and Physical harm in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 32.3 Definitions.

    List of WTC-related health conditions means the list of health conditions (other than a mental-health condition) listed—

    (1) At 42 U.S.C. 300mm-22(a)(3); or

    (2) On the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions in 42 CFR part 88.

    Physical harm means physical harm as defined at 28 CFR 104.2(c).

    3. Amend § 32.5 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 32.5 Evidence.

    (j) Physical harm suffered by a public safety officer as a direct and proximate result of a condition on the List of WTC-Related Health Conditions shall be understood to be a line-of-duty injury if, as determined by the PSOB determining official, and pursuant to the standards governing the World Trade Center Health Program's certification of injuries as covered by the program, such officer's exposure to airborne toxins, any other hazards, and any other adverse conditions resulting from the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks is substantially likely to have been a significant factor in aggravating, contributing to, or causing the illness or health condition.

    4. Amend § 32.6 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 32.6 Payment and repayment.

    (f)(1) If compensation under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 (49 U.S.C. 40101 note)) has been paid with respect to an injury, the total amount payable under subpart B or C of this part, with respect to the same injury, shall be reduced by the amount of such payment of compensation.

    (2) Nothing in paragraph (f)(1) of this section, or in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), shall be understood to preclude payment under this part before the final payment of compensation under such Fund.

    (3) Nothing in the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f)(3), shall be understood to require reduction of any amount payable under subpart D of this part.

    5. Amend § 32.13 as follows: a. Add definitions of Something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors and Unrelated in alphabetical order. b. Remove the definitions of Competent medical evidence to the contrary, Excessive consumption of alcohol, Extrinsic circumstances, Risky behavior, and Undertaking of treatment.

    The additions read as follows:

    § 32.13 Definitions.

    Something other than the mere presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors means—

    (1) Ingestion of controlled substances included on Schedule I of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)); or

    (2) Abuse of controlled substances included on Schedule II, III, IV, or V of the drug control and enforcement laws (see 21 U.S.C. 812(a)).

    Unrelated—A public safety officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture is unrelated to the officer's engagement in a situation or participation in a training exercise, as described in 42 U.S.C. 3796(k)(1), when an independent event or occurrence significantly contributes in bringing about the officer's heart attack, stroke, or vascular rupture.

    § 32.14 [Amended]
    6. In § 32.14, remove paragraph (c). 7. In § 32.33, the definition of Eligible public safety officer is revised to read as follows:
    § 32.33 Definitions.

    Eligible public safety officer means a public safety officer—

    (1) With respect to whose death, benefits under subpart B of this part properly—

    (i) Have been paid; or

    (ii) Would have been paid but for operation of the Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f); or

    (2) With respect to whose disability, benefits under subpart C of this part properly—

    (i) Have been paid; or

    (ii) Would have been paid, but for operation of—

    (A) Paragraph (b)(1) of § 32.6; or

    (B) The Act, at 42 U.S.C. 3796(f).

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Karol V. Mason, Assistant Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16086 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 110 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0110] RIN 1625-AA01 Anchorage Grounds; Delaware Bay and River, Philadelphia, PA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend the anchorage regulations for Delaware Bay and River. The Coast Guard conducted a review of the Delaware Bay and River anchorage grounds to support increased traffic and vessel size. The proposed changes to this regulation would eliminate unusable anchorage grounds and provide additional usable grounds to support current and future port demands and enhance the overall navigation safety of this critical component of the maritime transportation system. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0110 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Brennan Dougherty, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Chief Waterways Management Division, telephone (215) 271-4851, email [email protected] or Lieutenant Commander Tiffany Johnson, U.S. Coast Guard, Fifth Coast Guard District, Waterways Management Branch, telephone (757) 398-6516, email [email protected]

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

    The Delaware Bay and River anchorage grounds are largely used by commercial vessel traffic. General regulations covering the anchorage of vessels in the port are set out in 33 CFR 110.157. In 1992, the Delaware River Main Channel Deepening project was authorized for construction by Public Law 102-580, Section 101 (6) of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1992; modified by Public Law 106-53, Section 308 of WRDA 1999 and further modified by Public Law 106-541, Section 306 of WRDA 2000. This project includes deepening the existing Delaware River Federal Navigation Channel from 40 to 45 feet from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Camden, New Jersey to the mouth of the Delaware Bay. The Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) along with non-Federal sponsor, the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority (PRPA), commenced dredging for this project in 2010. This project, once completed, will allow for deeper draft vessels within the port and increase overall traffic, and anchorage usage. Due to this anticipated increase in marine traffic a review of the current Delaware Bay and River anchorage grounds was conducted by the Waterways Management Division Sector Delaware Bay, Philadelphia, PA in coordination with the Mariners Advisory Committee (MAC). Upon review it was found that multiple anchorage grounds in 33 CFR 110.157 were unusable for some larger vessels due to lack of depth needed to safely anchor. Other anchorage grounds are unusable because they spanned underneath bridges where it would be impractical for vessels to anchor, and posed an increased and unnecessary safety risk of bridge allision. The proposed changes to the Delaware Bay and River anchorages would eliminate unusable anchorage grounds and maximize usable anchorage grounds within the anchorage boundaries while continuing to safely support current and future port demands. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The following changes are being proposed for seven Delaware Bay and River anchorage grounds.

    Anchorage 1 Bombay off Hook Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(2), currently has portions of the anchorage which intermittently experiences a water depth of 2 feet, which is unsafe for vessels to transit or anchor. The proposed changes would reduce the width of the anchorage to approximately 1,109 yards while extending the length to approximately 9,802 yards, thereby allowing more room for safe usable space within the anchorage.

    Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(4), currently has portions of the anchorage in the navigational channel. Furthermore, the northern portion of the anchorage, in relation to the entrance to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, poses an unnecessary risk of vessel collisions due to the proximity of vessels transiting to and from the canal. The proposed changes would move this anchorage 1,573 yards south of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 2 light, bounding the east side of the anchorage along the west side of Reedy Island Range, and extend the anchorage south to the southern end of Reed Island Bar. These changes would eliminate portions of the anchorage that are in the navigational channel and increase the anchorage grounds southward.

    Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157 (a)(7), currently has the southern portion of the anchorage approximately 480 yards north from the Delaware Memorial Bridge, this proximity creates an unnecessary risk of a bridge allision. To mitigate this risk, the proposed changes would relocate the southern boundary of the anchorage to approximately 701 yards north of the Delaware Memorial Bridge and extend the northern portion of the anchorage where it would end opposite the channel from the entrance of the Christina River.

    Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(9), currently has portions of the anchorage in less than 9 feet of water, causing an unnecessary safety risk to vessels attempting to transit or anchor. The proposed changes would increase usable anchorage grounds within the anchorage by reducing the width of the anchorage to approximately 231 yards and extending the northern end of the anchorage to the edge of Crab Point.

    Anchorage 11 at Gloucester, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(12), currently has the northern portion of the anchorage approximately 71 yards south of the Walt Whitman Bridge. This proximity creates an unnecessary risk of a bridge allision. The proposed changes would increase the distance of the northern portion of the anchorage to 254 yards from the Walt Whitman Bridge, reducing the risk of a bridge allision for vessels in the anchorage.

    Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and Camden, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(13), currently begins south of the Walt Whitman Bridge, bordering the northern line of Anchorage 11 traveling north to the southern boundary of Anchorage 13 at Camden, NJ. Anchorages 12 and 13 each span a bridge where anchoring a vessel is impractical and creates an unnecessary risk of bridge allision. The proposed changes would address this issue by relocating the south end of Anchorage 12 to begin 232 yards north of the Walt Whitman Bridge and relocating the northern boundary to approximately 155 yards south of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. This would eliminate any anchorage grounds underneath the Walt Whitman Bridge and Benjamin Franklin Bridge, mitigating the unnecessary risk of a bridge allision.

    Anchorage 13, found in 33 CFR 110.157(a)(14), currently begins on the east side of the channel adjoining and on the upstream side of Anchorage 12, to Cooper Point, Camden. Anchorages 12 and 13 each span a bridge where anchoring a vessel is impractical and creates an unnecessary risk of bridge allision. The proposed changes above would move the south end of Anchorage 13 to begin approximately 190 yards north of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Anchorage 13's northern boundary would remain the same, terminating in the vicinity of Coopers Point, Camden. This would eliminate any anchorage grounds underneath Benjamin Franklin Bridge, mitigating the unnecessary risk of a bridge allision.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because it would not interfere with existing maritime activity on the Delaware River. Rather, it would enhance navigational safety along the Delaware River by providing safer locations for vessels to anchor, improving navigation safety near bridges and reducing the potential for disruption to maritime traffic by anchored vessels potentially within the federal channel. Vessels may navigate in, around, and through the modified anchorages.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    The proposed rule would affect owners and operators of vessels wishing to anchor in the Delaware Bay and River anchorages. Boundaries of some of the current anchorages would be modified, reduced, or increased depending on the water depth and relation of the anchorage to bridges along the Delaware Bay and River. The impact of the proposed rule changes would be minimal because the changes increase usable anchorage grounds and enable vessels to safely anchor in the anchorage boundaries.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves directly with establishing, disestablishing, and modifying anchorage grounds. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(f) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

    PART 110—ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2071; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Amend § 110.157 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), (4), (7), (9), and (12) through (14) to read as follows:
    § 110.157 Delaware Bay and River.

    (a) * * *

    (2) Anchorage 1 off Bombay Hook Point. On the southwest side of the channel along Liston Range, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point (approximately latitude 39°17′14″ N., longitude 75°22′21″ W.) bearing 170° from Ship John Shoal Light, 380 yards southwest of the southwest edge of the channel along Liston Range; thence 231°, 1,000 yards; thence 319°, 9,800 yards; thence 049°, 1,000 yards; and thence 139°, 9,800 yards, back to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (4) Anchorage 3 southeast of Reedy Point. Southeast of the entrance to the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal at Reedy Point, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point (approximately latitude 39°33′09″ N. and longitude 75°32′38″ W.), bearing 120°, 1,573 yards southeast from Chesapeake and Delaware Canal 2 Light, bounded on the east by the west edge of the channel along Reedy Island Range, south to a point (approximately latitude 39°31′29″ N. and longitude 75°33′01″ W.), thence 286°, 406 yards, thence 008°, 1,460 yards, continuing north by a line running from the last point to (approximately latitude 39°33′09″ N. and longitude 75°33′10″ W.), 1,817 yards, and thence 90°, 840 yards, to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (7) Anchorage 6 off Deepwater Point. East of the entrance to Christina River, bounded as follows: Beginning at latitude 39°43′00″ N., longitude 75°30′20″ W.; thence 106°, 966 yards; thence 214°, 1,882 yards; thence 203°, 828 yards; thence 182°, 232 yards; thence 283°, 335 yards; and thence 015°, 2,858 yards, along the east side of the Cherry Island Range, to the point of beginning. Vessels must not cast anchor in the cable area at the lower end of this anchorage except in case of emergency. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (9) Anchorage 8 off Thompson Point. On the south side of the channel along Tinicum Range, between Thompson Point and the east side of Crab Point, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point on the south edge of the channel along Tinicum Range at longitude 75°18′23″ W.; thence easterly along the edge of the channel to longitude 75°17′41″ W.; thence 185°, 220 yards; thence 272°, 1,079 yards; thence 001°, 192 yards, to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (12) Anchorage 11 at Gloucester. East of the channel south of the Walt Whitman Bridge at Gloucester, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point latitude 39°54′11″ N., longitude 75°07′45″ W.; thence bearing 101°, 85 yards, thence 177°, 275 yards to a point latitude 39°54′03″ N., longitude 75°07′41″ W., along the New Jersey shore, thence 200°, 1,179 yards; thence 216°, 875 yards to a point at latitude 39°53′10″ N., longitude 75°08′17″ W., thence northeasterly bearing 026°, 1,006 yards, and thence 018°, 1,203 yards to the point of beginning. The area between Pier 124 S and 122 S, along the west side of the Delaware River, is restricted to facilitate vessel movements. The areas adjacent to working piers are restricted to facilitate the movement of vessels to and from these piers. Should the anchorage become so congested that vessels are compelled to anchor in these restricted areas, they must move immediately when another berth is available. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (13) Anchorage 12 between Gloucester and Camden. East of the channel beginning north of the Walt Whitman Bridge at Gloucester and ending south of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge at Camden, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point at latitude 39°54′26″ N., longitude 75°07′41″ W., bounded on the west by a line perpendicular to the channel, 210 yards from the east edge of the channel north, 5,536 yards, thence bearing 098°, 178 yards, thence 193°, 437 yards, thence 185°, 546 yards, thence 179°, 1,107 yards, thence 168°, 964 yards, thence 161°, 1,749 yards, thence 182°, 401 yards, thence 195°, 305 yards, and thence 276°, 132 yards to the point of beginning. The area between No. 2 Broadway pier and No. 1 Broadway pier is restricted to facilitate vessel movements. The areas adjacent to working piers are restricted to facilitate the movement of vessels to and from these piers. Should the anchorage become so congested that vessels are compelled to anchor in these restricted areas, they must move immediately when another berth is available. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    (14) Anchorage 13 at Camden. East of the channel, North of the Benjamin Franklin Bridge to Cooper Point, Camden, bounded as follows: Beginning at a point latitude 39° 57′17″, longitude 75°07′58″, thence bearing 16°, 209 yards, thence 27°, 368 yards, thence 46°, 355 yards, thence 139°, 200 yards, thence 221°, 604 yards, thence 199°, 222 yards, and thence 287°, 147 yards to the point of beginning. These coordinates are based on the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) horizontal datum reference.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Meredith L. Austin, Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16714 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 131 [EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0392; FRL-9946-01-OW] RIN 2040-AF61 Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Revised Numeric Criteria for Selenium for the San Francisco Bay and Delta, State of California AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise the current federal Clean Water Act selenium water quality criteria applicable to the San Francisco Bay and Delta to ensure that the criteria are set at levels that protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, including federally listed threatened and endangered species. The San Francisco Bay and Delta ecosystem is at risk due to environmental degradation, including impacts from elevated levels of selenium, and state and federal actions are underway to restore the waterway. Scientific evidence indicates that elevated selenium levels can contribute to the decline of fish and aquatic-dependent birds. EPA promulgated the San Francisco Bay and Delta's existing selenium criteria in 1992 as part of the National Toxics Rule, using EPA's recommended aquatic life criteria values at the time. However, the latest science on selenium fate and bioaccumulation indicates that the existing criteria are not protective of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Therefore, EPA is proposing to revise the existing selenium criteria, taking into account available science, legal requirements, and EPA policies and guidance. EPA's proposal will address the Administrator's determination—described in this preamble—that EPA's previously promulgated water quality criteria are not adequate to protect the designated uses for these waters.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2015-0392, 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.

    Two public hearings will be held on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, one at 9:00 a.m. and one at 2:00 p.m., at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Additionally, EPA will offer a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule via the internet on Monday evening, August 22, 2016 from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. For details on these public hearings, as well as registration information, please visit: https://epa.gov/wqs-tech/water-quality-standards-establishment-revised-numeric-criteria-selenium-san-francisco-bay.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erica Fleisig, Office of Water, Standards and Health Protection Division (4305T), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1057; email address: [email protected]; or Diane E. Fleck, P.E., Esq., Water Division (WTR-2-1), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3527; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This proposed rule is organized as follows:

    I. General Information II. Background A. CWA and EPA Regulations B. National Toxics Rule C. California Toxics Rule D. State of California Actions E. Applicability of EPA Promulgated Water Quality Standards When Final F. Selenium Chemistry and Biology III. Rationale and Approach A. Necessity B. Administrator's Determination of Necessity C. Approach D. Proposed Criteria IV. Implementation and Alternative Regulatory Approaches V. Endangered Species Act VI. Economic Analysis A. Identifying Affected Entities B. Method for Estimating Costs C. Results VII. Statutory and Executive Orders A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) F. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) G. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks) H. Executive Oder 13211 (Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 J. Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations) I. General Information

    Applicability: Entities such as industries, stormwater management districts, or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) that directly or indirectly discharge selenium to the San Francisco Bay and Delta could be indirectly affected by this rulemaking because federal water quality standards (WQS) promulgated by EPA would be applicable to Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory programs, such as National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. Citizens concerned with water quality in California could also be interested in this rulemaking. Categories and entities that could be affected include the following:

    Category Examples of potentially affected entities Industry Industries discharging pollutants to the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Municipalities Publicly owned treatment works or other facilities discharging pollutants to the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Stormwater Management Districts Entities responsible for managing stormwater runoff in the San Francisco Bay and Delta.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities that could be indirectly affected by this action. Any parties or entities who depend upon or contribute to the water quality of the San Francisco Bay and Delta could be affected by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility or activities could be affected by this action, you should carefully examine this proposed rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    II. Background A. CWA and EPA Regulations

    CWA section 101(a)(2) (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)(2)) establishes a national goal, wherever attainable, of “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water . . .” In this proposal, the relevant goals are the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.

    CWA section 303(c) (33 U.S.C. 1313(c)) directs states to adopt WQS for their waters subject to the CWA. CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131 require, among other things, that a state's WQS specify appropriate designated uses of the waters and water quality criteria that protect those uses. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) provide that “[s]uch criteria must be based on sound scientific rationale and must contain sufficient parameters or constituents to protect the designated use.” For waters with multiple use designations, the criteria must support the most sensitive use (40 CFR 131.11(a)(1)). In addition, 40 CFR 131.10(b) provides that “[i]n designating uses of a water body and the appropriate criteria for those uses, the [s]tate shall take into consideration the water quality standards of downstream waters and shall ensure that its water quality standards provide for the attainment and maintenance of the water quality standards of downstream waters.”

    States are required to review applicable WQS at least once every three years and, if appropriate, revise or adopt new standards (CWA section 303(c)(1)). Any new or revised WQS must be submitted to EPA for review and approval or disapproval (CWA section 303(c)(2)(A) and (c)(3)). Under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B), the Administrator is authorized to determine, even in the absence of a state submission, that a new or revised standard is needed to meet CWA requirements.

    Under CWA section 304(a), EPA periodically publishes criteria recommendations for states to consider when adopting water quality criteria for particular pollutants to meet the CWA section 101(a)(2) goals. In establishing numeric criteria, states should adopt water quality criteria based on EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, section 304(a) criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, or other scientifically defensible methods (40 CFR 131.11(b)(1)). CWA section 303(c)(2)(B) requires states to adopt numeric criteria for all toxic pollutants listed pursuant to CWA section 307(a)(1) for which EPA has published 304(a) criteria, as necessary to support the states' designated uses.

    B. National Toxics Rule

    On December 22, 1992, EPA promulgated Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliance at 57 FR 60848 (hereafter referred to as the National Toxics Rule or NTR).1 The NTR established chemical-specific numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for states that EPA had determined were not in compliance with the requirements of CWA section 303(c)(2)(B). The NTR included selenium water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic life in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. On May 4, 1995, EPA issued a stay of the criteria for metals in the NTR and immediately promulgated revised criteria for metals in the NTR in the Stay of Federal Water Quality Criteria for Metals at 60 FR 22227 and Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants; States' Compliance—Revision of Metals Criteria, at 60 FR 22229.2 The 1995 Stay and Revision did not change the selenium water quality criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta. These criteria are currently applicable in the Bay and Delta, and consist of a chronic criterion of 5 micrograms per liter (μg/L), and an acute criterion of 20 μg/L. Both criteria are expressed in the total recoverable form of selenium.

    1 The NTR is codified at 40 CFR 131.36.

    2 The purpose of the 1995 amendment was, in general, to replace aquatic life total recoverable metals criteria with dissolved metals criteria to reflect a revised EPA policy that dissolved metals criteria better represent the biologically available fraction of water borne metals to aquatic organisms. Although selenium was included in the analysis for the revised policy, the 1995 amendment did not include a freshwater conversion factor for selenium, and thus, the aquatic life freshwater selenium criteria in the NTR remain in the total recoverable form. The EPA policy memorandum, Office of Water Policy and Technical Guidance on Interpretation and Implementation of Aquatic Life Metals Criteria, by Martha G. Prothro on October 1, 1993, states that selenium is a “bioaccumulative chemical and [it is] not appropriate to adjust to percent dissolved” for freshwater selenium criteria (see policy memorandum, Attachment 2, page 5).

    The currently applicable selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life in the San Francisco Bay and Delta were based on EPA's CWA section 304(a) recommended criteria values at the time that EPA promulgated the criteria in the NTR. These recommendations are documented in EPA's Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Selenium—1987, Office of Water, EPA-440/5-87-008, September, 1987.

    EPA derived the 1987 freshwater aquatic life recommended criteria values for selenium from observed impacts on fish populations at a contaminated lake, Belews Lake, in North Carolina. The lake, a cooling water reservoir, had been affected by selenium loads from a coal-fired power plant. Since aquatic life was exposed to selenium from both the water column and diet, the criteria reflect both types of exposure in Belews Lake. EPA derived the 1987 saltwater aquatic life recommended criteria values for selenium using data from lab studies. EPA calculated the criteria in accordance with EPA's Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses, Office of Research and Development, 1985. The 1987 recommended freshwater criteria values for total recoverable selenium are 5 μg/L (chronic) and 20 μg/L (acute), and the saltwater criteria values for total recoverable selenium are 71 μg/L (chronic) and 300 μg/L (acute).

    In the NTR, EPA promulgated selenium criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta based on the 1987 freshwater recommended criteria values for selenium, even though the San Francisco Bay and Delta are marine and estuarine waters. EPA used the more stringent freshwater values because of a concern that the saltwater criteria were not sufficiently protective “based on substantial evidence that there are high levels of selenium bioaccumulation in San Francisco Bay and the saltwater criteria fail to account for food chain effects” and “utilization of the saltwater criteria for selenium in the San Francisco Bay/Delta would be inappropriate.” (57 FR 60898).

    Since then, EPA has taken steps to revise the 1987 CWA 304(a) recommended criteria for selenium to better account for bioaccumulation through the food chain in different ecosystems. EPA recently published a revised CWA 304(a) freshwater recommended criterion for selenium: Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2016, US EPA, Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-006, June, 2016. EPA considered the methodology and information used to derive the revised CWA 304(a) recommended selenium criterion, along with additional information specific to the San Francisco Bay and Delta, in developing the revised selenium criteria values for the San Francisco Bay and Delta in this proposed rule.

    C. California Toxics Rule

    On May 18, 2000, EPA promulgated Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California at 65 FR 31681 (hereafter referred to as the California Toxics Rule or CTR).3 The CTR established numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants for inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries within California. EPA promulgated the CTR after California rescinded its water quality control plans containing pollutant objectives (criteria). The criteria that EPA previously promulgated for California in the NTR,4 together with the criteria promulgated in the CTR and California's designated uses and anti-degradation provisions, set water quality standards for priority toxic pollutants for inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries in California.

    3 The CTR is codified at 40 CFR 131.38.

    4 The CTR Criteria Table at 40 CFR 131.38(b)(1) includes all water quality criteria previously promulgated in the NTR, so that readers can find all federally promulgated water quality criteria for California in one place. All criteria previously promulgated in the NTR are footnoted as such in the CTR.

    As required by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), EPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) concerning EPA's rulemaking actions for California. EPA initiated consultation in 1994, and in March 2000, the Services issued a final Joint Biological Opinion. The final Joint Biological Opinion requested that EPA revise its 1987 recommended criteria values for selenium to ensure the protection of species listed as threatened or endangered, and later update the criteria for California consistent with the revised recommendations. In response, EPA reserved the acute freshwater selenium criterion from the final May 2000 CTR.

    In September 2002, EPA, the Services, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the State of California met to discuss the development of revised selenium water quality criteria and recommended that California-specific selenium water quality criteria be developed as wildlife criteria. The agencies agreed that criteria should first be developed to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife using the Luoma-Presser (USGS) bioaccumulation model 5 for the San Francisco Bay and Delta based on the necessity for more stringent criteria in the estuary, and to subsequently develop criteria for the rest of California using appropriate methods.

    5 The model developed by Theresa Presser and Sam Luoma is the selenium ecosystem bioaccumulation model first presented in Forecasting Selenium Discharges to the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary: Ecological Effects of a Proposed San Luis Drain Extension, Open File Report 00-416, Samuel N. Luoma and Theresa S. Presser, 2000, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California. This report was revised and superseded in 2006 by Professional Paper 1646, Theresa S. Presser and Samuel N. Luoma, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. A detailed explanation of the model is contained in A Methodology for Ecosystem-Scale Modeling of Selenium, T.S. Presser and S.N. Luoma, 2010, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Volume 6, Number 4.

    Starting in 2003, EPA and the Services provided assistance to the USGS to model selenium fate and biological uptake in the San Francisco Bay and Delta using the USGS bioaccumulation model. USGS completed its report, entitled Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Modeling in Support of Fish and Wildlife Criteria Development for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, California, Administrative Report (the USGS Report), and submitted it to EPA in December 2010. USGS used site-specific data from various sources and species-specific data from the FWS. EPA analyzed the USGS Report and data from the FWS and other relevant reports to develop the selenium criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta in this proposed rule.

    In 2013, two organizations filed a legal complaint against EPA, based in part on the fact that work on updating the reserved acute freshwater selenium criterion from the 2000 CTR had not yet been completed while EPA had previously determined, in the proposed CTR, that the criterion was among those necessary to implement section 303(c)(2)(B) of the CWA (62 FR 42160, August 5, 1997). EPA ultimately consented to a court-ordered resolution of these claims.6 Under the terms of the court order, EPA committed to developing updated selenium criteria for the California waters covered by the original CTR. However, this proposed rule relates to a different set of selenium criteria: Those selenium criteria that EPA previously proposed and finalized for the San Francisco Bay and Delta in the NTR. Since EPA has chosen to prioritize the development of this latter set of selenium criteria, EPA expects to defer proposing the remaining selenium criteria for the rest of California until no later than November 30, 2018, pursuant to the terms of the court-ordered resolution.

    6Our Children's Earth Foundation and Ecological Rights Foundation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et al., 13-cv-2857 (N.D. Cal, August 22, 2014).

    D. State of California Actions

    The State of California has nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Boards), each located in and overseeing different areas of the state. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in Sacramento oversees the actions of the nine Regional Boards and periodically establishes policy and standards for consistency across the Regional Boards. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) oversee different parts of the Bay and Delta. The SFRWQCB oversees all parts of the San Francisco Bay including the South San Francisco Bay, Lower San Francisco Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Carquinez Strait and Suisun Bay, and a small portion of the western side of Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The CVRWQCB oversees the remaining areas of the Delta which include the confluences of the Sacramento and the San Joaquin Rivers. Each Regional Board has a regional water quality control plan (Basin Plan) that sets forth the beneficial (designated) uses for the waterbodies it oversees. Once EPA finalizes the proposed criteria, each Regional Board will implement the criteria in its WQS programs for the waters it oversees.

    In 1978, the SWRCB adopted a comprehensive plan for the Bay and Delta estuary: The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary. The plan was amended in 1991, 1995 and most recently in December 2006. This plan supplements the two regional Basin Plans that cover the estuary and establishes a comprehensive set of designated uses for all parts of the Bay and Delta. The plan describes the uses as existing uses.

    The site-specific selenium criteria in this proposed rule are intended to protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, including federally listed threatened and endangered species, in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. The designated uses in the SWRCB water quality control plan for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife are listed in Table 1. The proposed criteria will establish levels of selenium that protect California's designated uses for the estuary.

    Table 1—Existing Designated Uses for the San Francisco Bay and Delta Use Abbreviation Definition Warm Freshwater Habitat WARM Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Cold Freshwater Habitat COLD Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancements of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates. Migration of Aquatic Organisms MIGR Uses of water that support habitats necessary for the migration or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish. Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development SPWN Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish. Estuarine Habitat EST Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of estuarine habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife (e.g., estuarine mammals, waterfowl, shorebirds). Wildlife Habitat WILD Uses of water that support estuarine ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species RARE Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under State or federal law as being rare, threatened, or endangered.

    The proposed criteria are being set at levels that will protect aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife consistent with WARM, COLD, EST, WILD and RARE uses, as well as protect aquatic life consistent with MIGR and SPWN uses.

    E. Applicability of EPA Promgulated Water Quality Standards When Final

    Under the CWA, Congress gave states primary responsibility for developing and adopting WQS for their waters (CWA section 303(a)-(c)). Although EPA is proposing selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife for marine and estuarine waters in California's San Francisco Bay and Delta, California continues to have the option to adopt and submit to EPA protective selenium criteria for these waters consistent with CWA section 303(c) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131. EPA encourages California to expeditiously adopt protective criteria. Consistent with CWA section 303(c)(4), if California adopts and submits selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife, and EPA approves such criteria before finalizing this proposed rule, EPA would not proceed with the promulgation for those waters for which EPA approves California's criteria.

    If EPA finalizes this proposed rule and California subsequently adopts and submits selenium criteria for the protection of aquatic and aquatic-dependent wildlife for marine and estuarine waters in the estuary, EPA proposes that once EPA approves California's WQS, the EPA-approved criteria in California's WQS would become the applicable criteria for CWA purposes and EPA's promulgated criteria would no longer be applicable criteria. EPA would undertake a rulemaking to withdraw the federal criteria for selenium, but that process would not delay California's approved criteria from becoming the sole applicable criteria for CWA purposes. EPA solicits comment on this approach.

    F. Selenium Chemistry and Biology

    Selenium is an element that occurs naturally in sediments of marine origin and enters the aquatic environment when rainwater comes into contact with deposits. Selenium can be further mobilized through anthropogenic activities such as agriculture irrigation, mining and petroleum refining. Once inorganic selenium is converted into a bioavailable form, it enters the food chain and can bioaccumulate. Depending on environmental conditions, one or another form of selenium such as selenate, selenite and organo-selenium, which differ in transformation rates and bioavailability, may predominate in the aquatic environment.

    Selenium is an essential micro-nutrient, but the range between essential and toxic levels is narrow. A long-standing hypothesis is that toxicity occurs through biochemical pathways where excess selenium substitutes for sulphur in proteins, which alters their structure and function. More recent studies indicate that selenium may affect organisms through oxidative stress (see Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Selenium—Freshwater 2016, U.S. EPA, Office of Water, EPA 822-R-16-006, June, 2016). Elevated selenium levels in fish and other wildlife inhibit normal growth and reduce reproductive success through effects that lower embryo survival, most notably teratogenesis.

    Scientific studies indicate that selenium toxicity to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife is driven by diet (i.e., the consumption of selenium-contaminated prey food) rather than by direct exposure in the water column. Selenium can accumulate in the aquatic food web through various routes and at various rates. At the bottom of the food chain, bacteria and algae can bioaccumulate selenium to levels that greatly exceed water column concentrations, and some invertebrates such as filter-feeding clams, can efficiently accumulate selenium from suspended organic and inorganic particles. In the San Francisco Bay and Delta, clam-based food webs accumulate selenium at a much higher rate than insect-based food webs, and the invasive clam species, Potamocorbula amurensis, now found throughout the estuary, can accumulate selenium at a much higher rate than supplanted clam species. Therefore, species that feed on this clam in the estuary, such as diving birds and sturgeon, are exposed to higher levels of bioaccumulated selenium than species that feed mainly on insects or higher-order species within an insect-based food chain. The vulnerability of a species to selenium toxicity is determined by a number of factors in addition to the amount of contaminated prey food consumed. A species' sensitivity to selenium, its population status, and the duration, timing and life stage of exposure are all factors to consider. In addition, the hydrologic conditions and water chemistry of a water body affect bioaccumulation; in general, slow-moving, calm waters or lentic waters enhance the production of bioavailable forms of selenium (selenite), while faster-moving waters or lotic waters limit selenium uptake given the rapid movement and predominant form of selenium (selenate). EPA considered these and other factors in determining the proposed selenium criteria for the estuary.

    III. Rationale and Approach A. Necessity

    Ecological Health of the Estuary: The San Francisco Bay and Delta is the largest estuary on the West Coast of North America and, as part of the Pacific Flyway, serves as an important migratory stopover and wintering area for a variety of waterfowl. The estuary is formed by the intersection of two large river systems, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, which drain approximately 40 percent of California. The estuary is comprised of a series of large and small bays, marshes, and channels leading to the Pacific Ocean through the Golden Gate. The system is critical to California's ecological and economic well-being, and has long been the subject of competing interests. The estuary is the hub of California's water distribution system, providing drinking water to 25 million people, supplying irrigation for 4 million acres of farmland, and supporting over 750 different species of plants and animals. The estuary contributes to the area's economically important recreational and commercial fishing and boating industries. However, as a result of these competing demands and associated stresses, the ecosystem has suffered greatly and water quality in the estuary is impaired, habitat is shrinking, important fish populations are at an all-time low, and several species are listed as threatened or endangered. In recent years, pelagic (open water) species have declined, with some fish populations in serious, critical condition. This sudden collapse in pelagic species, referred to as the pelagic organism decline (or POD), has been intensively studied, but no one factor has been identified as the cause. Many factors are thought to be responsible for the decline of the estuary's health including water pollution, invasive species, water diversion and water project operations, ocean conditions (limited food and adverse temperatures), and habitat destruction and degradation. For a more detailed discussion, see Unabridged Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Water Quality Challenges in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, U.S. EPA, February 2011; 76 FR 9709, February 22, 2011.

    Plan for Restoration: In 2009, the Federal Bay Delta Leadership Committee, a Cabinet-level, multi-agency committee charged with coordinating federal responses to Bay and Delta issues, issued its Interim Federal Action Plan, which outlined the federal government's proposal to address water resource management issues in the estuary. The Interim Federal Action Plan included an action for EPA to “address the effectiveness of current regulatory mechanisms designed to protect water quality in the Delta and its tributaries, including standards for toxics, nutrients, and estuarine habitat protection.” In response, after extensive public comment, EPA published Water Quality Challenges in the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary: EPA's Action Plan (the Action Plan) in August 2012. In the Action Plan, EPA concluded that existing programs under the CWA were not adequately safeguarding resources, and recommended seven priority activities to advance the protection and restoration of aquatic resources and ensure a reliable water supply in the watershed. The priority activities are: 1. Strengthen estuarine habitat protection standards; 2. Advance regional water quality monitoring and assessment; 3. Accelerate water quality restoration through Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs); 4. Strengthen selenium water quality criteria; 5. Prevent pesticide pollution; 6. Restore aquatic habitats while managing methylmercury; and 7. Support the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (now called the California WaterFix). This proposed rule is intended to advance priority activity number four, Strengthen selenium water quality criteria.

    Sources of Selenium: Sources of selenium in the estuary include the tributaries flowing into the Delta and Bay, municipal and industrial wastewater discharges, stormwater discharges, atmospheric deposition, and in-bay sediments. The largest contributors are the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and the five oil refineries located along the Bay.

    The headwaters of both rivers originate from snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada. The Sacramento River flows north to south into the Delta, and drains the northern portion of the Central Valley. The San Joaquin River flows east to west, then turns and flows south to north into the Delta, and drains the southern and central portions of the Central Valley, which are used extensively for farming. The two rivers meet in the Delta near Antioch and flow west into the northern reaches of the Bay, then southwest to the Pacific Ocean.

    Selenium concentrations in the San Joaquin River are elevated from selenium enriched soils on the west side of the Central Valley. Agricultural irrigation practices mobilize naturally occurring selenium in the heavy soils derived from marine shale and sediment. Selenium concentrations in the Sacramento River are much lower than in the San Joaquin River and are generally at natural background levels.7 Flow volumes from each river vary depending on the water year type and season, and for the San Joaquin River, the volume of diversions. Therefore, selenium loads from the rivers vary, while loads from the refineries are more constant.

    7Water Quality Survey for Selenium in the Sacramento River and its Major Tributaries, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region, 1988, Sacramento, California.

    The San Joaquin watershed is much drier than the Sacramento watershed, and flows to the Bay from the San Joaquin River are significantly smaller than those from the Sacramento River. In addition, dams for hydropower and flood control further limit flows from the San Joaquin. Flow volume from the San Joaquin into the Delta as measured at Vernalis between 2002 and 2011 has ranged from approximately 8 to 30 percent of the flow volume from the Sacramento River at Freeport during the same time period.8 At Clifton Court Forebay in the San Joaquin Delta below Vernalis, the State Water Project pumps water from the Delta to the California Aqueduct for delivery to Southern California, and the Central Valley Project pumps water to the Delta Mendota Canal for delivery to Central Valley farmers. As a result of these diversions, even less flow from the San Joaquin enters the northern part of the Bay.

    8 USGS National Water Information System, Surface-Water Annual Statistics for California at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/nwis (search terms: Surface Water; Annual Flow Data (Stream); Sacramento County at Freeport, USGS 11447650, and San Joaquin County at Vernalis, USGS 11303500, 2002-2012, compare discharge in cubic feet per second based on daily-mean data for water years 2002-2011).

    Although flows from the San Joaquin are much smaller than flows from the Sacramento, selenium concentrations have been significantly higher than concentrations in the Sacramento. In 1998 and 1999, concentrations of dissolved selenium in the San Joaquin River averaged 0.71 µg/L, and ranged from 0.40 to 1.07 µg/L at Vernalis.9 Concentrations in the San Joaquin have declined recently, but continue to be higher than levels in the Sacramento River. Recent data from 2010-2012 show that dissolved selenium concentrations range from 0.207 to 0.47 µg/L in the San Joaquin.10 Concentrations in the Sacramento have not materially changed during this time period. In 1998 and 1999, concentrations of dissolved selenium averaged 0.07 µg/L, and ranged from 0.05 to 0.11 µg/L at Freeport.9 More recent data from 2010-2012 show levels between 0.062 and 0.09 µg/L.10

    9Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Modeling in Support of Fish and Wildlife Criteria Development for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, California, Theresa S. Presser and Samuel N. Luoma, U.S. Geological Survey, 2010, Menlo, Park, California; and using data from: (1) Selenium Biogeochemistry in the San Francisco Estuary: Changes in Water Column Behavior, G.A. Cutter and L.S. Cutter, 2004, Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 61:3 pp 463-476; (2) Sources and Biogeochemical Cycling of Particulate Selenium in the San Francisco Bay Estuary, M.A. Doblin, S.B. Baines, L.S. Cutter, and G.A. Cutter, 2006, Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 76:4 pp. 681-694; and (3) Transport, Transformation, and Effects of Selenium and Carbon in the Delta of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers: Implications for Ecosystem Restoration, L. Lucas and A.R. Stewart, 2007, CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program, Agreement No. 4600001955, Project No. ERP-01-C07.

    10North San Francisco Bay Selenium Characterization Study, Final Report (Appendix B Data Tables), Tetra Tech, Inc. on behalf of Western States Petroleum Association, 2012, Lafayette, California.

    Concentrations of dissolved selenium in the Delta and in the northern and central portions of the Bay from 1998-1999 ranged from 0.070 to 0.320 µg/L.9 Recent data from 2010-2012 show that concentrations have decreased, and range from 0.058 to 0.13 µg/L.10

    Agriculture: Selenium concentrations in the San Joaquin River and the estuary are decreasing, in part, as a result of conservation actions from the agricultural industry and California's implementation of three selenium TMDLs in the Central Valley. TMDLs for a portion of the San Joaquin River, the Grassland Marshes, and Salt Slough (a tributary) are being implemented through Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) (permits) and the Grassland Bypass Project to reduce and reroute discharges of agricultural return flows from the west side of the watershed around sensitive wetlands.

    Between 1986 and 1996, before construction of the Grassland Bypass Project and implementation of the TMDLs, selenium loads in the San Joaquin at Patterson and Crows Landing below the confluence of the Merced River averaged 8,129 pounds per year (lbs/year). Since 2000, selenium loads have ranged from 1,526-6,353 lbs/year, with the lowest loads in recent years.11 Between the mid-1990s and the mid-2000s, selenium loading to surface waters decreased by approximately one-half to two-thirds through agricultural water conservation measures such as harvesting crops that require less water, drip irrigation, water recycling and reuse on salt-tolerant crops, and land retirement. Although the final WDR loading targets have not been met, the agriculture industry has helped reduce selenium loads in the watershed. Final targets are scheduled to be achieved by 2019.

    11Grassland Bypass Project Annual Report 2010-2011, San Francisco Estuary Institute for the Grassland Bypass Project Oversight Committee, 2013, Chapter 1 (Table 7) by Michael C.S. Eacock and Stacy Brown, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Fresno, California.

    Refineries: Another source of selenium to the estuary is wastewater from the processing of selenium-rich crude oil, from the five major oil refineries located along the Bay. The recent decreases in selenium concentrations in the Bay are also the result of the refineries reducing selenium loads in wastewater discharges in response to California's implementation of more stringent NPDES permit limits. Selenium levels in crude vary, and the crude from the San Joaquin Basin can contain significantly higher levels than other sources of crude. Available data indicate that from 1986 through 1992, the cumulative selenium load to the Bay from the refineries averaged approximately 5,000 lbs/year, and ranged from 3,953 to 5,783 lbs/year.9 In 1991, California required the refineries to reduce their mass discharge of selenium and achieve more stringent wastewater concentration limits. The refineries achieved their mass-based limits and revised concentration limits by 1998. The average cumulative selenium load for all refineries since 1999 has been approximately 1,200 lbs/year, down approximately 75% from early 1990 levels.9 Activities undertaken by both the agriculture industry and the refineries have helped to reduce selenium loads to the Bay.

    Invasive Clam Species: In the fall of 1986, after major flooding in the spring had wiped out large parts of the existing benthic community, a small bivalve was discovered in the northern reaches of San Francisco Bay.12 Its population rapidly increased and spread throughout the estuary. The species, Potamocorbula amurensis (P. amurensis), commonly known as Corbula, is native to China, Japan, and Korea, and is thought to have been introduced to the estuary from ballast water. Adults tolerate a wide range of salinity (1 to 32 parts per thousand), and although Corbula flourish in subtidal waters, they can also live in intertidal mudflats.12 The species is remarkably efficient in accumulating selenium from its environment 13 and is responsible for the accelerated bioaccumulation of selenium in the food chain of the fish and bird species in the Bay and Delta ecosystem. The species most at risk in the estuary from the Corbula invasion are believed to be clam-eating fish and bird species such as green and white sturgeon, scoter and scaup.

    12The Exotics Guide: Non-native Marine Species of the North American Pacific Coast, 2011, Andrew N. Cohen, Center for Research on Aquatic Bioinvasions, Richmond, California, and San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, California. http://www.exoticsguide.org.

    13Food Web Pathway Determines How Selenium Affects Ecosystems: A San Francisco Bay Case Study, 2004, A. Robin Stewart, Samuel N. Luoma, Christian E. Schlekat, and Kathryn A. Hieb, Environmental Science and Technology, 38:4519-4526.

    Need for Revised Criteria: EPA now has updated scientific information on selenium fate and bioaccumulation, as well as updated information on the Bay and Delta estuary ecosystem that was not available when EPA developed the existing Bay and Delta selenium criteria in the NTR. These data indicate the need for revised criteria. The explosion of the Corbula population in the early 1990s has drastically changed the food web and selenium bioaccumulation dynamics in the Bay and Delta. The Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Model for the San Francisco estuary allows EPA to develop revised selenium criteria that account for site-specific and species-specific characteristics, including species with greater exposure and/or susceptibility to selenium. In doing so, EPA is following the requirements at 40 CFR 131.11(a)(1) to derive criteria that are based on a sound scientific rationale and protect the most sensitive uses, which in the case of the Bay and Delta include migration of aquatic organisms (e.g., anadromous fish species), and habitat for rare, threatened and endangered species.

    Although conditions have improved from reduced agriculture and refinery loads, ambient levels of selenium are not consistently below harmful levels in all parts of the estuary. Revised criteria are necessary to help ensure that protective levels are attained in all parts of the water body and are maintained in the future to protect designated uses. Several indigenous species are listed under the ESA as threatened or endangered, including green sturgeon, Chinook salmon, steelhead trout, delta smelt and the California Ridgway's rail, and many migratory bird species use the estuary as a wintering ground, including greater and lesser scaup, and white-winged, surf, and black scoter. The analyses to develop the fish tissue and the avian egg tissue benchmarks used in the modeling, and the modeling results used to derive the proposed water column criteria, indicate the health of these species would be negatively impacted from exposure to selenium water column concentrations above 0.2 µg/L, which would be allowed to occur under the existing NTR selenium criterion of 5.0 µg/L. Accordingly, EPA finds that it is necessary to propose revised and more protective criteria for selenium in order to help ensure the continued protection of these vulnerable species and associated designated uses.

    B. Administrator's Determination of Necessity

    Because California's existing aquatic life criteria for selenium in the salt and estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay, upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as promulgated by EPA in the NTR, are not protective of the applicable designated uses per the CWA and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 131.11, EPA determines under CWA section 303(c)(4)(B) that new or revised WQS for the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife are necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA for these California waters. EPA, therefore, proposes the revised selenium aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife criteria in this rule in accordance with this 303(c)(4)(B) determination. EPA's determination is not itself a final action, nor part of a final action, at this time. After consideration of comments on the proposed rule, EPA will take final agency action on this rulemaking. It is at that time that any change to the water quality standards applicable in California would occur.

    C. Approach

    USGS Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Model: The Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Model uses species-specific and hydrologic site-specific information to model the fate and biological uptake of selenium in an aquatic ecosystem through diet. The model was originally developed for the San Francisco estuary. It conceptualizes and quantifies several key variables in order to predict how selenium moves from the water environment to wildlife species through the food chain. It can link selenium tissue concentrations in fish or avian wildlife to dissolved and particulate selenium concentrations in the water environment and to selenium tissue concentrations in prey food.

    Starting in 2003, USGS worked with the Services and EPA to model the San Francisco Bay and Delta using various scenarios and endpoints (see the USGS Report). Using the best available data for the estuary, USGS modeled a clam-based food web from the Golden Gate through Suisun Bay to Chipps Island and an insect-based food web from Benicia to Rio Vista (in the Sacramento River Delta area) and to Stockton (in the San Joaquin River Delta area). Using site-specific partitioning coefficients to determine rates of selenium transformation between dissolved and particulate phases, the model can predict how efficiently selenium enters the base of the food web. Once selenium enters the food web, using site-specific trophic transfer factors, which relate selenium concentrations in a species to selenium concentrations in its food, the model can predict how efficiently selenium moves up into prey food and to a predator species. Alternatively, a protective tissue level of selenium in an upper trophic level fish species or in a terrestrial wildlife species (any predator species) can be used to back-calculate and predict the protective concentration of selenium in the species' prey, and the protective concentration of dissolved and particulate selenium at the base of its food web in the aquatic environment.

    EPA Modeling: Using information from the Services on important and/or vulnerable fish and avian wildlife species in the estuary, and building on the USGS modeling of the estuary, EPA modeled the estuary to develop site-specific scenarios on which to base the proposed criteria (see Technical Support Document for the Proposed Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Selenium Water Quality Criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta (2016), US EPA Region 9, June, 2016).

    EPA considered various protective (benchmark) tissue values for representative fish and avian wildlife species to use in the modeling. EPA found that the most appropriate tissue benchmark values for fish species in the estuary are the recommended values in EPA's recent national recommended freshwater aquatic life criterion for selenium 14 and for avian species in the estuary, the egg tissue value discussed in EPA's approval of the State of Utah's avian wildlife criterion for Gilbert Bay of the Great Salt Lake.15 These benchmark values represent a 10% Effect Concentration (EC10), which is a concentration or level of a pollutant that may adversely affect up to 10% of a species population. In the national recommended freshwater aquatic life criterion for selenium, EPA used EC10 concentrations to develop the selenium water quality criterion values.14

    14Final Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium—Freshwater 2016, EPA 822-R-16-006, US EPA, Office of Water, 2016, Washington, DC.

    15EPA Action on the Gilbert Bay Selenium Criterion and Footnote (14), and Enclosure, US EPA Region 8, 2011, Denver, Colorado.

    EPA modeled two food webs in the estuary, a clam-based web and an insect-based web, to determine protective dissolved, particulate and prey-tissue selenium values. EPA modeled a clam-based food chain for fish and two clam-based food chains for birds that consume Corbula from the estuary, each chain representing at-risk fish and bird species in the estuary. The clam-based fish modeling represented white and juvenile green sturgeon, important species in the estuary that EPA determined are the most vulnerable clam-eating fish species. Although white sturgeon are not listed under the ESA, green sturgeon are threatened and the estuary is designated as critical habitat for the species. Since other important vulnerable fish species in the estuary such as Sacramento splittail consume less Corbula than sturgeon, the other species should be protected if sturgeon are protected.

    EPA modeled two clam-based food web scenarios for at-risk avian wildlife to represent two different patterns of avian clam-consumption in the estuary. The California Ridgway's rail (formerly the California clapper rail) is a small, endangered, indigenous bird that lives year-round in the estuary and eats mostly mollusks, but only a small percentage of Corbula. The five species of migratory diving waterfowl, greater and lesser scaup and white-winged, surf, and black scoter, live part-time in the estuary, but up to 90% of their diet may consist of Corbula from the estuary. These differences in living and eating patterns are sufficiently significant that EPA ran the model for each separately to ensure the criteria are protective of all avian wildlife in the Bay and Delta estuary.

    Lastly, EPA modeled insect-eating fish to represent two important anadromous species, the endangered Chinook salmon and the threatened steelhead trout, and an important, threatened, indigenous species in the estuary, the delta smelt. Since anadromous species use the estuary as a migratory corridor, and adults returning to spawn do not feed during in-migration, EPA considered the diet of juveniles as they out-migrate through the estuary to the Pacific Ocean. Delta smelt, and juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout, consume mainly insects, and do not feed on Corbula.

    The model results indicate that clam-eating fish and clam-eating bird species are the most vulnerable species, and require lower dissolved and particulate water column selenium concentrations in the estuary than insect-eating fish in order to ensure that tissue levels stay below concentrations that may cause adverse effects. EPA considered the dissolved water column, particulate water column, and prey-tissue values necessary to protect all three categories of species in setting the proposed regulatory criteria values.

    D. Proposed Criteria

    Water quality criteria establish the maximum allowable pollutant level that is protective of the designated uses of a water body. States (or in this case, EPA) adopt criteria as part of water quality standards. Under the CWA, water quality standards are used to derive effluent limitations in permits for point source dischargers, thereby limiting the amount of pollutants that may be discharged into a water body to maintain its designated uses. EPA is proposing selenium water quality criteria for the San Francisco Bay and Delta in tissue and in the water column (both dissolved and particulate selenium concentrations). EPA is proposing selenium tissue concentration criteria because they reflect biological uptake through diet, the predominant pathway for selenium toxicity, and because they are most predictive of the observed biological endpoint of concern: reproductive toxicity. However, tissue concentrations present challenges when attempting to use them to regulate or limit sources of pollutants. In order to facilitate monitoring and regulation of pollutant discharges, EPA is also proposing dissolved and particulate water column selenium concentration criteria needed to ensure the tissue concentration criteria are met. Because EPA used site-specific species and hydrologic information in the Ecosystem-Scale Selenium Model to determine the protective dissolved and particulate water column and prey selenium concentrations associated with the predator tissue concentrations, EPA proposes that the criteria in different media are equivalently protective and exceedance of any one medium would indicate an impairment of the designated use.

    The proposed tissue criteria consist of fish tissue criteria, a whole body criterion of 8.5 micrograms per gram (µg/g) dry weight (dw) or a muscle criterion of 11.3 µg/g dw, and a clam (or prey) tissue criterion of 15 µg/g dw. EPA is proposing each of these tissue criteria as an instantaneous measurement not to be exceeded. The proposed chronic water column criterion is a dissolved selenium criterion of 0.2 µg/L, and the proposed particulate criterion is 1 µg/g. Each of these two values is a 30-day average, not to be exceeded more than once in three years.

    Although selenium may cause acute toxicity at high concentrations, i.e., toxicity from a brief but highly elevated concentration of selenium in the water, chronic dietary exposure poses the highest risk to aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife. Chronic toxicity occurs primarily through maternal transfer of selenium to eggs and causes subsequent reproductive effects. These chronic effects are observed at much lower concentrations than acute effects. Aquatic and aquatic-dependent communities are expected to be protected by the chronic criteria from any potential acute effects of selenium and an acute toxicity criterion is not pertinent for regulatory purposes. However, some high, short-term exposures could be detrimental by causing significant long-term, residual, bioaccumulative effects, i.e., by the introduction of a selenium load into the system. Therefore, EPA is also proposing an intermittent exposure water quality criterion to prevent long-term detrimental effects from these high, short-term exposures. EPA derived the proposed intermittent criterion as a fraction of the 30-day load based on the chronic water column criterion, after accounting for the background selenium concentration. EPA expects that a short-term, significantly elevated selenium scenario would rarely occur in the San Francisco Bay and Delta due to the large volume of water and tidal influences within the estuary that dilute and flush selenium loads through the Golden Gate. EPA is proposing this intermittent criterion to ensure protection of the ecosystem and for consistency with EPA's national recommended aquatic life criterion for selenium. A summary of the proposed criteria is included in Table 2.

    EP15JY16.097

    The proposed criteria apply to all waters of the San Francisco Bay and Delta with salinities of greater than 1 part per thousand (ppt) 95% or more of the time.

    IV. Implementation and Alternative Regulatory Approaches

    California will have considerable discretion to implement these selenium criteria, once finalized, through various water quality control programs, including the NPDES program, which limits discharges to waters except in compliance with an NPDES permit. Among other things, EPA's regulations: (1) Specify how states and authorized tribes establish, modify or remove designated uses, (2) specify the requirements for establishing criteria to protect designated uses, including criteria modified to reflect site-specific conditions, (3) authorize states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances to provide time to achieve the applicable WQS, and (4) allow states and authorized tribes to include compliance schedules in NPDES permits to provide time for dischargers to achieve effluent limits based on the applicable WQS. Designated uses, site-specific criteria, variances, and compliance schedules are discussed in more detail below.

    Designated Uses: EPA's proposed selenium criteria apply to marine and estuarine waters in the San Francisco Bay and Delta where the protection of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife are designated uses (see The Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary, SWRCB, December 13, 2006). The federal regulations at 40 CFR 131.10 provide information on establishing, modifying, and removing designated uses. If California removes designated uses such that no aquatic life or aquatic-dependent wildlife uses apply to any particular water body segment affected by this rule and adopts the highest attainable use,16 and EPA finds that removal to be consistent with CWA section 303(c) and the implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 131, then the federal selenium aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife criteria would no longer apply to that water body segment. Instead, any criteria associated with the newly designated highest attainable use would apply to that water body segment.

    16 Highest attainable use is the modified aquatic life, wildlife, or recreation use that is both closest to the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and attainable, based on the evaluation of the factor(s) in 40 CFR 131.10(g) that preclude(s) attainment of the use and any other information or analyses that were used to evaluate attainability. There is no required highest attainable use where the state demonstrates the relevant use specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA and sub-categories of such a use are not attainable (see 40 CFR 131.3(m)).

    Site-Specific Criteria: The regulations at 40 CFR 131.11 specify requirements for modifying water quality criteria to reflect site-specific conditions. In the context of this rulemaking, a site-specific criterion (SSC) is an alternative value to the federal selenium criteria that would be applied on an area-wide or water body-specific basis that meets the regulatory test of protecting the designated uses, being scientifically defensible, and ensuring the protection and maintenance of downstream WQS. A SSC may be more or less stringent than the otherwise applicable federal criteria. A SSC may be appropriate when further scientific data and analyses can bring added precision to express the concentration of selenium that protects the aquatic life- and aquatic-dependent wildlife-related designated uses in a particular water body or portion of a water body. Since the San Francisco Bay and Delta is a large water body, a different SSC may be appropriate for a small segment of the estuary, e.g., South San Francisco Bay, if differing flow dynamics indicate that different criteria may be more appropriate. As discussed in section II. E., EPA proposes that once EPA approves criteria that California adopts and submits after EPA finalizes this proposed rule, the site-specific EPA-approved criteria in California's WQS would become effective for CWA purposes and EPA's promulgated criteria would no longer apply.

    Variances: EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 131.14 authorize states and authorized tribes to adopt WQS variances to provide time to achieve the applicable WQS. 40 CFR part 131 defines WQS variances at 131.3(o) as time-limited designated uses and supporting criteria for a specific pollutant(s) or water quality parameters(s) that reflect the highest attainable conditions during the term of the WQS variance. WQS variances adopted in accordance with 40 CFR part 131 allow states and authorized tribes to address water quality challenges in a transparent and predictable way. Variances help states and authorized tribes focus on making incremental progress in improving water quality, rather than pursuing a downgrade of the underlying water quality goals through a designated use change, when the current designated use is difficult to attain. EPA is proposing criteria that apply to use designations that California has already established. California currently has authority to use variances when implementing the criteria, as long as such variances are adopted consistent with 40 CFR 131.14 (see Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, Section 5.3, SWRCB, March 2, 2000, amended February 24, 2005; and Procedures for Case-by-Case Exceptions from Criteria/Objectives, SWRCB, April 15, 2008). California may use EPA-approved variance procedures, with respect to a temporary modification of its uses as it pertains to any federal criteria, when adopting such variances.

    Compliance Schedules: EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.47 and 40 CFR 131.15 allow states and authorized tribes to include permit compliance schedules in their NPDES permits, when appropriate, in order to accommodate a discharger's need for additional time to meet its water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) implementing applicable WQS (such as time needed for facility upgrades and operational changes).

    In 1990, EPA concluded that before a permitting authority can include a compliance schedule for a WQBEL in an NPDES permit, the state or authorized tribe must authorize its use in its WQS or implementing regulations.17 A permit compliance schedule authorizing provision (CSAP) authorizes, but does not require, the permit issuing authority to include compliance schedules in permits. EPA's approval of the state's or authorized tribe's permit CSAP as a WQS pursuant to 40 CFR 131.15 ensures that any NPDES permit that contains a compliance schedule meets the requirement that the WQBEL and any compliance deadlines derive from and comply with applicable WQS.

    17In the Matter of Star-Kist Caribe, Inc. 3 EAD 172 (April 16, 1990).

    California is authorized to administer the NPDES program in the state, and has adopted several mechanisms to authorize compliance schedules in NPDES permits. In 2008, California adopted a statewide CSAP that EPA subsequently approved under CWA section 303(c), the Policy for Compliance Schedules in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits, SWRCB Resolution No. 2008-0025, April 15, 2008. This EPA-approved regulation authorizes the use of permit compliance schedules consistent with 40 CFR 131.15, and is not affected by this rule. The CSAP will allow California to grant compliance schedules, as appropriate, based on the federal selenium criteria for the Bay and Delta, once these criteria are finalized (see letters dated May 20, 2016 and May 27, 2016 from the SWRCB to EPA in the docket for this rule).

    V. Endangered Species Act

    Pursuant to section 7(a) of the ESA, EPA is consulting with the FWS and NMFS concerning EPA's rulemaking action for selenium water quality criteria in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. EPA will initiate informal consultation, and will transmit to the Services documentation that supports the selenium water quality criteria in this proposed rule. As a result of this consultation, EPA may modify some provisions of this proposed rule. The basis for the selenium criteria in this proposed rule stems from many years of ongoing collaboration between EPA and the Services. EPA, FWS and NMFS will continue to work closely together on this ESA consultation process.

    VI. Economic Analysis

    POTWs and industrial point sources that discharge to the Bay and Delta may incur some incremental compliance actions and costs as a result of the proposed criteria. California has NPDES permitting authority for these dischargers, and retains considerable discretion in implementing standards. EPA evaluated the potential costs to the municipal and industrial NPDES dischargers associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed dissolved water column criterion. EPA did not evaluate the potential costs associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed particulate water column criterion because particulate data are not available and because the state has discretion concerning implementation. This analysis is documented in Economic Analysis for Proposed Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Criteria for Selenium in the San Francisco Bay and Delta, California (prepared for EPA by Abt Associates in Partnership with PG Environmental, LLC, June, 2016), which can be found in the docket for this rulemaking.

    NPDES-permitted facilities that discharge selenium to affected portions of the Bay and Delta could potentially incur compliance costs. The types of affected facilities could include industrial facilities and POTWs discharging wastewater to surface waters (i.e., point sources). EPA expects that dischargers will use the same types of controls as they are currently using to comply with existing selenium criteria applicable to the Bay and Delta, to come into compliance with the revised criteria. Since the state recently adopted the North San Francisco Bay Selenium TMDL, and the TMDL requirements and underlying analyses indicate that current ambient water quality conditions (dissolved selenium levels at or below 0.2 µg/L) will be maintained, EPA did not include costs associated with point sources covered in the TMDL analysis.

    EPA did not identify incremental compliance costs for nonpoint sources. Unlike point sources, California typically does not require nonpoint sources to achieve numeric WQBELs; instead, these sources often have best management practice (BMP) requirements, as well as load allocations associated with TMDLs. Regional Boards have already established TMDLs for selenium in the Lower San Joaquin River and the North San Francisco Bay, and EPA assumes the proposed selenium criteria will not result in the need for additional controls by nonpoint sources in those areas. It is uncertain to what extent nonpoint sources contribute selenium loadings to the Lower and South San Francisco Bay. EPA assumes that naturally-occurring selenium may be the primary source of selenium in the Lower and South San Francisco Bay, and as such, the incremental controls and costs for nonpoint sources as a result of the proposed criteria will not be significant.

    A. Identifying Affected Entities

    Potentially affected facilities include those discharging to waters subject to the proposed criteria (i.e., marine or estuarine waters) that are not already included in the North San Francisco Bay Selenium TMDL. EPA identified 16 such point source facilities, all discharging to the Lower and South San Francisco Bay. Of these potentially affected facilities, 14 are POTWs and 2 are industrial dischargers (the San Francisco International Airport and the Bottling Group, LLC). Table 3 summarizes these potentially affected facilities by type and category.

    Table 3—Potentially Affected Facilities Category Minor Major All Municipal 1 13 14 Industrial 1 1 2 Total 2 14 16 B. Method for Estimating Costs

    For all potentially affected facilities, EPA used the last five years of effluent data (when available) and ambient monitoring data from the relevant monitoring station to determine whether there is reasonable potential for the facility to cause or contribute to an excursion above the proposed dissolved water column criterion for selenium. For those facilities that have reasonable potential, EPA calculated projected effluent limits. EPA conducted reasonable potential analyses and calculated effluent limitations for each facility based on California's permitting practices.18 In instances where the facility's maximum effluent selenium concentration exceeded the projected effluent limitations under the proposed criterion, EPA determined the likely compliance scenarios and costs. Following California's Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California may result in a conservative evaluation for some point sources. However, the Regional Boards have substantial discretion to apply other implementing permitting procedures that are consistent with the Policy's requirements, and may elect to follow different methods to determine whether effluent limits are necessary and/or the value of the effluent limitations. These alternative methods may result in fewer facilities requiring action and/or less stringent permit limitations.

    18 Pursuant to the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, SWRCB, California Environmental Protection Agency, March 2, 2000, amended February 24, 2005.

    EPA assumed that dischargers would pursue the least cost means of compliance with WQBELs. Incremental compliance actions attributable to the proposed rule may include process optimization, source controls, end-of-pipe treatment, and alternative compliance mechanisms (e.g., site-specific criteria, variances, and dilution credits). For plants discharging at levels above California's minimum quantitation level, EPA has assumed that the facility will pursue conventional treatment methods to comply with the projected effluent limitations. Facilities operating below the quantitation level are discharging near the projected limitations, and EPA has assumed that compliance is likely to be achievable using process optimization methods. EPA annualized capital costs over 20 years using a 3% discount rate to obtain total annual costs per facility.

    C. Results

    Of the 16 potentially affected facilities that EPA identified, 14 were found to have reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an excursion above the proposed criterion. For compliance with revised WQBELs under the proposed rule, EPA estimates the total annual cost to be approximately $16 million across the 14 facilities. Of these costs, nearly all are attributable to POTW dischargers (i.e., 13 POTWs and one industrial facility, the San Francisco International Airport).

    VII. Statutory and Executive Orders A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was, therefore, not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The proposed rule does not establish any requirements directly applicable to regulated entities or other sources of toxic pollutants. However, these WQS may serve as a basis for development of NPDES permit limits. California has NPDES permitting authority, and retains considerable discretion in implementing WQS. In the spirit of Executive Order 12866, EPA evaluated the potential costs to NPDES dischargers associated with state implementation of EPA's proposed criteria. This analysis, Economic Analysis for Proposed Aquatic Life and Aquatic-Dependent Wildlife Criteria for Selenium in the San Francisco Bay and Delta, California, is summarized in section VI. of the preamble and is available in the docket.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. While actions to implement these WQS could entail additional paperwork burden, this action does not directly contain any information collection, reporting, or record-keeping requirements.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Small entities, such as small businesses or small governmental jurisdictions, are not directly regulated by this rule.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This rule does not alter California's considerable discretion in implementing these WQS, nor would it preclude California from adopting WQS that meet the requirements of the CWA, either before or after promulgation of the final rule, which would eliminate the need for federal standards upon EPA approval of the state WQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comments on this proposed action from state and local officials.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor does it substantially affect the relationship between the federal government and tribes, or the distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal government and tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, EPA consulted with tribal officials during the development of this action. EPA will continue to communicate with the tribes prior to its final action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous populations. The criteria in this proposed rule will support the health and abundance of aquatic life and aquatic-dependent wildlife in the San Francisco Bay and Delta and will, therefore, benefit all communities that rely on these ecosystems.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 131

    Environmental protection, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water pollution control.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 131 as follows:

    PART 131—WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 131 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Subpart D—Federally Promulgated Water Quality Standards 2. Section 131.36 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(10)(ii) table entry for “Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta” to read as follows:
    § 131.36 Toxics criteria for those states not complying with Clean Water Act section 303(c)(2)(B).

    (d) * * *

    (10) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    Water and use classification Applicable criteria *         *         *         *         *         *         * Waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta These waters are assigned the criteria in:
  • Column B1—pollutants 5a, 10 a and 14
  • Column B2—pollutants 5a, 10 a and 14
  • Column D2—pollutants 1, 12, 17, 18, 21, 22, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 42-44, 46, 48, 49, 54, 59, 66, 67, 68, 78-82, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 98
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * a These freshwater selenium criteria are only applicable to the extent that the criteria under 40 CFR 131.38(b)(3) are not applicable (i.e., they are only applicable in fresh waters).
    3. Section 131.38 is amended as follows: a. Revise paragraph (b)(1) table footnotes “p” and “q”; b. Add paragraph (b)(3); c. Revise paragraph (c)(3)(ii); d. Add paragraphs (c)(3)(iv) and (v).
    § 131.38 Establishment of numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California.

    (b)(1) * * *

    Footnotes to Table in Paragraph (b)(1):

    p. The [Reserved] criterion referenced by this footnote does not supersede any selenium criterion set out in 40 CFR 131.36 for: Waters of the San Francisco Bay, upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and waters of Salt Slough, Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River, Sack Dam to the mouth of the Merced River. The criteria set out in 40 CFR 131.38(b)(3) apply to the salt and estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay, upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, subject to 40 CFR 131.38(c)(3)(v). The State of California adopted and EPA approved a site specific criterion for the San Joaquin River, mouth of Merced to Vernalis; therefore, the criterion referenced by this footnote does not apply to these waters.

    q. The 5 µg/L criterion referenced by this footnote does not supersede any selenium criterion set out in 40 CFR 131.36 for: Waters of the San Francisco Bay, upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta; and waters of Salt Slough, Mud Slough (north) and the San Joaquin River, Sack Dam to Vernalis. The criteria set out in 40 CFR 131.38(b)(3) apply to the salt and estuarine waters of the San Francisco Bay, upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, subject to 40 CFR 131.38(c)(3)(v). The State of California adopted and EPA approved a site-specific criterion for the Grasslands Water District, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, and the Los Banos State Wildlife Refuge; therefore, the criterion referenced by this footnote does not apply to these waters.

    (3) The selenium criteria in Table 1 to this paragraph (b)(3) apply to all the waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta where the salinity is greater than 1 part per thousand 95% or more of the time, subject to paragraph (c)(3)(v).

    EP15JY16.098

    (c) * * *

    (3) * * *

    (ii) For waters in which the salinity is equal to or greater than 10 parts per thousand 95% or more of the time, the applicable criteria are the saltwater criteria in Column C.

    (iv) Notwithstanding paragraphs (c)(3)(ii) and (iii) of this section, for waters of San Francisco Bay upstream to and including Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta with salinity greater than 1 part per thousand 95% or more of the time, the selenium criteria provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section are the only applicable selenium criteria, subject to paragraph (c)(3)(v).

    (v) The criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this section apply concurrently with any water quality criteria adopted by the state, except where California adopts site-specific selenium criteria for a segment of the estuary that EPA determines meet the requirements of Clean Water Act section 303(c) and 40 CFR part 131, in which case California's criteria will apply and not the criteria in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.

    [FR Doc. 2016-16266 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. USCG-2016-0669] Draft Revisions to the Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B and C, Change-2 AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces the availability of a draft update to the Marine Safety Manual (MSM), Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, and the corresponding Commandant Change Notice that highlights the changes made to that manual. MSM Volume III provides information and interpretations on international conventions and U.S. statutes and regulations relating to marine industry personnel. This draft Commandant Change Notice discusses the substantive changes to Parts B and C of MSM Volume III. The proposed changes are red-lined and each changed page is annotated with CH-2 in the footer. Additionally, we have created a document that provides a summary of each change. The Coast Guard seeks and will consider comments on these draft changes before issuing a final version of MSM Volume III.

    DATES:

    Guidance documents discussed in this document should be available in the online docket within 3 business days of July 15, 2016. Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number “USCG-2016-0669” using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document call of email Lieutenant Commander Corydon Heard, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 409-978-2704, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Purpose

    Volume III of the Marine Safety Manual (MSM) provides information and interpretations on international conventions and U.S. statutes and regulations relating to marine industry personnel. The last updates to Volume III of the MSM were released on July 30, 2014 (79 FR 45451, Aug. 5, 2014). This document announces updates to portions of Part B and C.

    Specifically, substantive changes include: (1) Updated guidance to align with the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014; (2) manning scales for towing vessels certificated under 46 CFR Subchapter M from the recently published Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule (81 FR 40003, June 20, 2016); and (3) various policy updates involving vessel manning.

    In addition to red-lining proposed changes and annotating each changed page with CH-2 in the footer, we have created a change matrix identifying proposed changes. Both of these documents are available for viewing in the public docket.

    It should be noted that the proposed revisions in this draft change are not intended to preempt or take the place of separate policy initiatives regarding specific decisions on appeal or future regulations. Future changes to the MSM may be released if the Coast Guard promulgates new regulations or issues appeal decisions, which may affect the guidance and information contained within the MSM.

    Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on our draft Commandant Change Notice 16000, CH-2 to the Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Marine Industry Personnel, COMDTINST M16000.8B, which is in the docket and contains substantive changes to Parts B and C of MSM Volume III. We will consider all submissions and may adjust our final action based on your comments. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section of the Commandant Change Notice to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or the Coast Guard publishes another document related to the draft Marine Safety Manual, Volume III, Parts B and C, Change-2.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Verne B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director, Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16691 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    81 136 Friday, July 15, 2016 Notices AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Public Quarterly Meeting of the Board of Directors AGENCY:

    United States African Development Foundation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) will hold its quarterly meeting of the Board of Directors to discuss the agency's programs and administration.

    DATES:

    The meeting date is Tuesday, July 19, 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Executive session 12 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting location is USADF, 1400 I St. NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Aysha House, 202-233-8863.

    Authority:

    Pub. L. 96-533 (22 U.S.C. 290h).

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Doris Mason Martin, General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16730 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6117-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Fishlake Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fishlake Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Richfield, Utah. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvHAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 3, 2016 at 6 p.m. (MDT).

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under For Further Information Contact.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Fishlake National Forest Supervisor's Office, 115 E 900 N., Richfield, Utah.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Fishlake National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Zapell, RAC Coordinator by phone at (435) 896-1070 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Review, prioritize and recommend projects for funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by July 25, 2016 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to John Zapell, Designated Federal Officer, 115 E. 900 N., Richfield, Utah 84701; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 435-896-9347.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Mel Bolling, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16752 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Cherokee Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Cherokee Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Alcoa, Tennessee. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts/.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 24, 2016, at 1:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at McGhee Tyson Airport—Airfield Maintenance Operations Center, 2950 Airfield Service Drive, Alcoa, Tennessee.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Cherokee National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry McDonald, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 423-476-9729 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Discuss new committee membership outreach and recruiting efforts,

    2. Review projects discussed at the last meeting, and

    3. Recommend projects to the Forest Service for Cocke County and Monroe County, Tennessee.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 15, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Terry McDonald, RAC Coordinator, 2800 Ocoee Street North, Cleveland, Tennessee 37312; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 423-476-9754.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. D. JaSal Morris, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16747 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    CHEMICAL SAFETY AND HAZARD INVESTIGATION BOARD Sunshine Act Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    July 27, 2016, 1:00 p.m. EDT

    PLACE:

    U.S. Chemical Safety Board, 1750 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20006.

    STATUS:

    Open to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    The Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) will convene a public meeting on July 27, 2016, starting at 1:00 p.m. EDT in Washington, DC, at the CSB offices located at 1750 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 910. The Board will provide an update on the 2016-2020 strategic plan, the status of Office of the Inspector General audits, open investigations, and the agency's action plan. The Board will also discuss financial and organizational updates. An opportunity for public comment will be provided.

    Additional Information

    The meeting is free and open to the public. If you require a translator or interpreter, please notify the individual listed below as the “Contact Person for Further Information,” at least three business days prior to the meeting.

    A conference call line will be provided for those who cannot attend in person. Please use the following dial-in number to join the conference: 1-888-466-9863, passcode 7176 237#.

    The CSB is an independent federal agency charged with investigating accidents and hazards that result, or may result, in the catastrophic release of extremely hazardous substances. The agency's Board Members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. CSB investigations look into all aspects of chemical accidents and hazards, including physical causes such as equipment failure as well as inadequacies in regulations, industry standards, and safety management systems.

    Public Comment

    The time provided for public statements will depend upon the number of people who wish to speak. Speakers should assume that their presentations will be limited to three minutes or less, but commenters may submit written statements for the record.

    Contact Person for Further Information

    Hillary Cohen, Communications Manager, at [email protected] or (202) 446-8094. Further information about this public meeting can be found on the CSB Web site at: www.csb.gov.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Kara A. Wenzel, Acting General Counsel, Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16901 Filed 7-13-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6350-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Request for Nominations of Members To Serve on the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce is requesting nominations of individuals to the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee. The Secretary will consider nominations received in response to this notice, as well as from other sources. The SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice provides committee and membership criteria.

    DATES:

    Please submit nominations by August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit nominations by Email to [email protected] (subject line “2016 FESAC Nominations”), or by letter submission to James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, 2016 FESAC Nominations, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233. Nominations also maybe submitted via fax at 301-763-8609.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James R. Spletzer, Designated Federal Official, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Research and Methodology Directorate, Room 5K175, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-4069, email: [email protected] For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (the “Committee”) was established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2). The following provides information about the Committee, membership, and the nomination process.

    Objectives and Duties

    1. The Committee is administratively housed at the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA), U.S. Department of Commerce. The Committee advises the Directors of ESA's two statistical agencies, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and the U.S. Census Bureau (Census), and the Commissioner of the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (collectively called “the agencies”) on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics.

    2. The Committee functions solely as an advisory committee to the senior officials of BEA, Census, and BLS in consultation with the Committee chairperson.

    3. Important aspects of the Committee's responsibilities include, but are not limited to:

    a. Recommending research to address important technical problems arising in federal economic statistics.

    b. Identifying areas in which better coordination of the agencies activities would be beneficial.

    c. Establishing relationships with professional associations with an interest in federal economic statistics.

    d. Coordinating (in its identification of agenda items) with other existing academic advisory committees chartered to provide agency-specific advice for the purpose of avoiding duplication of effort.

    4. The Committee reports to the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs who, as head of ESA, coordinates and collaborates with the agencies.

    Membership

    1. The Committee consists of approximately fourteen members who serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.

    2. Members are nominated by the Department of Commerce, in consultation with the agencies, under the coordination of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs, and are appointed by the Secretary.

    3. Committee members are economists, statisticians, survey methodologists, and behavioral scientists, and are chosen to achieve a balanced membership across those disciplines.

    4. Members shall be prominent experts in their fields, and recognized for their scientific and professional achievements and objectivity.

    a. Members serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) and are subject to ethics rules applicable to SGEs.

    b. Members serve three-year terms. Members may be reappointed to any number of additional three-year terms.

    c. Should a Committee member be unable to complete a three-year term, a new member may be selected to complete that term for the duration of the time remaining or begin a new term of three years.

    d. The agencies, by consensus agreement, shall appoint the chairperson annually from the Committee membership. Chairpersons shall be permitted to succeed themselves.

    Miscellaneous

    1. Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services, but will be reimbursed for travel expenses upon request.

    2. The Committee meets approximately twice a year, budget permitting. Special meetings may be called when appropriate.

    Nomination Process

    1. Nominations are requested as described above.

    2. Nominees must be economists, statisticians, survey methodologists, and behavioral scientists and will be chosen to achieve a balanced membership across those disciplines. Nominees must be prominent experts in their fields, and recognized for their scientific and professional achievements and objectivity. Such knowledge and expertise are needed to advise the agencies on statistical methodology and other technical matters related to the collection, tabulation, and analysis of federal economic statistics.

    3. Individuals, groups, and/or organizations may submit nominations on behalf of an individual candidate. A summary of the candidate's qualifications (resumé or curriculum vitae) must be included along with the nomination letter. Nominees must be able to actively participate in the tasks of the Committee including, but not limited to, regular meeting attendance, committee meeting discussant responsibilities, review of materials, as well as participation in conference calls, webinars, working groups, and special committee activities.

    4. The Department of Commerce is committed to equal opportunity in the workplace and seeks diverse Committee membership.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16758 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-924] Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Administrative Review; 2014-2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (“PET film”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) for the period November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Hill, Office IV, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3518.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On January 7, 2016, based on a timely request for review by Mitsubishi Polyester Film, Inc. and SKC, Inc. (collectively, “Petitioners”), the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC with respect to four companies covering the period November 1, 2014 through October 31, 2015.1 On February 29, 2016, Petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review of all of the companies for which the Department initiated a review.2

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 736 (January 7, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Letter from Petitioners to the Secretary of Commerce “Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Film, Sheet, and Strip from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Antidumping Duty Administrative Review,” dated February 29, 2016.

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, Petitioners timely withdrew their review request by the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the antidumping duty order. As a result, we are rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on PET film from the PRC for the period November 1, 2014, through October 31, 2015, in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Because the Department is rescinding this administrative review in its entirety, the entries to which this administrative review pertained shall be assessed antidumping duties that are equal to the cash deposits of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16807 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) is rescinding the administrative review, in part, of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) for the period February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 7, 2016, based on timely requests for review for 62 companies by Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“Petitioner”),1 193 companies by the American Shrimp Processors Association (“ASPA”),2 and various Vietnamese companies,3 the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Vietnam covering the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.4

    1See Petitioner's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 29, 2016.

    2See ASPA's Request for Administrative Review, dated February 29, 2016.

    3See VASEP's submission, “Request for Administrative Review (02/01/15-01/31/16),” dated February 29, 2016. See also Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd.'s (“Quoc Viet”) and Thong Thuan Company Limited's (“Thong Thuan”) combined submission dated February 29, 2016.

    4See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    On June 30, 2016, Quoc Viet and Thong Thuan withdrew their respective requests for administrative review.5 On July 1, 2016, Petitioner withdrew its request for an administrative review for 20 companies, and their various name iterations, as listed in the Initiation Notice. 6 On July 1, 2016, ASPA withdrew its request for an administrative review for 22 companies and their various name iterations, as listed in the Initiation Notice. 7 On July 1, 2016, VASEP withdrew its request for an administrative review of 17 companies and their various name iterations, as listed in the Initiation Notice. 8 No other party requested a review of these exporters. On July 6, 2016, Petitioner, ASPA, and the Minh Phu Group withdrew their respective requests for administrative review of the Minh Phu Group, which the Department intends to rescind in a separate notice.

    5See Quoc Viet and Thong Thuan's Submission re; “Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review,” dated June 30, 2016.

    6See Petitioners' Submissions re; “Domestic Producers' Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 1, 2016.

    7See ASPA's Submissions re; “Domestic Producers' Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 1, 2016.

    8See VASEP's Submission re; “Partial Withdrawal of Review Requests,” dated July 1, 2016.

    Partial Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if the party that requested the review withdraws its request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Because Petitioner, ASPA, and the individual companies all withdrew their requests for administrative review within 90 days of the date of publication of the Initiation Notice, and no other interested party requested a review of these companies,9 the Department is rescinding this review with respect to the companies with no remaining review requests identified in Appendix 1, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    9 While Petitioner and ASPA withdrew their respective review requests of Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd., VASEP did not withdraw its review request on behalf of this company; thus, we are not rescinding the review with respect to Tan Phong Phu Seafood Co., Ltd., as there remains an active review request for it on the record.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, during the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, if appropriate.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of the antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix I—Companies Rescinded From Review 1.—Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company —Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Bac Lieu”) —Bac Lieu Fisheries Joint Stock Company (“Bac Lieu Fis”) 2.—Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Seaprimexco Vietnam”) —Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Seaprimexco”) —Ca Mau Seafood Joint Stock Company (“SEAPRIMEXCO”) —Minh Hai Sea Products Import Export Company (“Seaprimex Co”) —Seaprimexco —Seaprimexco Vietnam 3.—Camau Seafood Factory No.5 —Camau Seafood Factory No.4 —Camau Frozen Seafood Processing ImportExport Corporation (“CAMIMEX”) —Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (“Camimex”) —Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corp. (CAMIMEX-FAC 25) —Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import-Export Corporation (“CAMIMEX”) —Camau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (“Camimex”) —Ca Mau Frozen Seafood Processing Import Export Corporation (“CAMIMEX”) 4.—Camau Seafood and Service Joint Stock Company (“CASES”) —Camau Seafood Processing and Service Jointstock Corporation (“CASES”) —Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint-Stock Company (“CASES”) —Camau Seafood Processing and Service Joint Stock Corporation (and its affiliates, Kien Giang Branch—Camau Seafood Processing & Service Joint Stock Corporation, collectively “CASES”) 5. Can Tho Import Export Fishery Limited Company (“CAFISH”) 6.—Cuu Long Seaproducts Company (“Cuu Long Seapro”) —Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuulong Seapro”) —Cuulong Seaproducts Company (“Cuu Long Seapro”) —CL Fish Co., Ltd. (Cuu Long Fish Company) 7.—Hai Viet Corporation (HAVICO) —Hai Viet Corporation (“HAVICO”) 8.—Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing Joint-Stock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”) —Minh Hai Export Frozen Seafood Processing JointStock Company (“Minh Hai Jostoco”) 9.—Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (Seaprodex Minh Hai) (Sea Minh Hai) —Minh Hai Joint-Stock Seafoods Processing Company (“Seaprodex Minh Hai”) —Sea Minh Hai —Seaprodex Minh Hai (Minh Hai Joint Stock Seafoods Processing Co.) —Seaprodex Minh Hai 10. Ngoc Tri Seafood Joint Stock Company 11.—Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (and its affiliates NT Seafoods Corporation, Nha Trang Seafoods—F.89 Joint Stock Company, NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (collectively “Nha Trang Seafoods Group”) —NTSF Seafoods Joint Stock Company (“NTSF Seafoods”) (Nha Trang Seafoods F89 Joint Stock Company) (Nha Trang Seaproduct Company) (NT Seafoods Corporation) —Nha Trang Seaproduct Company (“Nha Trang Seafoods”) 12.—Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trading and Import-Export Co., Ltd. —Quoc Viet Seaproducts Processing Trade and Import-Export Co., Ltd. (“Quoc Viet Co. Ltd.”) 13.—Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (Sao Ta Seafood Factory) (FIMEX VN) —Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“FIMEX VN”) (and its factory “Sao Ta Seafoods Factory”) —Fimex VN —Sao Ta Foods Joint Stock Company (“Fimex VN”) —Sao Ta Seafood Factory 14. Seavina Joint Stock Company 15.—Soc Trang Aquatic Products and General Import Export Company (“Stapimex”) —Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (“STAPIMEX”) —Soc Trang Seafood Joint Stock Company (“Stapimex”) 16.—Cong Ty Tnhh Thong Thuan (Thong Thuan) —Thong Thuan Company Limited —Thong Thuan Company 17.—Thong Thuan Seafood Company Limited —Thong Thuan—Cam Ranh Seafood Joint Stock Company 18.—Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation —Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation (“Thuan Phuoc Corp”) —Thuan Phuoc Seafoods and Trading Corporation and its separate factories Frozen Seafood Factory No. 32, Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory, and My Son Seafoods Factory (collectively “Thuan Phuoc Corp.”) —Seafoods and Foodstuff Factory —My Son Seafoods Factory —Frozen Seafoods Factory No. 32 19.—Viet Foods Co., Ltd. —Viet Foods Co., Ltd. (“Viet Foods”) —Nam Hai Foodstuff and Export Company Ltd 20.—Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation —Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation (“Vina Cleanfood”) —Vietnam Clean Seafood Corporation (VINA Cleanfood) 21.—Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co., Ltd. —Viet I-Mei Frozen Foods Co. Ltd (“Viet I-Mei”)
    [FR Doc. 2016-16804 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-820] Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Affirmative Preliminary Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (Department) is amending the preliminary determination of the antidumping duty (AD) investigation of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) to correct significant ministerial errors.

    DATES:

    Effective July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On June 8, 2016, the Department published its affirmative preliminary determination that CWP from Vietnam is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value, as provided by section 733 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).1 The Department disclosed the calculations performed on June 6, 2016. Therefore, the deadline for submitting ministerial error allegations under 19 CFR 351.224(c)(2) was June 13, 2016.

    1See Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 36884 (June 8, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    The petitioners 2 timely filed comments alleging significant ministerial errors in the margin calculated for Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Hongyuan).3 In addition, SeAH Steel VINA Corporation (SeAH) timely filed comments alleging ministerial errors in its margin calculation.4

    2 The petitioners are Bull Moose Tube Company; EXLTUBE; Wheatland Tube, a division of JMC Steel Group; and Western Tube and Conduit.

    3See the petitioners' June 13, 2016, letter.

    4See SeAH's June 13, 2016, letter.

    Scope of the Investigation

    For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see “Scope of Investigation” at Appendix II of the Preliminary Determination.

    Analysis of Significant Ministerial Error Allegations

    The Department will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination according to 19 CFR 351.224(e). A ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(f) as “an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.” Further, a significant ministerial error is defined in 19 CFR 351.224(g) as a ministerial error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a weighted-average dumping margin of zero (or de minimis) and a weighted-average dumping margin of greater than de minimis, or vice versa.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g)(2), the Department is amending the Preliminary Determination to reflect the corrections of significant ministerial errors in Hongyuan's margin calculation. However, as the ministerial errors alleged by SeAH are not significant in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(g), the Department has not analyzed SeAH's comments, and is not amending SeAH's margin calculation. As a result of amending Hongyuan' margin, the Department is also revising the margin for the separate rate company.5

    5See Memorandum to Gary Taverman, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Ministerial Error Memorandum for the Affirmative Preliminary Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Circular Welded Carbon-Quality Steel Pipe From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated concurrently with this notice, for the analysis performed (Ministerial Error Memorandum). This memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Department's Central Records Unit in Room B8024 of the Department of Commerce building.

    Ministerial Error Allegations

    For a complete analysis of the ministerial error allegations, see the Ministerial Error Memorandum.6

    6Id.

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    We are correcting the preliminary dumping margin for Hongyuan. Consequently, we are also amending the preliminary separate rate for Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co. (Hoa Phat). SeAH's preliminary dumping margin is unchanged.

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd 2.32 Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co 2.32 SeAH Steel VINA Corporation SeAH Steel VINA Corporation 0.00 Vietnam-Wide Entity 113.18
    Amended Cash Deposits and Suspension of Liquidation

    The collection of cash deposits and suspension of liquidation will be revised according to the rates calculated in this amended preliminary determination. Because Hongyuan's and Hoa Phat's amended rates are now above de minimis, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of CWP from Vietnam produced, as described in the scope of the section, which were produced and exported by these companies entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption. Because the correction of the errors for Hongyuan effectively results in increased cash deposit rates for Hongyuan and Hoa Phat, the revised rates calculated for Hongyuan and Hoa Phat will be effective on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Parties will be notified of this determination, in accordance with sections 733(d) and (f) of the Act.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we notified the International Trade Commission of our amended preliminary determination.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    The Department intends to disclose calculations performed in connection with this amended preliminary determination within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    This amended preliminary determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).

    Dated: July 6, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16806 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-489-805] Certain Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting a new shipper review (NSR) of the antidumping duty order on certain pasta (pasta) from Turkey. The NSR covers one exporter and producer of subject merchandise, Durum Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. (Durum). The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. The Department preliminarily determines that Durum did not make a bona fide sale during the POR; therefore, we are preliminarily rescinding this NSR. Interested parties are invited to comment on the preliminary results of this review.

    DATES:

    Effective July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Baker or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2924 and (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 2, 2015, the Department published a notice of initiation of a new shipper review of the antidumping duty order on pasta from Turkey.1 The Department subsequently issued initial and supplemental questionnaires to Durum, and received timely responses thereto.

    1See Certain Pasta From Turkey: Initiation of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 80 FR 53112 (September 2, 2015) (Initiation Notice).

    The Department has exercised its discretion to toll all administrative deadlines due to the closure of the Federal Government because of Snowstorm “Jonas.” Thus, all of the deadlines in this segment of the proceeding were extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the preliminary results of this review, after the four business-day extension, was February 29, 2016.2 However, on February 29, 2016, the Department extended the time period for issuing the preliminary results of this NSR by 106 days, until June 14, 2016.3 We extended it again by 14 days on June 8, 2016, until June 28, 2016.4

    2See Memorandum to the Record from Ron Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, regarding “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines as a Result of the Government Closure during Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Pasta from Turkey: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” dated February 29, 2016.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Pasta from Turkey: Extension of Deadline for Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review,” dated June 8, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    Imports covered by this review are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta in packages of five pounds (2.27 kilograms) or less, whether or not enriched or fortified or containing milk or other optional ingredients such as chopped vegetables, vegetable purees, milk, gluten, diastases, vitamins, coloring and flavorings, and up to two percent egg white.

    For a full description of the scope of the order, see the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for Certain Pasta from Turkey: Preliminary Results of New Shipper Review” (Preliminary Decision Memorandum), which is dated concurrently with this notice, and is hereby incorporated by reference.5

    5 A list of the topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum appears in Appendix I of this notice.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this review in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Rescission of the Antidumping New Shipper Review of Durum

    As discussed in the Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum,6 the Department preliminarily finds that the sale made by Durum serving as the basis for this review is not a bona fide sale. The Department reached this conclusion based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the reported sale, including the sales price, the number of sales that Durum reported, the importer's inability to prove that it had received payment from its U.S. customers, and the fact that the record fails to establish that the U.S. importer realized a profit on its re-sale of the subject merchandise.

    6See Memorandum from Fred Baker, International Trade Analyst, Office VI AD/CVD Operations, to Scot Fullerton, Director, Office VI, AD/CVD Operations entitled “2014-2015 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Certain Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Bona Fide Sales Analysis for Durum Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S.,” (Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum) dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Because the non-bona fide sale was the only reported sale of subject merchandise during the POR, we find there are no reviewable transactions during this new shipper period of review. Accordingly, we are preliminarily rescinding this NSR.7 Because the factual information used in our bona fides analysis of Durum's sale involves business proprietary information, for a full discussion of the basis for our preliminary determination see the Bona Fide Sales Analysis Memorandum.

    7See 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3).

    Public Comment

    Interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of the preliminary results of review.8 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than five days after the briefs are filed. All rebuttal comments must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs.9

    8See 19 CFR 351.309(c).

    9See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    Interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement & Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.10 Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number, the number of participants, and a list of the issues to be discussed. Oral argument presentations will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date and time to be determined.11 Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    10See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    11See 19 CFR 351.310(d).

    All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on the due date. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room 18022, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by 5 p.m. ET on the due date.12

    12See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011).

    The Department intends to issue the final results of this NSR, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in any briefs received, no later than 90 days after the date these preliminary results of review are issued pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of Durum's NSR, the assessment rate to which Durum's shipments will be subject will not be affected by this review. If the Department does not proceed to a final rescission of this new shipper review, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) assessment rates based on the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of the final rescission or the final results of this NSR, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of Durum's subject merchandise. If the Department proceeds to a final rescission of this NSR, Durum's cash deposit rate will continue to be the all-others rate. If the Department issues final results for this NSR, the Department will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits, effective upon the publication of the final results, at the rates established therein.

    Notification to Importers

    This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Sections in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Scope of the Order 4. Discussion of the Methodology 5. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-16694 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-201-830] Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Determination and Notice of Second Amended Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On December 22, 2014, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) entered its final judgment in Deacero III, 1 sustaining the Department of Commerce's (the Department) negative circumvention determination from the First Remand Results as it relates to the antidumping duty order on carbon and certain alloy steel wire rod from Mexico.2 Consistent with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) in Timken, 3 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, 4 the Department issued the Amended Final Determination5 notifying the public that the final judgment of the CIT in this case was not in harmony with the Department's finding in the Final Determination. 6 In the Amended Final Determination, the Department found, under protest, that, pursuant to section 781(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.225, Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 millimeters (mm) to 5.00 mm (also referred to in this notice as small diameter wire rod) did not constitute circumvention of the Order. On April 5, 2016, the Federal Circuit reversed the CIT's holding in Deacero III. 7 In its holding, the Federal Circuit reinstated the Department's original finding from the Final Determination that Deacero's shipments of small diameter wire rod to the United States constitute a minor alteration circumvention of the Order. 8

    1See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. and Deacero USA, Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345, Slip Op. 14-151 (December 22, 2014) (Deacero III).

    2See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Deacero USA Inc. v. United States and Arcelormittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc., Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel, and Nucor Corporation, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 13-126 (CIT 2013) (January 29, 2014) (First Remand Results); Notice of Antidumping Duty Orders: Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod from Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico, Moldova, Trinidad and Tobago, and Ukraine, 67 FR 65945 (October 29, 2002) (Order).

    3See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    4See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    5See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Final Results and Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 44326 (July 27, 2015) (Amended Final Determination).

    6See Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Affirmative Final Determination of Circumvention of the Antidumping Duty Order, 77 FR 59892 (October 1, 2012) (Final Determination) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum (Final Decision Memorandum).

    7See Deacero S.A.de C.V. v. United States, 817 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Deacero IV).

    8Id. at 12.

    DATES:

    Effective April 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Eric B. Greynolds, or James Terpstra. AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6071, (202) 482-3965, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 1, 2012, the Department issued the Final Determination in which it determined that Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm constitute a minor alteration circumvention of the Order. 9 Deacero challenged the Department's determination. Upon review, the CIT remanded the Final Determination, holding that the Department improperly determined that Deacero's entries of small diameter wire rod were inside the scope of the Order despite the fact that small diameter wire rod was commercially available before the investigation and Petitioners 10 “consciously chose to limit the Order's reach to certain steel products 5.00 mm or more, but less than 19.00 mm in solid cross-sectional diameter.” 11 On remand, based on the Court's reasoning, the Department found that there was no alternative but to change the results of the anti-circumvention determination and find that Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm were not within the scope of the Order. 12

    9See Final Determination, 77 FR at 59893.

    10 Petitioners are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Gerdau Ameristeel U.S. Inc, Rocky Mountain Steel, Members of the Wire Rod Producers Coalition and Nucor Corporation (Nucor).

    11See Deacero S.A. de C.V. v. United States, 37 CIT, 942 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1324-25 (September 20, 2013) (Deacero I); Deacero Remand, Slip Op. 13-126 at 15.

    12See First Remand Results at 6.

    In Deacero II, the Court held that although the Department ultimately reached a supportable result in the First Remand Results, remand was nonetheless necessary because the Department arrived at the result by misinterpreting Deacero I. 13 Therefore, in Deacero II, the Court instructed the Department to explain whether it seeks the Court's leave to revisit the issue of commercial availability.14

    13See Deacero S.A.P.I. de C.V. v. United States, Slip Op. 14-99, 2014 WL 4244349, * 1-3 (August 28, 2014) (Deacero II) at 11-12.

    14Id. at 12.

    In the Second Remand Results, the Department continued to respectfully disagree with the Court that the “commercial availability” of a product in the country in question, in a third country or in the United States bars the Department from reaching an affirmative anti-circumvention determination under the minor alteration provision of the statute.15 For these same reasons, the Department did not request a remand to further consider “commercial availability” in the context of this minor alteration proceeding. On December 22, 2014, the CIT entered final judgment sustaining the First Remand Results.16 Accordingly, July 27, 2015, the Department issued the Amended Final Determination in which it found that Deacero's entries of small diameter wire rod were not circumventing the Order and, thus, were not subject to antidumping (AD) duties.17 In the Amended Final Determination, the Department indicated that it would instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise, but set the cash deposit rate for Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm up to 5.00 mm to zero pending a final and conclusive court decision.18 Further, in the Amended Final Determination, the Department stated that for any AD duties which were deposited for Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm up to 5.00 mm entered from January 1, 2015, to July 27, 2015, the publication date of the Amended Final Determination, the Department would instruct CBP to refund the cash deposit upon request but continue to suspend the entries at a zero cash deposit rate.19

    15See Final Results of Redetermination Pursuant to Deacero S.A. de C.V. et al., v. United States, Court No. 12-00345; Slip Op. 14-99 (CIT August 28, 2014) (Second Remand Results).

    16See Deacero III.

    17See Amended Final Determination, 80 FR at 44327.

    18Id.

    19Id.

    In Deacero IV, the Federal Circuit held that in reversing the Department's affirmative circumvention finding in the Final Determination, the CIT erred in its interpretation of case precedent.20 The Federal Circuit found that the CIT incorrectly interpreted Wheatland to mean that an article cannot be subject to an anti-circumvention inquiry if that article is not expressly included within the literal terms of the order. Specifically, the Federal Circuit reasoned that where Wheatland held that a minor alternation inquiry is inappropriate when an order expressly excludes the allegedly altered product, the order at issue contains no explicit exclusion of steel wire rod with a diameter that is less than 5.00 mm.21 The Federal Circuit also held that substantial evidence supports the Department's determination that small-diameter steel wire rod was not commercially available prior to the Order, notwithstanding that some small-diameter steel wire rod was in existence at some prior time in non-investigated countries.22 Accordingly, the Federal Circuit held that the Department's initial finding in the Final Determination that Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm constitute a circumventing minor alteration of the Order was in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence.23

    20See Deacero IV, 817 F.3d at 1337-39, citing to Deacero I, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 1328-1332 quoting Wheatland Tube Co. v. United States, 161 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Wheatland).

    21See Deacero IV, 817 F.3d at 1338.

    22Id. at 1339.

    23Id. at 1339.

    Timken Notice

    In its decision in Timken, 893 F.2d at 341, as clarified by Diamond Sawblades, the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Act, the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Federal Circuit's judgement in Deacero IV sustaining the Department's original finding in the Final Determination that Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm constitute a minor alteration circumvention of the Order constitutes a final decision of the Court that is not in harmony with the Department's negative circumvention finding in the First Remand Results and Amended Final Determination. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken.

    Amended Final Determination

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the Amended Final Determination with respect to Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm. Based on the Federal Circuit's holding in Deacero IV, Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm are covered by the scope of the Order and, thus, subject to AD duties.

    Accordingly, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of the subject merchandise and, as of January 1, 2015, the effective date for the Amended Final Determination giving effect to the CIT's since-reversed final judgment, to set the cash deposit rate for Deacero's entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm to the applicable cash deposit rate as determined in administrative reviews.24 Specifically, for entries of small diameter wire rod from Deacero that entered the United States on or after January 1, 2015, whose entries were suspended at a zero cash deposit rate subject to the Amended Final Determination, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits at the following rates:

    24 As of January 1, 2015, the cash deposit rate applicable to Deacero's entries of subject merchandise was 12.08 percent, as established in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review: 2010-2011, 78 FR 28190, 28191 (May 14, 2013) (10/11 Final Results). Deacero's cash deposit rate was subsequently revised to zero percent in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Final Results of Administrative Review: 2012-2013, 80 FR 35626, 35627 (June 22, 2015) (12/13 Amended Final Results), and 1.13 percent in Carbon and Certain Alloy Steel Wire Rod From Mexico: Amended Final Results of Administrative Review: 2013-2014, 81 FR 41521, 41522 (June 27, 2016) (13/14 Amended Final Results.).

    On or after Before Applicable
  • cash deposit
  • rate
  • January 1, 2015 June 22, 2015 25 12.08 June 22, 2015 May 19, 2016 26 0.00 May 19, 2016 27 1.13
    Additionally, with regard to any of Deacero's unliquidated entries of wire rod with an actual diameter of 4.75 mm to 5.00 mm for which an administrative review has been completed, we will instruct CBP to assess AD duties at the applicable rates.

    25See 10/11 Final Results, 78 FR at 28191.

    26See 12/13 Amended Final Results, 80 FR at 35627.

    27See 13/14 Amended Final Results, 81 FR at 41522.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16803 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity will meet Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Central Time at the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium-DQ Club Room. The primary purpose of the meeting is to discuss the challenges and opportunities for organizations and consumers in securing the digital economy. In particular, the meeting will address: (1) Challenges confronting consumers in the digital economy; (2) innovation (Internet of Things, healthcare, and other areas); and (3) assured products and services. The meeting will support detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, local, tribal and territorial governments and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. All sessions will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Central Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the University of Minnesota's TCF Bank Stadium-DQ Club Room, 3rd Level, located at 420 SE 23rd Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455. The meeting is open to the public and interested parties are requested to contact Sara Kerman at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice in advance of the meeting for building entrance requirements.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sara Kerman, Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900, telephone: 301-975-4634, or by email at: [email protected]. Please use subject line “Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity—MN”.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., notice is hereby given that the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity (“the Commission”) will meet Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. Central Time. All sessions will be open to the public. The Commission is authorized by Executive Order 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity.1 The Commission was established by the President and will make detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, state, local, tribal and territorial governments and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices.

    1https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/02/12/2016-03038/commission-on-enhancing-national-cybersecurity.

    The agenda is expected to include the following items:

    —Introductions. —Panel discussion on the challenges confronting the consumers in the digital economy. —Panel discussion on innovation (Internet of Things, healthcare, and other areas). —Panel discussion on assured products and services. —Conclusion. Note that agenda items may change without notice. The final agenda will be posted on http://www.nist.gov/cybercommission. Seating will be available for the public and media. No registration is required to attend this meeting; however, on-site attendees are asked to voluntarily sign in and space will be available on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Public Participation: The Commission agenda will include a period of time, not to exceed fifteen minutes, for oral comments from the public on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 3:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. Central Time. Speakers will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. Each speaker will be limited to five minutes. Questions from the public will not be considered during this period. Members of the public who are interested in speaking are requested to contact Sara Kerman at the contact information indicated in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    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. In addition, written statements are invited and may be submitted to the Commission at any time. All written statements should be directed to the Commission Executive Director, Information Technology Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8900, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8900 or by email at: [email protected]. Please use subject line “Open Meeting of the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity—MN”.

    Kevin Kimball, Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16742 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Flow Cytometry Quantitation Consortium AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, is establishing the Flow Cytometry Quantitation Consortium and invites organizations to participate in this Consortium. The Consortium will develop reference materials including reference fluorophore solutions and biological reference materials, reference data and reference methods for assigning equivalent number of reference fluorophores (ERF) values and for assessing the associated uncertainties and utilities. Participation in this Consortium is open to all eligible organizations, as described below.

    DATES:

    NIST will accept responses for participation in this Consortium on an ongoing basis. The Consortium's activities will commence on August 15, 2016 (“Commencement Date”). Acceptance of participants into the Consortium after the Commencement Date will depend on the availability of NIST resources.

    ADDRESSES:

    Information in response to this notice and requests for additional information about the Consortium can be directed via mail to the Consortium Manager, Dr. Lili Wang, Biosystems and Biomaterials Division of NIST's Material Measurement Laboratory, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-8312, or via electronic mail to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information about partnership opportunities or about the terms and conditions of NIST's Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), please contact Honeyeh Zube, CRADA and License Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology's Technology Partnerships Office, by mail to 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2200, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, by electronic mail to [email protected], or by telephone at (301) 975-2209.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Flow cytometry is a widely used technique for a single cell and particle analysis. It is an essential tool for immunological research, drug and device development, clinical trials, disease diagnosis, and therapy monitoring. The annual expenditure on flow cytometry-related diagnostics is upwards of $1.2 Billion and growing at more than 10 percent per year, testifying to the economic importance of this technology. The measurements made on the different instrument platforms at different times and locations, however, cannot be compared accurately, which makes diagnostic decisions unreliable and slows down advances in biomedical research. In response to this limitation, NIST and International Society for Advancement of Cytometry (ISAC) have developed a methodology to implement quantitation in flow cytometry. The first step is to calibrate the fluorescence signal from microparticles in terms of a unit of equivalent number of reference fluorophores (ERF) on three laser excitations, 405 nm, 488 nm, and 633 nm. The ERF unit gives the number of reference fluorophores in solution which produce the same fluorescence signal as a single dyed microsphere.

    The second step uses a biological cell, with known number of specific biomarkers, as a reference material to translate the ERF unit to a unit of antibodies bound per cell (ABC). The ABC unit is most relevant to immunological measurements. To support the calibration of microparticles in terms of ERF, NIST has developed standard reference material (SRM 1934), which includes four solutions of fluorophore: Fluorescein, Nile Red, Coumarin 30 and Allophycocyanin. Microparticles that have been assigned ERF values using SRM 1934 will enable the calibration and characterization of flow cytometers, and the standardization of the fluorescence intensity scale in quantitative ERF units. The results of the collaboration under this Consortium will allow the industry to further research, develop and adopt reference fluorophore solutions for other laser excitations and reference material standards recommended by the expert user community.

    NIST is establishing this five-year Consortium to collaborate with manufacturers of microparticles to develop methodologies for assigning ERF values for the microparticles provided to NIST under the scope of the Consortium. The results from this Consortium will also allow NIST to develop the capability that NIST would require to provide a calibration service.

    The certificate of analysis for NIST SRM 1934 and NIST's finalized standard operating procedure (SOP) for assigning ERF value will be used for performing the ERF value assignments for participants' microparticles. This SOP includes four steps and is published at J. Res. Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. 121: 269-286 (2016). As described in the SOP, the ERF value of the major microparticle population is calculated on the basis of the ratio of mean fluorescence intensity values of the major microparticle population to all microparticle populations.

    A summary of the ERF value assignments will include ERF values of major microparticle populations, associated combined uncertainties per laser excitation, and reference fluorophore. The combined uncertainty will be derived from all steps of the ERF value assignment, from weighing reference solutions, spectrofluorimeter calibration, CCD response calibration, microparticle concentration measurements by flow cytometer and light obscuration, and measurement of the emission spectrum of microparticles to determine ERF values for major microparticle populations. NIST will also share with each participant any digital emission spectral data of the major microparticle populations. In addition, a participant may request reports for specific ERF value assignments for its microparticles under this Consortium. NIST intends to publish anonymized results of the research under this Consortium. In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 3710a(c)(7)(B), NIST will withhold from public disclosure the data that specifically identifies a participant's microparticles for a period of five (5) years from the date any ERF values are generated, or until the participants grants NIST permission to disclose such data. NIST will not require the participants to pay a membership fee to participate in this Consortium. NIST will, however, require participants to contribute funds to reimburse NIST for the generation of any report requested by a participant for the ERF value assignments of participant's microparticles.

    Participation Process: Eligibility will be determined by NIST using the information provided by an organization in response to this notice based on the information requested below.

    An organization responding to this notice should provide the following information to NIST's Consortium Manager:

    (1) Type of microparticles: Optimal sizes of microparticles are from 2 to 10 microns. If there are needs of characterization and ERF value assignment to other size particles (<2 microns or >10 microns), the present standard operating procedure can be modified to accommodate the requests.

    (2) Type of Instrument: The Consortium is to assign ERF values for microparticles used primarily for flow cytometers. Any information about other instruments used by the organization is helpful to ensure that there is diversity in participants. For example, please indicate if the microparticles are used by the organization with fluorescence microscopes and spectrophotometers/spectrofluorimeters.

    (3) Experience in production and characterization of microparticles, antibodies, and biological cells, and analysis of large data sets.

    A responding organization should not include any business proprietary information in its response to this request for information. NIST will not treat any information provided in response to this request as proprietary information. NIST will notify each organization of its eligibility. In order to participate in this Consortium, each eligible organization must sign a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) for this Consortium. All participants to this Consortium will be bound by the same terms and conditions.

    Kent Rochford, Associate Director for Laboratory Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16761 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE733 Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting via Webinar.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will hold a meeting of its Standing and Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC) via Webinar.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 2, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EDT), to view the agenda, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via Webinar; you may registering, at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3960738127259119362.

    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 2203 N. Lois Avenue, Suite 1100, Tampa, FL 33607; telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Atran, Senior Fishery Biologist, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; [email protected], telephone: (813) 348-1630.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda I. Introductions and adoption of agenda II. Selection of SSC representative at August, 2016 Council meeting III. Reevaluation of alternative FMSY proxies (FMAX, F20%SPR, F22%SPR, and F24% SPR) for red snapper IV. Discussion of next gray triggerfish assessment—benchmark or standard V. Review of updated SEDAR schedule VI. Other business

    — Meeting Adjourns—

    Please register for SSC Meeting: Standing and Reef Fish on Aug. 2, 2016, 1 p.m. (EDT), at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/3960738127259119362. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Webinar.

    The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the Council's file server. To access the file server, the URL is https://public.gulfcouncil.org:5001/webman/index.cgi, or go to the Council's Web site and click on the FTP link in the lower left of the Council Web site http://www.gulfcouncil.org. The username and password are both “gulfguest.” Click on the “Library Folder,” then scroll down to “SSC meeting-2016-08.”

    The meeting will be webcast over the Internet. A link to the webcast will be available on the Council's Web site, http://www.gulfcouncil.org.

    Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kathy Pereira, at the Gulf Council Office (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 working days prior to the meeting.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16745 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE723 South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings and scoping meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a series of public hearings pertaining to Framework Amendment 4 to the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Fishery Management Plan for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic addressing management measures for Atlantic cobia in federal waters, and Amendment 41 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan for the South Atlantic addressing measures for mutton snapper in federal waters. Scoping comments will also be accepted for options being considered in Joint Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 10 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 44 to address allocations for dolphin fish and yellowtail snapper in federal waters. Question and Answer sessions for Framework Amendment 4 to the CMP Fishery Management Plan and for Amendment 41 to the Snapper Grouper Fishery Management Plan will also be held via webinar. A Question and Answer session for Joint Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 10 and Snapper Grouper Amendment 44 will be held as part of the scoping session.

    DATES:

    The Q&A sessions and series of public hearings/scoping meetings will be held from August 1 through August 17, 2016. All webinars and meetings will begin at 6 p.m.

    Registration is required for the Q&A sessions and public hearing/scoping meetings held via webinar. Registration information will be posted on the SAFMC Web site at www.safmc.net as it becomes available.

    ADDRESSES:

    Council address: South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, N. Charleston, SC 29405. For additional information on the Webinars, Hearings, and Agenda, see Dates, Addresses, and Agenda.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council is soliciting public hearing comments on proposed measures in CMP Framework Amendment 4 addressing proposed management measures for Atlantic cobia in federal waters from the Florida/Georgia line northward to New York. The Atlantic cobia fishery was closed to recreational harvest on June 20, 2016 in federal waters after NOAA Fisheries determined that the recreational annual catch limit had been exceeded in 2015. Exceeding the 2015 annual catch limit triggered the accountability measures in place for Atlantic cobia to prevent overfishing, resulting in the shortened recreational season in 2016. Measures proposed in Framework Amendment 4 are designed to help ensure consistent and stable fishing opportunities for all participants in the fishery and include: (1) Reducing the recreational bag limit with a preferred alternative to reduce the daily bag limit from 2 per person/day to 1 per person/day; (2) establishing a recreational vessel limit with a preferred alternative of 3 per vessel/day; (3) modifying the recreational fishing year with a preferred alternative for the year to begin May 1st; (4) modifying the recreational minimum size limit; (5) modifying the current accountability measure; and (6) changes to the commercial harvest limit.

    The Council is also soliciting public hearing comments on Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 addressing proposed management measures for mutton snapper. Stakeholders have expressed concerns about fishing pressure that occurs each spring as mutton snapper gather to spawn. Measures in Amendment 41 include actions to: (1) Modify the current annual catch limit for mutton snapper based on the most recent stock assessment; (2) reduce the current bag limit of 10 fish per person/day within the snapper aggregate with a preferred alternative of 3 fish per person/day year round; (3) establish a commercial trip limit with the preferred alternative of 300 pounds and 3 fish per person/day during the spawning season months (April-June); and (4) modify the current minimum size limit with the preferred alternative to increase the limit from 16 to 18 inches total length.

    Public scoping comments are being solicited for measures proposed in Joint Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 10/Snapper Grouper Amendment 44 addressing potential allocation measures for dolphin fish and yellowtail snapper. Public scoping occurs early in the amendment development process and the Council is soliciting input on proposed options that include a common pool allocation, a reserve category, temporary shifts in allocation, combined annual catch limits, a permanent allocation shift for dolphin and/or yellowtail snapper, and allocations by gear type for the commercial sector in the dolphin fishery. Measures proposed for dolphin would apply in federal waters along the entire Atlantic coast.

    Dates, Addresses, and Agenda Webinars 1. August 1, 2016—Q&A Session and Public Hearing for CMP Framework Amendment 4 (Atlantic Cobia) 2. August 2, 2016—Q&A Session and Public Hearing for Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 (Mutton Snapper) 3. August 4, 2016—Q&A Session and Public Scoping of Joint Dolphin Wahoo Amendment 10/Snapper Grouper Amendment 44 (Allocation of Dolphin and Yellowtail Snapper) In-Person Public Hearings Coastal Migratory Pelagics Framework Amendment 4 (Atlantic Cobia)

    1. August 3, 2016—Crowne Plaza Hotel, 4831 Tanger Outlet Boulevard, N. Charleston, SC 29418; phone: (843) 744-4422.

    2. August 8, 2016—Holton Restaurant, 13711 E. Oglethorpe Highway, Midway, GA 31320; phone: (912) 884-9151.

    3. August 9, 2016—Hilton Virginia Beach, 3001 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA 23451; phone: (757) 213-3001.

    4. August 9, 2016—Hampton Inn, 29 William Pope Drive, Bluffton, SC 29909; phone: (843) 705-9000.

    5. August 10, 2016—NC Division of Marine Fisheries, Central District Office, 5285 Highway 70 West, Morehead City, NC 28557; phone: (252) 499-9200.

    6. August 11, 2016—Hilton Garden Inn, 5353 N. Virginia Dare Trail, Kitty Hawk, NC 27949; phone: (252) 261-1290.

    7. August 11, 2016—Murrells Inlet Community Center, 4462 Murrells Inlet Road, Murrells Inlet, SC 29576; phone: (904) 396-5100.

    Snapper Grouper Amendment 41 (Mutton Snapper)

    1. August 15, 2016—Hilton Garden Inn—Ft. Lauderdale Airport, 180 SW 18th Avenue, Dania Beach, FL 33004; phone: (954) 924-9204.

    2. August 16, 2016—Hawks Cay Resort, 61 Hawks Cay Blvd., Duck Key, FL 33050; phone: (305) 743-7000.

    3. August 17, 2016—Marriott Beachside Hotel, 3841 N. Roosevelt Blvd., Key West, FL 33040; phone: (305) 296-8100.

    Submitting Written Comments

    The Council requests that written comments be submitted using the online public comment form. Comments submitted using the online comment form are immediately posted to the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net and available for all Council members and the public to view. Written comments may also be submitted by mail or fax.

    The comment period will open on July 18, 2016 once amendment materials are posted to the Web site. All written comments are due by 5 p.m. on August 19, 2016.

    Comments may be submitted by mail to: Gregg Waugh, Executive Director, SAFMC, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405. Fax comments to (843) 769-4520. Comments using the online public comment form: Use the comment form links on the Public Hearing and Scoping Meeting page on the Council's Web site to submit comments on each amendment. All comments submitted will be automatically posted to the Web site and accessible for the public to view. The direct link to the Public Hearing and Scoping meeting page is: http://safmc.net/meetings/public-hearing-and-scoping-meeting-schedule.

    Copies of the public hearing documents, scoping document, and other relevant informational material will be posted on the Council's Web site at www.safmc.net as they become available.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the council office (see ADDRESSES) 3 days prior to the meeting.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Jeffrey N. Lonergan, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16801 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 2510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE734 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council's (Council's) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel will hold a public meeting, jointly with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Advisory Panel.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Friday, July 29, 2016, from 10 a.m. until 12:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via webinar with a telephone-only connection option. Details on webinar registration and telephone-only connection details will be posted at: http://www.mafmc.org.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State Street, Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331 or on their Web site at www.mafmc.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of this meeting is for the Advisory Panels to review and comment on recent stock assessment information, as well as the reports and recommendations of the Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) and the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Monitoring Committee regarding previously implemented fishery specifications (i.e., catch and landings limits and management measures) for 2017-18. The Council and ASMFC will consider input from the AP in August when reviewing these specifications.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16766 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a public meeting of the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (Committee). The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on spectrum management policy matters.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 1, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time (MDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Campus, 325 Broadway Street, Boulder, CO 80305. Additional information regarding the location and registration for attendance at this meeting is included in the Supplementary Information section, below. Public comments may be mailed to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230 or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David J. Reed, Designated Federal Officer, at (202) 482-5955 or [email protected]; and/or visit NTIA's Web site at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information on needed reforms to domestic spectrum policies and management in order to: License radio frequencies in a way that maximizes public benefits; keep wireless networks as open to innovation as possible; and make wireless services available to all Americans. See Charter at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/csmac_2015_charter_renewal_2-26-15.pdf.

    This Committee is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and is consistent with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act, 47 U.S.C. 904(b). The Committee functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the FACA. For more information about the Committee visit: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Matters to Be Considered: The Committee provides advice to the Assistant Secretary to assist in developing and maintaining spectrum management policies that enable the United States to maintain or strengthen its global leadership role in the introduction of communications technology, services, and innovation; thus expanding the economy, adding jobs, and increasing international trade, while at the same time providing for the expansion of existing technologies and supporting the country's homeland security, national defense, and other critical needs of government missions. The Committee will hear reports of the following Subcommittees:

    1. Federal Access to Non-Federal Bands (Bi-directional Sharing) 2. Agency and Industry Collaboration 3. Measurement and Sensing in the 5 GHz Band 4. Spectrum Access System (SAS)/Spectrum Database International Extension 5. Fifth Generation (5G) Wireless

    NTIA will post a detailed agenda on its Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, prior to the meeting. To the extent that the meeting time and agenda permit, any member of the public may speak to or otherwise address the Committee regarding the agenda items. See Open Meeting and Public Participation Policy, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Time and Date: The meeting will be held on August 1, 2016, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. MDT. The meeting time and the agenda topics are subject to change. The meeting will be available via two-way audio link and may be webcast. Please refer to NTIA's Web site, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac, for the most up-to-date meeting agenda and access information.

    Place: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder Campus, 325 Broadway Street, Boulder, CO 80305. The specific location is PML Building 81, Conference Room A116. All attendees, including both committee members and meeting observers, must pre-register in order to gain entry to the NIST campus. To register, please visit: https://appam.certain.com/profile/form/index.cfm?PKformID=0x310288cc0. Security and campus instructions will be sent via email to registered attendees prior to the meeting date. Valid photo identification must be presented at the main gate. All foreign national visitors who do not have permanent resident status and who wish to register for the meeting will be required to provide additional information in order to complete registration. For directions to NIST, please visit: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/visitor/boulder-visitor-info.cfm.

    The meeting will be open to the public and members of the press on a first-come, first-served basis as space is limited. The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as sign language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Mr. Reed at (202) 482-5955 or [email protected] at least ten (10) business days before the meeting.

    Status: Interested parties are invited to attend and to submit written comments to the Committee at any time before or after the meeting. Parties wishing to submit written comments for consideration by the Committee in advance of a meeting may send them via postal mail to Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4600, Washington, DC 20230. It would be helpful if paper submissions also include a compact disc (CD) that contains the comments in Microsoft Word and/or PDF file formats. CDs should be labeled with the name and organizational affiliation of the filer. Alternatively, comments may be submitted via electronic mail to [email protected] and should also be in one or both of the file formats specified above. Comments must be received five (5) business days before the scheduled meeting date in order to provide sufficient time for review. Comments received after this date will be distributed to the Committee, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting.

    Records: NTIA maintains records of all Committee proceedings. Committee records are available for public inspection at NTIA's Washington, DC office at the address above. Documents including the Committee's charter, member list, agendas, minutes, and reports are available on NTIA's Web site at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/category/csmac.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16757 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Electronic Filing of Certain Import/Export Data Relating to Controlled Substances and Listed Chemicals: Announcement of the Partner Government Agency Message Set/Document Image System Test and Request for Participants AGENCY:

    Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announces, in coordination with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a pilot test of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) involving the electronic submission of data related to the importation and exportation of controlled substances and listed chemicals. The pilot program will test the electronic transmission through the CBP's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) system, of data, forms and documents required by the DEA using the Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set and the Document Image System (DIS). The data, forms and documents will be transmitted for review by the DEA. CBP's PGA Message Set and DIS enable importers, exporters, and brokers to electronically transmit data required by the DEA directly to ACE. This electronic process will replace certain paper-based processes currently used during the pilot program for pilot participants.

    DATES:

    The test will commence no earlier than August 1, 2016, and will continue until concluded by publication of a notice in the Federal Register ending the test. Applications to participate may be submitted throughout the duration of this test.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For PGA-related questions, contact Elizabeth McQueen at [email protected]. For technical questions related to the ACE or Automated Broker Interface (ABI) transmissions, or the PGA message set/DIS data transmission, contact your assigned client representative. Interested parties without an assigned client representative should direct their questions to Steven Zaccaro at [email protected] with the subject heading “DEA Message Set/DIS Test FRN-Request to Participate.” For DEA-related questions, contact Cathy A. Gallagher, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration; Mailing Address: 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; Telephone: (202) 598-6812.

    To Apply: Any party seeking to participate in this test should contact their CBP client representative. Interested parties without an assigned client representative should send a request to Steven Zaccaro at [email protected] with the subject heading “DEA Message Set/DIS Test FRN-Request to Participate.” Applications will be accepted throughout the duration of this test. Applicants should identify the DEA-regulated commodities they intend to import or export and the ports they intend to use to import or export those commodities. Applicants will be notified by CBP/client representatives of the date they may begin participating in this test. Any applicant who provides incomplete information or otherwise does not meet participation requirements will be notified by email and given an opportunity to resubmit a request to participate. To be eligible to apply for and participate in the pilot, an applicant must be a self-filing importer or broker who has the ability to file ACE Entry and Entry Summaries certified for cargo release using a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set and DIS, and, if an exporter, must have the ability to file electronically in the Automated Export System (AES) or in ACE AESDirect.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Customs Modernization provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act (Pub. L. 103-183, 107 Stat. 2057, 2170, December 8, 1993) provide the Commissioner of CBP with authority to conduct limited test programs or procedures designed to evaluate planned components of the National Customs Automation Program (NCAP), which includes ACE. The PGA Message Set/DIS test described in this notice is in furtherance of the NCAP goals.

    This test is also in furtherance of the International Trade Data System (ITDS) key initiatives to achieve the vision of ACE as the “single window” for the U.S. Government and trade community, set forth in section 405 of the Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2006 (“SAFE Port Act”) (Pub. L. 109-347, 120 Stat. 1884, 1929, Oct. 13, 2006), and section 107 of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-125, 130 Stat. 122, 135, Feb. 24, 2016). The purpose of ITDS, as stated in section 405 of the SAFE Port Act, is to eliminate redundant information requirements, efficiently regulate the flow of commerce, and effectively enforce laws and regulations relating to international trade, by establishing a single portal system, operated by CBP, for the collection and distribution of standard electronic import and export data required by all participating Federal agencies. CBP is developing ACE as the “single window” for the trade community to transmit electronically all required information related to the cargo imported or exported and to comply with the ITDS requirement established by the SAFE Port Act. On October 13, 2015, CBP promulgated an interim final rule providing that, as of November 1, 2015, ACE is a CBP authorized Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system which may be used for the filing of entries and entry summaries. 80 FR 61278. On February 29, 2016, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register stating that effective March 31, 2016, electronic entry summaries for specified entry types must be filed in ACE, and that effective May 28, 2016, electronic entries for specified entry types must be filed in ACE. 81 FR 10264.

    Executive Order 13659 of February 19, 2014, Streamlining the Export/Import Process for America's Businesses, 79 FR 10655 (Feb. 25, 2014), requires that by December 31, 2016, the ITDS “single window,” have the operational capabilities to serve as the primary means of receiving from users the standard set of data and other relevant documentation (exclusive of applications for permits, licenses, or certifications) required for the release of imported cargo and clearance of cargo for export, and to transition from paper-based requirements and procedures to faster and more cost-effective electronic submissions to, and communications with, participating U.S. Government agencies.

    Partner Government Agency Message and Document Image System

    On December 13, 2013, CBP published in the Federal Register a notice announcing an NCAP test called the Partner Government Agency (PGA) Message Set test. 78 FR 75931. The PGA Message Set is the data needed to satisfy the PGA reporting requirements. ACE enables the message set by acting as the “single window” for the electronic transmission to CBP of trade-related data required by the PGAs. Once validated, the data will be made available to the relevant PGAs involved in regulating the importation or exportation of the cargo import, export, and transportation-related decision making. The data will be used to fulfill cargo entry requirements and may allow for earlier release decisions and more certainty for the importer in determining the logistics of cargo delivery. Also, by virtue of being electronic, the PGA Message Set will eliminate the necessity for the submission and subsequent handling of most paper documents.

    On April 6, 2012, CBP announced the DIS test (77 FR 20835) allowing any party who files an ACE entry/cargo release or ACE Entry Summary certified for cargo release to submit electronically digital copies of specified CBP and PGA forms and documents via a CBP-approved EDI. On January 30, 2015, CBP modified the DIS test to allow specified Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service forms and documents to be transmitted as attachments to an email. 80 FR 5126. On October 15, 2015, CBP announced it would permit any DIS eligible form or document to be submitted as an attachment to an email. 80 FR 62082. As CBP frequently updates the list of forms and documents eligible to be transmitted using DIS, the complete list will be maintained on the CBP Web site, at the following address: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/features under the DIS tab. Only eligible documents and forms required for the release of cargo or requested by CBP should be transmitted using DIS. Forms and documents transmitted using DIS may be transmitted without a prior request from CBP or the relevant PGA. ACE will automatically acknowledge every successful DIS transmission. This automated acknowledgement of successful transmission does not mean the correct or required form or document was transmitted as it occurs prior to any review of the transmitted form or document. Any DEA form or document submitted via DIS is an electronic copy of an original document or form, and both the original and the imaged copy are subject to the CBP recordkeeping requirements of 19 CFR part 163, DEA recordkeeping requirements found in 21 CFR parts 1304, 1310, 1312 and 1313, and any other applicable PGA recordkeeping requirements. For purposes of the pilot, every form or document transmitted through DIS must be legible and must be a complete, accurate, and unaltered copy of the original document. See 19 CFR 101.9(b). For more information and the rules, procedures, technical requirements and terms and conditions applicable to the DIS, please see the DIS Federal Register notice at 80 FR 62082 (Oct. 15, 2015).

    Current Paper Based Procedure

    Current DEA regulations require applications for permits, declarations, and other required notices and reports to be filed utilizing designated forms which can be filed in paper form or by electronic means. During the pilot, the DEA import and export application and filing processes will continue to remain separate from (and in advance of) the ITDS single window. Entities will continue to use the DEA application and filing processes; however, the processes will be electronic rather than paper. After the DEA's approval or notification of receipt as appropriate, the DEA will transmit the necessary information electronically to the ITDS and the registrant or regulated person.

    In support of ITDS and the use of CBP's PGA Message Set and DIS, the DEA will utilize an automated system to ensure compliance with import and export regulations. The DEA's system will electronically transmit reference data to CBP, expediting the conditional release of shipments for the purpose of inspection, prior to the final release into the commerce of the United States.

    PGA Message Set/ACE Filing

    Once deployed, ACE/ITDS will replace the Automated Commercial System (ACS), the current EDI. ACE will be the official “single-window” system of record. ACE will require that all data related to cargo release be submitted electronically using either the PGA Message Set or DIS.

    The DEA and/or CBP will analyze the PGA Message Set data, forms and documents transmitted using DIS to determine whether inspection of a shipment is required. The data in ACE will also enable CBP to make the determination that a shipment may be conditionally released for inspection.

    Pilot Program Details

    The DEA is authorized by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as amended, to regulate and collect information on the importation and exportation of controlled substances and listed chemicals. Under applicable DEA regulations, the importation of these DEA-regulated commodities into the customs territory of the United States from any place outside thereof (but within the United States), or into the United States from any place outside thereof, or the exportation of these DEA-regulated commodities from the United States typically requires the submission of one or more of the following DEA forms:

    (1) DEA Form 35—Permit to Import (2) DEA Form 36—Permit to Export (3) DEA Form 161—Application for Permit to Export Controlled Substances (4) DEA Form 161R—Application for Permit to Export Controlled Substances for Subsequent Reexport (5) DEA Form 236—Controlled Substances Import/Export Declaration (6) DEA Form 357—Application for Permit To Import Controlled Substances (7) DEA Form 486—Import/Export Declaration for List I and List II Chemicals; (8) DEA Form 486A—Import Declaration for Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, or Phenylpropanolamine.

    This notice announces DEA's plan to conduct a test concerning the electronic transmission of the data contained in these forms to ACE using the PGA Message Set and the transmission of certain DEA permits, forms and documents using DIS. This new DEA PGA Message Set and DIS capability will satisfy the DEA data and electronic document requirements for any CBP entry filed electronically in ACE. As noted above, this test also applies to the exportation of the commodities subject to this test and requires the electronic submission of required export data through AES in Automated Export System Trade Interface Requirements (AESTIR) or American National Standards Institute (ANSI) X12, or in ACE AESDirect using an ACE portal, bulk upload or weblink. The AES DEA data elements are documented in Appendix Q of the AESTIR Implementation Guidelines (Appendix Q) and in the ACE AESDirect portal view. The Web site to Appendix Q is http://www.cbp.gov/document/guidance/aestir-draft-appendix-q-pga-record-formats.

    This new capability will also enable the trade community to have a CBP-managed “single window” for the electronic submission of data and documents required by the DEA during the cargo importation/exportation and review process. The technical requirements for submitting DEA data elements are set forth in the supplemental Customs and Trade Automated Interface Requirements (CATAIR) guidelines for the DEA. These technical requirements, including the ACE CATAIR chapter, may be found at the following link: http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/catair.

    The list of forms and documents, including DEA documents, which may be transmitted using DIS may be found at http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/features under the DIS tab. The DEA permits, forms and documents eligible to be transmitted using DIS include DEA forms 35, 36, 236, 486 and 486A.

    This test will apply to any entry filed in ACE at any port of entry and to cargo imported or exported using any mode of transportation. As a condition of the pilot, entries filed in ACE with the PGA Message Set must be transmitted using a software program that has completed ACE certification testing. See 19 CFR 101.9(b). This test will apply to all cargo regulated by DEA as of the date of this notice that require a CBP entry or exit.

    This initial pilot will include the DEA PGA Message Set and the DIS components of ACE for imports, and the use of AES for exports. As mentioned above, DIS allows participants to transmit required PGA data to ACE through the use of electronic copies of DEA permits, forms and documents. For information regarding the use of DIS and a list of PGA forms and documents that may be transmitted to ACE using DIS, please see http://www.cbp.gov/trade/ace/features under the DIS tab.

    Importers, exporters and brokers who participate in this pilot will transmit PGA Message Set data to ACE using the electronic data interchange known as the ABI, and for exports, data will be transmitted via the AESTIR or the ACE Secure Data Portal. The data elements in the PGA Message Set are generally those found on the DEA forms, permits, and declarations subject to this test. The DEA data is required in order to determine whether inspection of the shipment is required and to provide CBP with information to determine whether to conditionally release the cargo. Details related to this data will be provided to pilot participants. The DEA anticipates that this pilot program will help prepare for a successful transition from the paper-based process to the electronic entry and transmission of data to ACE.

    Pilot Program Participant Responsibilities

    Importers, exporters and brokers who participate in this PGA Message Set/DIS pilot will be required to:

    • Submit by electronic means through the DEA Office of Diversion Control's secure network application, DEA Registered Importers/Exporters Permit Applications (DEA Forms 357, 161, 161R), and Import/Export Declarations (DEA Forms 236, 486, and 486A).

    • Retrieve and print from the DEA Office of Diversion Control's secure network application, color copies of DEA issued import and export permits (DEA Forms 35 and 36).

    • Obtain the required PGA Message Set Data and electronic DIS copy of the permit or declaration from the DEA registrant or regulated person.

    • File, when applicable, data elements contained in Appendix Q.

    • Include PGA Message Set import filings only as part of an ACE Entry or Entry Summary certified for cargo release.

    • Use a software program that has completed ACE certification testing for the PGA Message Set and/or DIS.

    • Transmit import filings to CBP via ACE.

    • Transmit only information to CBP that has been requested by CBP or DEA.

    • File export data through AES in AESTIR or ANSI X12, or in ACE AESDirect using an ACE portal, bulk upload or weblink.

    Waiver of Regulations Under the Test

    Pursuant to the authority of 21 U.S.C. 871(b), for the purposes of this test, the DEA waives for pilot participants those provisions of 21 CFR parts 1312 and 1313 that are inconsistent with the terms of this test. This document does not waive any recordkeeping requirements found in 21 CFR parts 1304, 1310, 1312, and 1313. For purposes of this test, those provisions of 21 CFR 1312.13(e), 1312.14(a), 1312.14(c), 1312.19(a), 1312.19(b), 1312.23(e), 1312.24(a), 1312.24(b), 1312.28(c), 1312.28(d), 1313.14(c), and 1313.23(c) that are inconsistent with the terms of this test are waived for test participants.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This change does not institute a new collection of information but instead proposes modifying the way that information is gathered. The collection of information contained in this DEA PGA Message Set/DIS test has been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507) and assigned OMB control numbers 1117-0009 and 1117-0023. 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.

    Confidentiality

    Data submitted and entered into the ACE Portal includes information that is exempt or restricted from disclosure by law, such as by the Trade Secrets Act (18 U.S.C. 1905). Participation in this or any of the previous ACE tests is not confidential and the name(s) of an approved participant(s) may be disclosed by CBP.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16756 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product and service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 8/14/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind Or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information or to submit comments contact Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product and service are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

    Product: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 343—Handheld Spiralizer Mandatory for: Military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Service: Service Type: Facilities Maintenance Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army, DPW, Fort Riley (excluding Residential Housing Areas and including Forbes Air Field, Topeka, KS), Fort Riley, KS Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Training, Rehabilitation, and Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Support Center, Huntsville, AL Service Type: Administrative Support Service Mandatory for: FAA, Regional Offices (except Burlington, MA) Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source of Supply: ServiceSource, Inc., Oakton, VA Contracting Activity: Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region, Logistics Division (ASW-55), Fort Worth, TX Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-01-279-7730—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6 Short 8410-01-279-7731—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6R 8410-01-279-7732—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6L 8410-01-279-7733—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8S 8410-01-279-7734—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8R 8410-01-279-7735—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8L 8410-01-279-7736—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10S 8410-01-279-7737—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10R 8410-01-279-7738—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10L 8410-01-279-7739—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12S 8410-01-279-7740—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12R 8410-01-279-7741—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12L 8410-01-279-7742—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14S 8410-01-279-7743—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14R 8410-01-279-7744—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14L 8410-01-279-7745—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16S 8410-01-279-7746—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16R 8410-01-279-7747—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16L 8410-01-279-7748—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18S 8410-01-279-7749—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18R 8410-01-279-7750—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18L 8410-01-279-7751—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20S 8410-01-279-7752—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20R 8410-01-279-7753—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20L Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-385-7362—Pencil, Mechanical, Side Action, Green Barrel, 0.7 mm 7520-01-354-2305—Pencil, Mechanical, Push Action, Red Barrel and Lead, Extra Bold Point (1.1 mm) Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-443-2121—Toner, Cartridges, New 7510-00-NIB-0633—Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7510-00-NIB-0642—Skilcraft Toner Cartridge Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7045-01-599-5322—Glare Shield for iPhone 7045-01-599-5271—Glare Shield for Blackberry Bold 7045-01-599-5273—Glare Shield for Blackberry Storm2 7045-01-599-5290—Glare Shield for Blackberry Curve2 7045-01-599-5275—Universal PDA Glare Shield 7045-01-599-5287—Privacy Shield for iPhone 7045-01-599-5276—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Bold 7045-01-599-5278—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Storm2 7045-01-599-5285—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Curve2 7045-01-599-5282—Privacy Shield for PDA, Universal Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Wiscraft, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7110-00-194-1611—Rotary Drafting Stool—Faux Leather 7110-00-281-4469—Rotary Drafting Stool—Upholstered Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-00-NIB-0160—Pillow, Medical, White, 26″ x 20″ 7210-00-NIB-0161—Pillow, Medical, Blue, 26″ x 20″ 7210-00-NIB-0162—Pillow, Bed, Flame Resistant, Pink, 26″ x 20″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5970-01-245-7042—Tape, Electrical Insulation, Black, 1″ W x 108 ft Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH; Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5970-01-560-5355—Tape, Insulation, Electrical, High Voltage, Black, 2″ x 108′ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Services: Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Southwest Supply Center, 819 Taylor Street, Fort Worth, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind in New Orleans, Inc., New Orleans, LA Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Operation of Postal Service Center Service Mandatory for: Luke Air Force Base, 14185 Falcon St, Luke AFB, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16783 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective 8/14/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/6/2016 (81 FR 27419-27420) and 5/20/2016 (81 FR 31917-31918), the Committee for Purchase from People Who are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the products to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are added to the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6135-00-826-4798—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, AAA, Alkaline 6135-00-985-7845—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, AA, Alkaline 6135-00-835-7210—Battery, Non-Rechargeable, D, Alkaline Mandatory for: Total Government Requirement Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Eastern Carolina Vocational Center, Inc., Greenville, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime Distribution: A-List Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16784 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION Supervisory Highlights: Mortgage Servicing Special Edition 2016 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Supervisory Highlights; notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (CFPB) is issuing its eleventh edition of its Supervisory Highlights. In this issue, the CFPB shares findings from supervisory examination work in mortgage servicing between January 2014 and April 2016. The issue also discusses Supervision's approach mortgage to servicing exams, including a description of recent changes to the mortgage servicing chapter of the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual.

    DATES:

    The Bureau released this edition of the Supervisory Highlights on its Web site on June 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher J. Young, Managing Senior Counsel and Chief of Staff, Office of Supervision Policy, 1700 G Street NW., 20552, (202) 435-7408.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Introduction

    Mortgage servicers play a central role in homeowners' lives by managing their mortgage loans. Servicers collect and apply payments, work out modifications to loan terms, and handle the difficult process of foreclosure. As the financial crisis made clear, weak customer support, lost paperwork, and mishandled accounts can lead to many wrongful foreclosures and other serious harm. Since consumers do not choose their mortgage servicers they cannot take their business elsewhere.

    To improve practices in the servicing market, the Dodd-Frank Act Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) imposed new requirements on servicers and gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) the authority to implement those new requirements and adopt additional rules to protect consumers. The CFPB released rules, effective January 10, 2014, to improve the information consumers receive from their servicers, to enhance the protections available to consumers to address servicer errors, and to establish baseline servicing requirements that provide additional protections for consumers who have fallen behind on their mortgage payments. Supervisory examinations of mortgage servicers now generally focus on reviewing for compliance with these servicing rules and for unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices.

    To assist industry in its efforts to comply Federal consumer financial law, this Special Edition of Supervisory Highlights discusses recent supervisory examination observations in mortgage servicing. To provide additional context for readers, we integrate these recent observations with observations from previous editions of Supervisory Highlights by subject matter.1

    1 Observations shared in previous editions of Supervisory Highlights will be footnoted. Questions or comments may be directed to [email protected]

    The magnitude and persistence of compliance challenges since 2014, particularly in the areas of loss mitigation and servicing transfers, show that while the servicing market has made investments in compliance, those investments have not been sufficient across the marketplace. Outdated and deficient servicing technology continues to pose considerable risk to consumers in the wider servicing market. These shortcomings are compounded by lack of proper training, testing, and auditing of technology-driven processes, particularly to handle more individualized situations related to delinquencies and loss mitigation processes. None of these problems is insurmountable, however, with the proper focus on making necessary improvements, especially in the information technology systems necessary for effective implementation. Supervisory examinations do show that some servicers have significantly improved their compliance positions, and this edition concludes by sharing how these servicers have strengthened their compliance.

    2. Our Approach to Mortgage Servicing Examinations

    To determine which mortgage servicers to examine, we use a prioritization framework that considers a broad range of factors to predict the likelihood of consumer harm.2 For instance, because a servicer's market share corresponds to the number of consumers affected, we prioritize relatively larger servicers with a more dominant market presence over comparatively smaller servicers.

    2 See Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2013, Section 3.2.3, input from housing counselors and other stakeholders.

    Our prioritization approach counterbalances this size consideration with what we call field and market intelligence. We consider qualitative and quantitative factors for each servicer such as the strength of compliance management systems, the existence of other regulatory actions, findings from our prior examinations, servicing transfer activity, the number, severity and trends of consumer complaints, as well as input from housing counselors and other stakeholders about institutional performance based on their experience.

    In fall 2011, we published the initial mortgage servicing chapter of the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual. We update the manual periodically, most recently in May 2016, to reflect regulatory changes, to make technical corrections and to update examination priorities.3 In the latest version, we enhance the section related to consumer complaints to highlight that for mortgage servicers, examiners will be reviewing whether the servicer has an adequate process for expedited evaluation of complaints or notices of error for borrowers or borrower advocates alleging regulatory compliance issues where the borrower is facing imminent foreclosure. The possibility of foreclosure puts even more weight on the importance of an appropriate complaint escalation process, which is essential to any compliance management system.4

    3 See CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201401_cfpb_mortgage-servicing-exam-procedures.pdf.

    4 See page CMR 10 “Consumer Complaint Response” in the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual, available at: http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201210_cfpb_supervision-and-examination-manual-v2.pdf.

    Generally, our examinations review compliance management systems and evaluate compliance through transaction testing of specific loan files. In many instances, examiners conduct specific transaction testing based on consumer complaints submitted to housing counselors or the CFPB's Office of Consumer Response, particularly where the servicer did not provide a sufficient response or remedy. The scope for the content of our examinations reflects the size and risk profile of each servicer, and as a result, the content of our transaction testing may vary across market participants.

    Our supervisory work also has included use of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) Baseline Modules, which are part of the CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual. Examination teams use these modules to conduct ECOA Baseline Reviews, which evaluate how well institutions' compliance management systems identify and manage fair lending risks. The module 4, covering fair lending risks related to servicing, includes questions on such topics as fair lending training of servicing staff, fair lending monitoring of servicing, and servicing consumers with Limited English Proficiency. Based on the information gathered through these ECOA Baseline Reviews, and other inputs used in our prioritization process, Supervision will be conducting more comprehensive ECOA Targeted Reviews of mortgage servicers in 2016.

    Where we observe more significant violations during an examination, we may refer matters to our Action Review Committee.5 The committee uses a deliberative and rigorous process to determine whether matters that originate from our examinations will be resolved through confidential supervisory action, such as a board resolution or memorandum of understanding, or through a public enforcement action. In determining the appropriate action, the committee considers a variety of factors, including the magnitude of consumer harm, whether the violation was self-identified, and the timeliness and scope of remediation.

    5 See Supervisory Highlights: Summer 2015, Section 3.1.4, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    Additionally, we have identified potential risk areas and provided general compliance suggestions related to mortgage servicing by publishing several compliance bulletins. The bulletins issued to date have covered the following topics: Permanent Change of Station Orders,6 Mortgage Servicing Transfers,7 and Private Mortgage Insurance Cancellation and Termination.8

    6 See Interagency Guidance on Mortgage Servicing Practices Concerning Military Homeowners with Permanent Change of Station Orders, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201206_cfpb_PCS_Orders_Guidance.pdf.

    7 See CFPB Bulletin 2014-01 (Aug. 19, 2014), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_bulletin_mortgage-servicing-transfer.pdf.

    8 See CFPB Bulletin 2015-03 (Aug. 4, 2015), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201508_cfpb_compliance-bulletin_private-mortgage-insurance-cancellation-and-termination.pdf.

    3. Supervisory Observations

    In examining for compliance with the servicing rules, Supervision has addressed issues across servicing business areas, and most extensively in the areas of loss mitigation acknowledgement notices (3.1); loss mitigation offers and related communications (3.2); loan modification denial notices (3.3); policies and procedures (3.4); and servicing transfers (3.5). The following findings reflect information obtained from supervisory activities as captured in examination reports or supervisory letters. In some instances, not all corrective actions, including through enforcement, have been completed at the time of this report's publication.

    3.1. Loss Mitigation Acknowledgement Notices

    Before the new servicing rules, gaps in servicer communication and coordination kept many distressed consumers in the dark about available options to avoid foreclosure. Consumers who applied for such options sometimes found themselves stuck in a cycle of lost paperwork and redundant document requests while their foreclosure dates grew nearer.

    To address this set of issues, the servicing rules now require that if a servicer receives a loss mitigation application 45 days or more before a foreclosure sale, it must notify the borrower in writing within five days to acknowledge receipt of the application and whether it is complete or incomplete.9 If incomplete, the notice must state the additional documents and information the borrower must submit to complete the application and a reasonable date by which the borrower should submit those documents and information.10

    9 12 CFR 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B).

    10 Id. The acknowledgment notice also must include a statement that the borrower should consider contacting servicers of any other mortgage loans secured by the same property to discuss available loss mitigation options.

    CFPB examiners have found multiple violations related to these critical process requirements. Examiners found that one or more servicers failed to send any loss mitigation acknowledgment notices due to a repeated loss mitigation processing platform malfunction over a significant period of time. Supervision cited the servicer(s) for violating Regulation X and directed the servicer(s) to remediate affected borrowers, including for interest, fees, and any additional harm incurred.11 Supervision also directed the servicer(s) to fix and monitor the servicing platform for compliance weaknesses. Supervision later confirmed that the servicer(s) undertook appropriate corrective actions.

    11 12 CFR 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B). Previously discussed in the Summer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    Supervision also found deceptive statements in loss mitigation acknowledgement notices. One or more servicers sent acknowledgement notices that represented homes would not be foreclosed on before the deadline passed for submitting missing documents. But the servicer(s) foreclosed on homes before the submission deadline. Supervision determined the representations to be deceptive, independent of whether or not the servicing rules permitted the servicer(s) to foreclose on the specific borrower(s) at that time. Supervision directed the servicer(s) to undertake remedial and corrective actions which are under review.12

    12 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B).

    Supervision also observed deficiencies with the timeliness and content of acknowledgment notices. One or more servicers sent acknowledgement notices more than five days after receiving a borrower's loss mitigation application. And at one or more servicers, the noncompliant acknowledgment notices for incomplete loss mitigation applications:

    • Failed to state the additional documents and information for borrowers to submit to complete the application, such as income and tax forms that the servicer's internal records showed were necessary at that time,. Instead, the servicer(s) separately requested the necessary documents several weeks after the acknowledgment notice.

    • Requested documents, sometimes dozens in number, inapplicable to borrower circumstances and which were not needed to evaluate borrowers for loss mitigation.13

    13 Previously discussed in the Summer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    • Requested documents that borrowers already submitted.

    • Failed to include any reasonable date by which borrowers must return additional documents and information.

    • Gave borrowers 30 days to submit additional documents, but the servicer(s) then denied borrowers' applications for loss mitigation before 30 days.14

    14 Previously discussed in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    • Failed to include a statement that borrowers should consider contacting servicers of any other mortgage loans secured by the same property to discuss available loss mitigation options.

    Supervision cited the servicer(s) above for violating Regulation X and directed them to revise deficient acknowledgement notices to meet Regulation X requirements.15

    15 12 CFR 1024.41(b)(2)(i)(B).

    3.2 Loss Mitigation Offer Letters and Related Communications

    Supervision also found serious violations of Federal consumer financial law with servicer loss mitigation offer letters, loss mitigation offers, and related communications. In offering proprietary modifications, one or more servicers engaged in deceptive and abusive practices in connection with communicating whether and when outstanding fees, charges, and advances would be assessed. Specifically, one or more servicers engaged in a deceptive practice by misrepresenting to borrowers that it would defer such charges to the maturity date of the loan, when in fact it often assessed hundreds of dollars in these charges after the borrowers signed and returned the permanent modification agreements. Additionally, one or more servicers took unreasonable advantage of borrowers' lack of understanding of the material risks of the loan modification and took unreasonable advantage of borrowers' inability to protect their interests in selecting or using the modification because the language in the proprietary modification offer made it impossible for a borrower to understand the true nature of how and when these charges would be assessed. Without such knowledge, a borrower could not have understood the material risks of the modification, nor could he adequately protect himself from the potential payment shock from the assessment of such charges. Supervision cited the servicer(s) for deceptive and abusive practices and required the servicer(s) to provide accurate information regarding fee assessment practices about its proprietary loss mitigation options to borrowers.16

    16 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B)

    Furthermore, one or more servicers sent loss mitigation offer letters with response deadlines that had already passed or were about to pass by the time the borrower received the letter. The servicer(s) generated the letters in timely fashion, but delayed sending them to borrowers for a substantial number of days. Supervision cited this practice as unfair and directed the servicer(s) to undertake remedial and corrective actions which are under review.17

    17 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B).

    With respect to permanent modification agreements, one or more servicers sent agreements to some borrowers that did not match the terms approved by its underwriting software. Many borrowers signed and returned the agreements, but then the agreements were not executed by the servicer(s). Instead, after substantial delays, the servicer(s) sent updated modification agreements with materially different terms to the borrowers. These misrepresentations about the available terms affected the ultimate payments the borrowers would make, influencing both whether they would accept the modification and how they could subsequently budget based on their expected payment. Supervision determined that the servicer(s) engaged in a deceptive practice in connection with these modifications and directed the servicer(s) to undertake remedial and corrective actions, which are under review.18

    18 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Fall 2014 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201410_cfpb_supervisory-highlights_fall-2014.pdf.

    One or more servicers represented in loan modification trial period plans that borrowers would receive a permanent modification after making three trial payments. However, after borrowers made the required trial payments, the servicer(s) could still deny the permanent modification based on the results of a title search. The servicer(s) did not communicate to borrowers that permanent loan modifications were contingent on a title search in the trial period offer letter. Supervision determined the practice to be deceptive and directed the servicer(s) to provide accurate information to borrowers about loss mitigation options.19

    19 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B).

    Against investor guidelines, one or more servicers treated borrower self-employed gross income as net income when evaluating loss mitigation applications. The practice inflated borrower income and may have led to less affordable modifications. Supervision traced the practice to an underwriting error and cited the servicer(s) for violating Regulation X.20 It directed the servicer(s) to conduct training for loss mitigation personnel to calculate self-employment income according to investor guidelines.

    20 1024.41(c)(1)(i).

    One or more servicers failed to convert a substantial number of trial modifications to permanent modifications timely after borrowers successfully completed trial modifications. The delays harmed borrowers who then owed higher amounts of accrued interest under the finalized permanent modifications than they would have owed under a timely conversion. During the delay, the interest accrued at the original contractual rate, rather than at the lower rate provided under the modification's terms. The servicer then capitalized the additional interest into the principal balance owed under the permanent modification. The servicer(s) also continued to report borrowers that had been delinquent at the beginning of their trial modifications as delinquent to the consumer reporting agencies during the length of the delay. Some affected borrowers filed complaints with the CFPB's Office of Consumer Response describing how the uncertainty of the loan modification decisions hurt their ability to plan for the future. Supervision determined that the substantial delays, combined with the negative consequences attributable to the delays, constituted an unfair practice and directed the servicer(s) to undertake remedial and corrective actions which are under review.21

    21 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Fall 2014 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201410_cfpb_supervisory-highlights_fall-2014.pdf.

    Supervision found a deceptive practice related to how one or more servicers disclosed the terms of a payment plan that deferred mortgage payments for daily simple interest mortgage loans.22 The communications included misleading representations about the deferments, which represented that deferred interest would be repayable at the end of the loan term when, in fact, the servicer collected the deferred interest from consumer immediately after the deferment ended. Supervision directed the servicer(s) to clearly disclose how interest accrues while on the plan and its impact on monthly payments after the deferment period concludes.

    22 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Summer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    Supervision found that one or more servicers sent notices warning that foreclosure would be imminent to borrowers who were current on their low-balance home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) and no monthly payment due. Supervision cited the practice as deceptive and directed servicer(s) to cease sending collection letters that misled consumers into believing that the loans were delinquent.23

    23 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Summer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    Additionally, Supervision has repeatedly identified waivers of consumer rights in loss mitigation agreements. Regulation Z states that a “contract or other agreement relating to a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling . . . may not be applied or interpreted to bar a consumer from bringing a claim in court pursuant to any provision of law for damages or other relief in connection with any alleged violation of any Federal law.” 24 Examiners found one or more servicers required borrowers to sign waivers agreeing that they would have no “defenses, set-offs, or counterclaims to the indebtedness of borrowers pursuant to the Loan Document” in order to enter mortgage repayment and loan modification plans. Defenses, set-offs, and counterclaims pertain to a contract or other agreement to a consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling. As borrowers were likely to read the waiver as barring them from bringing claims—including Federal claims—related to their mortgage, Supervision cited the waiver language as deceptive and directed the servicer(s) to remove it from all loss mitigation agreements.25

    24 12 CFR 1026.36(h)(2).

    25 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    3.3 Loan Modification Denial Notices

    Where servicers deny complete loss mitigation applications for any trial or permanent loan modification option, denial notices help borrowers understand the reasons and, where appropriate, provide relevant information about the appeals process. Generally, the servicing rules require that denial notices provide the specific reason or reasons for denying the borrower the trial or permanent loan modification option and, if applicable, that the borrower was not evaluated on other criteria. The rules enable a borrower to appeal a denial of a trial or permanent loan modification option so long as the borrower's complete loss mitigation application is received 90 days or more before a foreclosure sale or during the pre-foreclosure review period.26

    26 12 CFR 1024.41(d), (h).

    Supervision found that denial notices at one or more servicers failed to state the correct reason(s) for denying a trial or permanent loan modification option as required by Regulation X.27 For example, the notices' denial reason stated that the borrower “did not provide the requested additional information needed to complete the workout review.” However, the servicer(s) platform indicated that the borrower's application was complete and was instead denied for a specific reason related to the borrower's income.

    27 12 CFR 1024.41(d).

    One or more servicers' notices also stated “Not Available*” as the reason for denying loss mitigation applications. The asterisk elaborated: “Not Available means this program was not considered due to an eligibility requirement or requirements not met.”

    Supervision cited the two practices above for violating Regulation X and directed the servicer(s) to state the specific reason or reasons for its denial of each trial or permanent loan modification option and, if applicable, that the borrower was not evaluated on other criteria.28

    28 12 CFR 1024.41(d).

    When a borrower has the right to appeal the denial of a trial or permanent loan modification, a servicer must, in its notice after evaluating the borrower's complete loss mitigation application, inform the borrower of the appeal right and the amount of time the borrower has to file the appeal.29 One or more servicers sent denial notices that failed to communicate a borrower's specific right to appeal. The notices instead generically stated that the borrower may have a right to appeal if the borrower met certain requirements. Supervision cited servicer(s) for violating Regulation X and directed the servicer(s) to include more specific appeal language in their denial letters where appropriate, rather than only generic appeal language in all instances.30

    29 12 CFR 1024.41(c)(1)(ii).

    30 12 CFR 1024.41(c)(1)(ii). Previously discussed in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    3.4 Servicing Policies, Procedures, and Requirements

    To undergird the loss mitigation application process, Regulation X requires servicers to maintain policies and procedures reasonably designed to achieve specific objectives that include: Providing timely and accurate information; properly evaluating loss mitigation applications; facilitating oversight of and compliance by service providers; and facilitating transfer of information during servicing transfers.31 In reviewing for these requirements, Supervision found that one or more servicers violated Regulation X because their policies and procedures were not reasonably designed to achieve the following objectives:

    31 12 CFR 1024.38(a), (b).

    • Providing a borrower with accurate and timely information and documents in response to the borrower's requests for information with respect to the borrower's mortgage loan. One or more servicers failed to provide information and loss mitigation application forms to a substantial number of borrowers who called in to request such information.32

    32 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(1)(iii).

    • Upon the death of a borrower, promptly identifying and facilitating communication with the successor in interest of the deceased borrower with respect to the property secured by the deceased borrower's mortgage loan.33 One or more servicers required probate for borrowers to establish themselves as successors in states where probate was not required.

    33 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(1)(vi).

    • Identifying with specificity all loss mitigation options for which a borrower may be eligible pursuant to any requirements established by an owner or assignee of the borrower's mortgage loan.34 One or more servicers sent letters to borrowers soliciting loss mitigation applications when internal records showed that the borrowers were not eligible for any loss mitigation option.35

    34 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(2)(ii).

    35 Reported in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    • Providing prompt access to all documents and information submitted by a borrower in connection with a loss mitigation option to servicer personnel assigned to assist the borrower under the rules.36 One or more servicers failed to identify and process material submitted by borrowers to complete a loss mitigation application. The servicer(s) permitted borrowers to send material through fax, but lacked policies and procedures for date-stamping, cataloging and distributing loss mitigation material to appropriate departments, which resulted in servicer personnel assigned to assist the borrower under the rules being unable to access relevant information in a timely way.

    36 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(2)(iii).

    • Properly evaluating a loss mitigation application for all options for which the borrower may be eligible based on the loan owner's requirements.37 One or more servicers evaluated applications only for the loss mitigation options preselected by servicer personnel and not for all options available to the borrower.38

    37 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(2)(v).

    38 Reported in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    • Facilitating the sharing of accurate and current information regarding the status of any evaluation of a borrower's loss mitigation application and the status of any foreclosure proceeding among appropriate servicer personnel, including service provider personnel. One or more servicer(s)' foreclosure attorneys sent a foreclosure referral letter to the borrower after the borrower entered into a loss mitigation agreement with the servicer.39

    39 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(3)(iii). Reported in the Fall 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlight, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    • As a transferee servicer, ensuring that it can identify necessary documents or information that may not have been transferred by a transferor and obtain such documents from the transferor servicer. One or more transferee(s) failed to identify necessary documents, including loss mitigation agreements and mortgage notes not transmitted by the transferor.40

    40 12 CFR 1024.38(b)(4)(ii).

    In the above cases where Supervision detected policies, procedures, or requirements not in compliance with Regulation X, Supervision directed servicers to implement policies, procedures, and requirements compliant with the Rule and to monitor for their effectiveness.

    3.5 Servicing Transfers

    Transferring loans during the loss mitigation process heightens risks to consumers, including the risk that documents and information might not be accurately transferred.41 While Supervision has observed more attention to pre-transfer planning by transferor and transferee servicers since 2014, Supervision found that at one or more servicers incompatibilities between servicer platforms led, in part, to transferees failing to identify and honor in-place loss mitigation after receiving the loans.

    41See CFPB Bulletin 2014-01 (Aug. 19, 2014), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201408_cfpb_bulletin_mortgage-servicing-transfer.pdf.

    Additionally, one or more servicers failed to honor the terms of in-place trial modifications after transfer. Some borrowers who completed trial payments with the new servicer nevertheless encountered substantial delays before receiving a permanent loan modification. Supervision concluded that the delay caused substantial injury as trial payments were less than the amounts required by the promissory note, and consumers continuing to make trial payments while waiting for the permanent modification accrued interest on the unpaid principal balance. Such delays were exacerbated by the transferee(s)' failure to obtain timely access to an online workout tool required by the investor. Supervision cited this practice as unfair and directed the transferee servicers(s) to develop and implement policies, procedures, training, and audits to promptly identify and honor prior loss mitigation agreements, whether completed or in-flight at the time of transfer.42

    42 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B). Previously discussed in the Sumer 2015 edition of Supervisory Highlights, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201506_cfpb_supervisory-highlights.pdf.

    Supervision also observed some servicers improve transfer policies, procedures, and practices. For example, in response to Supervision's direction to one or more transferee servicers to identify in-flight modifications, the transferee(s) began to use certain tools generally available to industry participants—the HomeSavers Solutions Network and the HAMP Reporting Tool—to reconcile loan data during transfer. Supervision noted that this approach gave transferee(s) the ability to identify more in-flight modifications. Despite this improvement, Supervision observed that transferee(s) still failed to recognize modifications not registered by the transferor or not otherwise in the databases and could benefit from conducting a post-transfer review for in-flight loss mitigation. The transferee(s) agreed to further enhance transfer protocols.

    Also in connection with servicing transfers, one or more transferee(s) found that delays in honoring in-flight modifications were caused by their dependence on the information technology department to manually override data fields whenever the servicing platform rejected transferor data. By granting override authority to loss mitigation staff, the transferee(s) reduced the time required to honor in-flight modifications.

    4. Conclusion

    While Supervision continues to be concerned about the range of legal violations identified at various mortgage servicers, it also recognizes efforts made by certain servicers to properly staff effective compliance management programs. Some servicers have made significant improvements in the last several years, in part by enhancing and monitoring their servicing platforms, staff training, coding accuracy, auditing, and allowing for greater flexibility in operations. More generally, Supervision found compliance audits that thoroughly assessed the business unit's internal control environment, clearly identified issues with compliance, detailed management's response, set a target date for resolving the identified issues, and completed the necessary adjustments promptly. At one or more servicers, these audits included reviews of service providers and were part of a wider and appropriately resourced compliance framework. One or more servicers also conducted formal reviews of information technology structures that identified the root causes of earlier compliance weaknesses, including platform outages. These reviews led the servicer(s) to replace outdated technology, such as document management systems.

    Supervision also observed that servicers are actively reviewing complaints for allegations of law violations. One or more servicers used analytic tools to search, review, and track complaint records with content indicating regulatory violations. One or more servicers also created a complaint governance committee to oversee all customer complaints to ensure they receive appropriate engagement, including remediation as appropriate. One or more servicers also designated management level employees as primary contacts for Federal and State regulators and other government bodies for discussing complaints and inquiries from borrowers who are in default or have applied for loan modifications.

    As the above observations show, improvements and investments in servicing technology, staff training, and monitoring can be essential to achieving an adequate compliance position. However, such improvements have not been uniform across market participants and Supervision continues to observe compliance risks, particularly in the areas of loss mitigation and servicing transfers. A growing point of emphasis for Supervision in achieving needed improvements in servicer compliance will be to require servicers to submit specific and credible plans describing how changes in their information technology systems will offer assurance that they can systematically and effectively implement the changes made to resolve the issues identified by Supervision.

    6. Regulatory Requirements

    This Supervisory Highlights summarizes existing requirements under the law, summarizes findings made in the course of exercising the Bureau's supervisory and enforcement authority, and is a non-binding general statement of policy articulating considerations relevant to the Bureau's exercise of its supervisory and enforcement authority. It is therefore exempt from notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not require an initial or final regulatory flexibility analysis. 5 U.S.C. 603(a), 604(a). The Bureau has determined that this Supervisory Highlights does not impose any new or revise any existing recordkeeping, reporting, or disclosure requirements on covered entities or members of the public that would be collections of information requiring OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16786 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army Inland Waterways Users Board; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to request nominations to serve as representatives on the Inland Waterways Users Board, sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 302 of Public Law 99-662 established the Inland Waterways Users Board. The Board is an independent Federal advisory committee. The Secretary of the Army appoints its 11 (eleven) representative organizations. This notice is to solicit nominations for 11 (eleven) appointments for terms that will begin by May 27, 2017. For additional information about the Board, please visit the committee's Web site at http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Missions/Navigation/InlandWaterwaysUsersBoard.aspx.

    ADDRESSES:

    Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: Mr. Mark R. Pointon, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Inland Waterways Users Board, CEIWR-GM, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-6438; and by email at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Alternatively, contact Mr. Kenneth E. Lichtman, the Alternate Designated Federal Officer (ADFO), in writing at the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CEIWR-GW, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Alexandria, VA 22315-3868; by telephone at 703-428-8083; and by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The selection, service, and appointment of representative organizations to the Board are covered by provisions of section 302 of Public Law 99-662. The substance of those provisions is as follows:

    a. Selection. Representative organizations are to be selected from the spectrum of commercial carriers and shippers using the inland and intracoastal waterways, to represent geographical regions, and to be representative of waterborne commerce as determined by commodity ton-miles and tonnage statistics.

    b. Service. The Board is required to meet at least semi-annually to develop and make recommendations to the Secretary of the Army on waterways construction and rehabilitation priorities and spending levels for commercial navigation improvements, and report its recommendations annually to the Secretary and Congress.

    c. Appointment. The operation of the Board and appointment of representative organizations are subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and departmental implementing regulations. Representative organizations serve without compensation but their expenses due to Board activities are reimbursable. The considerations specified in section 302 for the selection of representative organizations to the Board, and certain terms used therein, have been interpreted, supplemented, or otherwise clarified as follows:

    (1) Carriers and Shippers. The law uses the terms “primary users and shippers.” Primary users have been interpreted to mean the providers of transportation services on inland waterways such as barge or towboat operators. Shippers have been interpreted to mean the purchasers of such services for the movement of commodities they own or control. Representative firms are appointed to the Board, and they must be either a carrier or shipper or both. For that purpose a trade or regional association is neither a shipper nor primary user.

    (2) Geographical Representation. The law specifies “various” regions. For the purposes of the Board, the waterways subjected to fuel taxes and described in Public Law 95-502, as amended, have been aggregated into six regions. They are (1) the Upper Mississippi River and its tributaries above the mouth of the Ohio; (2) the Lower Mississippi River and its tributaries below the mouth of the Ohio and above Baton Rouge; (3) the Ohio River and its tributaries; (4) the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway in Louisiana and Texas; (5) the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway east of New Orleans and associated fuel-taxed waterways including the Tennessee-Tombigbee, plus the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway below Norfolk; and (6) the Columbia-Snake Rivers System and Upper Willamette. The intent is that each region shall be represented by at least one representative organization, with that representation determined by the regional concentration of the firm's traffic on the waterways.

    (3) Commodity Representation. Waterway commerce has been aggregated into six commodity categories based on “inland” ton-miles shown in Waterborne Commerce of the United States. These categories are (1) Farm and Food Products; (2) Coal and Coke; (3) Petroleum, Crude and Products; (4) Minerals, Ores, and Primary Metals and Mineral Products; (5) Chemicals and Allied Products; and (6) All Other. A consideration in the selection of representative organizations to the Board will be that the commodities carried or shipped by those firms will be reasonably representative of the above commodity categories.

    d. Nomination. Reflecting preceding selection criteria, the current representation by the ten (10) organizations whose terms expire includes all Regions 1-6, all carrier and/or shipper representation and all commodity representation.

    Individuals, firms or associations may nominate representative organizations to serve on the Board. Nominations will:

    (1) Include the commercial operations of the carrier and/or shipper representative organization being nominated. This commercial operations information will show the actual or estimated ton-miles of each commodity carried or shipped on the inland waterways system in a recent year (or years), using the waterway regions and commodity categories previously listed.

    (2) State the region(s) to be represented.

    (3) State whether the nominated representative organization is a carrier, shipper or both.

    (4) Provide the name of an individual to be the principle person representing the organization and information pertaining to their personal qualifications, to include a current biography or resume.

    Previous nominations received in response to notices published in the Federal Register in prior years will not be retained for consideration. Renomination of representative organizations is required.

    e. Deadline for Nominations. All nominations must be received at the address shown above no later than September 1, 2016.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16699 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Extension of Public Comment Period for Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Continental United States Interceptor Site AGENCY:

    Missile Defense Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public comment period extension.

    SUMMARY:

    The purpose of this notice is to announce an extension to the 45-day public comment period of the Notice of Availability for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the potential deployment of a Continental United States (CONUS) Interceptor Site (CIS) published by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) on May 31, 2016 (81 FR 34315-34316). The public comment period is extended 30 days and ends on August 17, 2016.

    DATES:

    The extended 75-day public comment period for the Draft EIS began on June 3, 2016, with the publication of the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (81 FR 35761-35762), and with this extension, will end on August 17, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the Draft EIS should be received by August 17, 2016 by one of the following methods:

    Mail: U.S. Postal Service to: Black & Veatch Special Projects Corp. Attn: MDA CIS EIS, 6800 W. 115th Street, Suite 2200, Overland Park, KS 66211-2420.

    Email: [email protected]

    Public comments on the Draft EIS are requested pursuant to the NEPA. All written comments received during the comment period will become part of the public record. Providing private address information with your comment is voluntary and such personal information will be kept confidential unless release is required by law. All comments received by the public, including at public meetings, will be addressed in the Final EIS. A NOA will be published notifying the public of the final EIS.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Johnson, MDA Public Affairs, at 571-231-8212, or by email: [email protected] For more information, including a downloadable copy of the Draft EIS, visit the MDA Web site at http://www.mda.mil.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Action and Alternative: The Department of Defense (DoD) does not have a proposed action and has not made a decision to deploy or construct an additional interceptor site. Current sites in Alaska and California provide the necessary protection of the homeland from a ballistic missile attack by countries such as North Korea and Iran. If the DoD were to make a decision in the future to construct a new site, the prior completion of the required site studies and EIS could shorten the timeline necessary to build such a site.

    If deployed, a CIS would be an extension of the existing Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System. To the extent practicable, the CIS would be built as a contiguous Missile Defense Complex, similar to that found at Fort Greely, Alaska, and would consist of a deployment of up to a total of 60 Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) in up to three GBI fields. The GBIs would not be fired from their deployment site except in the Nation's defense and no test firing would be conducted at a CIS. The overall system architecture and baseline requirements for a notional CIS include, but are not limited to, the GBI fields, Command Launch Equipment, In-Flight Interceptor Communication System Data Terminals, GMD Communication Network, supporting facilities, such as lodging and dining, recreation, warehouse and bulk storage, vehicle storage and maintenance, fire station, hazardous materials/waste storage, and roads and parking where necessary.

    Candidate site locations under consideration include: Fort Custer Training Center in Michigan; Camp Ravenna Joint Military Training Center in Ohio; and Fort Drum in New York. Earlier this year, MDA designated the Center for Security Forces Detachment Kittery Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Facility (SERE East) in Redington Township, Maine, as an Alternative Considered, but Not Carried Forward. The Draft EIS also analyzed a No Action Alternative or no CIS deployment. The DoD has not made a decision to deploy or construct a CIS and does not have a preferred alternative.

    For each of the candidate site locations, the following resource areas were assessed: Air quality, air space, biological, cultural, environmental justice, geology and soils, hazardous materials and hazardous waste management, health and safety, land use, noise, socioeconomics, transportation, utilities, water, wetlands, and visual and aesthetics.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16686 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-HA-0077] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Defense Health Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Health Agency proposes to alter an existing system of records, EDHA 12, entitled “Third Party Collection System.” This system is used to provide the Military Services medical billing, collections, and reporting processes for users at multiple locations, and to serve as the single source of financial information for the accounting of uniform business office accounts receivable.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before August 15, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate of Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700. Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Linda S. Thomas, Chief, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101, or by phone at (703) 275-6363.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Defense Health Agency notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on June 23, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EDHA 12 System name:

    Third Party Collection System (November 18, 2013, 78 FR 69076)

    Changes

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Primary: General Dynamics Information Technology, Corporate Office Properties Trust (COPT) Data Center Solutions DC-6, 9651 Hornbaker Road, Manassas, VA 20109-3976.

    Alternate: General Dynamics Information Technology, 11400 Westmoor Circle, Westminster, CO 80021-2735.

    For a complete listing of all facility addresses write to the system manager.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Members of the Uniformed Services (including Reserve and National Guard personnel) and their dependents and retired military members and their dependents who receive or have received health services approved by DoD; contractors participating in military deployments or related operations who receive or have received medical or dental care at a military treatment facility (MTF); DoD civilian employees (to include non-appropriated fund employees), and other individuals who receive or have received medical or dental care at an MTF.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individual Data: Patient name, DoD Identification Number (DoD ID Number), Social Security Number (SSN) (or foreign identification), citizenship, whether treatment was outpatient or inpatient, outpatient visit date and time, date of birth, address, email address, home and cell phone telephone numbers, gender, marital status, emergency contact information, driver's license number, family member prefix, and relationship to policy holder; sponsor or insurance policy holder name, SSN or DoD ID Number, and date of birth; other covered family member name(s), SSN, and date of birth; and, if applicable, Medicare and Medicaid coverage data.

    Insurance Policy Information Data: Policy number or identification, card holder identification, group number, group name, enrollment plan/code, policy effective date, policy category, policy end date, insurance company name, address, and telephone number, insurance type, policy holder, and whether policy holder is insured through their employer; pharmacy insurance company name, address, and phone number, and pharmacy policy number, BIN number, and patient identification number.

    Employer Information data: Employer name, address, and telephone number.

    Billing Information Data: Bill type (MTF, clinic, pharmacy, laboratory/radiology, or ambulance), name and location of MTF, whether treatment was outpatient or inpatient, outpatient visit date and time, inpatient admission and discharge dates and time, patient identification number, patient name, provider code/description, office visit code description, Medical Expense and Performance Reporting System code/description, diagnosis code/description, billing amount, user who created the bill, date bill was created, status of bill, and source of billing data.

    Accounting Information Data: Control number, transaction code, debit amount, credit amount, check number, batch posting number, balance, patient identification number, patient name, encounter date, comments, entry date, and follow-up date.

    Insurance Company Data: Tables for insurance company, policy, provider, fees, codes, rates, and procedure maintenance.”

    Authority for the maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 1079b, Procedures for charging fees for care provided to civilians; retention and use of fees collected; 10 U.S.C. 1095, Health care services incurred on behalf of covered beneficiaries: Collection from third-party payers; 42 U.S.C. Chapter 32, Third Party Liability For Hospital and Medical Care; 28 CFR part 43, Recovery of Costs of Hospital and Medical Care and Treatment Furnished by the United States; 32 CFR part 199, Civilian Health and Medical Program for the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS); 32 CFR part 220, Collection from Third Party Payers of Reasonable Charges for Healthcare Services; DoD Instruction 6015.23, Foreign Military Personnel Care and Uniform Business Offices in Military Treatment Facilities (MTFs); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To provide the Military Services medical billing, collections, and reporting processes for users at multiple locations, and to serve as the single source of financial information for the accounting of uniform business office accounts receivable.

    To assist the Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) in collecting delinquent debts.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, as amended, these records may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    To interface with all commercial insurance carriers and parties against whom recovery has been sought by the DoD Military Health System (MHS), as well as all parties involved in support of the collection activities for health care approved by the DoD.

    To the Departments of Treasury, Veterans Affairs, and Homeland Security in order to obtain reimbursement to the DoD for medical services provided by the MHS to beneficiaries and workforce members of such Departments.

    To other persons or organizations, including other health insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid, who may be liable for payment for health care and medical services provided to an individual by the MHS.

    To data clearinghouses for the purpose of converting the medical and pharmacy claims to an industry-wide format then forwarding to insurance companies (and other payers) electronically for payment.

    Except as stipulated in NOTE 1 and NOTE 2 below, the DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx

    NOTE 1: This system of records contains individually identifiable health information. The DoD Health Information Privacy Regulation (DoD 6025.18-R) or any successor DoD issuances implementing the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and 45 CFR parts 160 and 164, Health and Human Services, General Administrative Requirements and Security & Privacy, respectively, applies to most such health information. DoD 6025.18-R or a successor issuance may place additional procedural requirements on the uses and disclosures of such information beyond those found in the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, or mentioned in this system of records notice.

    NOTE 2: Records of identity, diagnosis, prognosis or treatment information of any patient maintained in connection with the performance of any program or activity relating to substance abuse education, prevention, training, treatment, rehabilitation, or research, which is conducted, regulated, or directly or indirectly assisted by a department or agency of the United States will be treated as confidential and disclosed only for the purposes and under the circumstances expressly authorized under 42 U.S.C. 290dd-2.”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper records and electronic storage media.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “Patient name, SSN (or foreign identification) or DoD ID Number, insurance company name, date range, sponsor name, sponsor SSN or DoD ID Number, or patient identification number.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Physical access to the information technology (IT) system location is restricted by visitor escort, access rosters, and photo identification. Adequate locks are on doors and server components are secured in a locked computer room with limited access. Each end user device is protected within a locked storage container, room, or building outside of normal business hours. All visitors and other persons that require access to facilities that house servers and other network devices supporting the IT system that do not have authorization for access are escorted by appropriately screened/cleared personnel at all times.

    Access to the IT system is role-based and a valid user account is required. The system is Public Key Infrastructure-enforced with two-factor authentication and can be accessed by use of Common Access Card and personal identification number. Authorized personnel must have appropriate Information Assurance training, HIPAA training, and Privacy Act training.

    Paper records are protected by the security and policies in place at the locations where they are held. All locations are within or under contract with the MHS, and require personnel to undergo appropriate training.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Close out at end of the calendar year in which received. Destroy 10 year(s) after cut off.”

    System manager(s) and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Program Manager, DHA Solutions Delivery Division, Clinical Support, Fort Sam Houston, San Antonio, TX 78234-2639.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.

    Requests should contain the name and number of this system of records notice, the individual's full name, current address, home or cell phone telephone number, SSN or DoD ID Number, and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to the Chief, FOIA Service Center, Defense Health Agency Privacy and Civil Liberties Office, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101.

    Requests should contain the name and number of this system of records notice, the individual's full name, current address, home or cell phone telephone number, SSN or DoD ID Number, and signature.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: ‘I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before any records will be provided.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81, 32 CFR part 311, or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Composite Health Care System (CHCS) and the individual.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-16726 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No. ED-2016-ICCD-0079] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Cash Management Contract URL Collection AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a new information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0079. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Cash Management Contract URL Collection.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-NEW.

    Type of Review: A new information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments; Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 914.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 73.

    Abstract: The Department of Education (the Department) is seeking a new OMB control number for the collection of URLs hosting institutional contracts and contract data relating to campus banking agreements. This is a new requirement of the final Program Integrity and Improvement regulations published on October 30, 2015. When the Department added the requirement for institutions to post campus banking agreement contracts and contract data to their Web sites, consumer advocates requested that a central repository for these Web addresses be made publicly available for research and comparison purposes. This database will allow interested parties, such as students, families, press, institutions, and researchers to easily access and compare banking agreements available at different institutions.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16737 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9949-10-ORD] EPA Board of Scientific Counselors; Charter Renewal AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of charter renewal.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has determined that, in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, the EPA Board of Scientific Counselors Advisory Board (BOSC) is a necessary committee that is in the public interest. Accordingly, the BOSC will be renewed for an additional two-year period. The purpose of BOSC is to provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator regarding science and engineering research, programs and plans, laboratories, and research management practices. Inquiries may be directed to Tom Tracy, U.S. EPA, (Mail Code 8104R), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 564-6518, or [email protected]

    Dated: June 27, 2016. Thomas Burke, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Research and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16790 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0762; FRL-9947-90] Registration Review; Conventional, Biopesticide and Antimicrobial Dockets Opened for Review and Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    With this document, EPA is opening the public comment period for several registration review cases. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. Registration review dockets contain information that will assist the public in understanding the types of information and issues that the Agency may consider during the course of registration reviews. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment. For dicamba, EPA is seeking comment on the preliminary work plan, the ecological problem formulation, and the human health draft risk assessment. This document also announces the Agency's intent not to open a registration review docket for alachlor (case #: 0063) and propachlor (case #: 0177). These pesticides do not currently have any actively registered pesticide products and are not, therefore, scheduled for review under the registration review program.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments identified by the docket identification (ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the table in Unit III.A., by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For pesticide specific information contact: The person identified as a contact in the table in Unit III.A. Also include the docket ID number listed in the table in Unit III.A. for the pesticide of interest.

    For general information contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-8015; fax number: (703) 308-8090; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, farmworker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group, including minority and/or low income populations, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

    II. Authority

    EPA is initiating its reviews of the pesticides identified in this document pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136a(g)) and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the use of a pesticide in or on food.

    III. Registration Reviews A. What action is the agency taking?

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide registrations identified in the table in this unit to assure that they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration—that is, they can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment. A pesticide's registration review begins when the Agency establishes a docket for the pesticide's registration review case and opens the docket for public review and comment. At present, EPA is opening registration review dockets for the cases identified in the following table.

    Table 1—Registration Review Dockets Opening Registration review case name and No. Docket ID No. Contact Acetochlor, 7230 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0298 Linsey Walsh, [email protected], (703) 347-8030. Bromethalin, 2765 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0077 Christina Motilall, [email protected], (703) 603-0522. Chlorflurenol Methyl Ester, 2095 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0037 Wilhelmena Livingston, [email protected], (703) 308-8025. Cholecalciferol, 7600 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0139 James Parker, [email protected], (703) 306-0469. Corn Glutens, 6040 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0253 Russell Jones, [email protected], (703) 308-5071;
  • Judy Facey, [email protected], (703) 305-5450.
  • Dicamba, 0065 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0223 Marquea D. King, [email protected], (703) 305-7432. Dimethenamid and Dimethenamid-P, 7223 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0803 Maria Piansay, [email protected], (703) 308-8063;
  • Jordan Page, [email protected] (703) 347-0467.
  • Florasulam, 7274 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0548 Moana Appleyard, [email protected], (703) 308-8175. Glutaraldehyde, 2315 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0738 Stephen Savage, [email protected], (703) 347-0345. Predator Urines: Coyote Urine and Fox Urine, 6202 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0086 Menyon Adams, [email protected], (703) 347-8496;
  • Judy Facey, [email protected], (703) 305-5450.
  • Reynoutria sachalinensis (Milsana), 6030 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0232 Chris Pfeifer, [email protected], (703) 308-0031;
  • Judy Facey, [email protected], (703) 305-5450.
  • Siduron, 3130 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0857 Leigh Rimmer, [email protected], (703) 347-0553. Triforine, 2720 EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0853 Susan Bartow, [email protected], (703) 603-0065. Verticillium isolate WCS850, 6508 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0306 Michael Glikes, [email protected], (703) 305-6231. Zinc Phosphide, 0026 EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0140 James Parker, [email protected], (703) 306-0469.

    For dicamba (case #: 0065), EPA is seeking comment on the preliminary work plan, the ecological problem formulation, and the human health draft risk assessment. EPA is also announcing that it will not be opening a docket for alachlor (case #: 0063) and propachlor (case #: 0177) because these pesticides are not included in any products actively registered under FIFRA section 3 or 24(c). The Agency will take separate action to propose revocation of any affected tolerances that are not supported for import purposes only.

    B. Docket Content

    1. Review dockets. The registration review dockets contain information that the Agency may consider in the course of the registration review. The Agency may include information from its files including, but not limited to, the following information:

    • An overview of the registration review case status.

    • A list of current product registrations and registrants.

    Federal Register notices regarding any pending registration actions.

    Federal Register notices regarding current or pending tolerances.

    • Risk assessments.

    • Bibliographies concerning current registrations.

    • Summaries of incident data.

    • Any other pertinent data or information.

    Each docket contains a document summarizing what the Agency currently knows about the pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and assessment needs. Additional documents provide more detailed information. During this public comment period, the Agency is asking that interested persons identify any additional information they believe the Agency should consider during the registration reviews of these pesticides. The Agency identifies in each docket the areas where public comment is specifically requested, though comment in any area is welcome.

    2. Other related information. More information on these cases, including the active ingredients for each case, may be located in the registration review schedule on the Agency's Web site at https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-schedules. Information on the Agency's registration review program and its implementing regulation may be seen at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/registration-review-process.

    3. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or information in response to this document. To be considered during a pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must meet the following requirements:

    • To ensure that EPA will consider data or information submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider data or information submitted at a later date.

    • The data or information submitted must be presented in a legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or electronic form.

    • Submitters must clearly identify the source of any submitted data or information.

    • Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However, submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.

    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions required in the final decision on the registration review case have been completed.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 6, 2016. Michael Goodis, Acting Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16788 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0317; FRL-9948-05] Amendments To Terminate Uses for Certain Pesticide Registrations AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces EPA's final order for the amendments to terminate uses, voluntarily requested by the registrants and accepted by the Agency, of the products listed in Table 1, pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). This cancellation order follows a June 10, 2015 Federal Register Notice of Receipt of Requests from the registrants listed in Table 2 to amend uses of these product registrations. These are not the last products containing these pesticides registered for use in the United States. In the June 10, 2015 notice, EPA indicated that it would issue an order implementing the amendments to terminate uses, unless the Agency received substantive comments within the 30 and 180 day comment periods that would merit its further review of these requests, or unless the registrants withdrew their requests. The Agency did not receive any comments on the notice. Further, the registrants did not withdraw their requests. Accordingly, EPA hereby issues in this notice a cancellation order granting the requested amendments to terminate uses. Any distribution, sale, or use of the products subject to this cancellation order is permitted only in accordance with the terms of this order, including any existing stocks provisions.

    DATES:

    The cancellations are effective July 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ricardo Jones, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 347-0493; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0317, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. What action is the agency taking?

    This notice announces the amendments to terminate uses, as requested by registrants of products registered under FIFRA section 3 (7 U.S.C. 136a). These registrations are listed in sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

    Table 1—Product Registration Amendments To Terminate Uses EPA
  • registration No.
  • Product name Chemical name Uses terminated
    1021-2782 Clothianidin Technical Clothianidin Fruiting Vegetables Crop Grouping (CG8) and Low-Growing Berry except Strawberry (CG13-07H) and retain the existing tolerances. 59639-150 V-10170 2.13SC Insecticide Clothianidin Fruiting Vegetables Crop Grouping (CG8) and Low-Growing Berry except Strawberry (CG13-07H) and retain the existing tolerances. 59639-152 Arena 50 WDG Insecticide Clothianidin Fruiting Vegetables Crop Grouping (CG8) and Low-Growing Berry except Strawberry (CG13-07H) and retain the existing tolerances. 59639-173 Clothianidin Technical Insecticide Clothianidin Fruiting Vegetables Crop Grouping (CG8) and Low-Growing Berry except Strawberry (CG13-07H) and retain the existing tolerances. 90963-1 Nipacide MX Chloroxylenol As a preservative for paints, plastics and plastic coatings, thickeners & adhesives/binders. As a disinfectant, sanitizer, deodorizer or antimicrobial agent for application to hard, non-porous surfaces in residential, health-care, institutional, food-processing and industrial facilities including animal housing facilities, veterinary clinics, farms, live-stock, swine and poultry houses. As a biocide in oil and gas exploration including enhanced recovery systems, flood water, fracturing fluids and gels, injection waters, pipelines, holding pond water, disposal well water, tubing, pressure vessels and storage tanks. As a biocide in industrial process water systems. 90963-2 Nipacide CMX Chloroxylenol As a preservative for paints, plastics and plastic coatings, thickeners & adhesives/binders. As a disinfectant, sanitizer, deodorizer or antimicrobial agent for application to hard, non-porous surfaces in residential, health-care, institutional, food-processing and industrial facilities including animal housing facilities, veterinary clinics, farms, live-stock, swine and poultry houses. As a biocide in oil and gas exploration including enhanced recovery systems, flood water, fracturing fluids and gels, injection waters, pipelines, holding pond water, disposal well water, tubing, pressure vessels and storage tanks. As a biocide in industrial process water systems.

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by EPA company number.

    Table 2—Registrants of Amended Products EPA company No. Company name and address 1021 McLaughlin Gormley King Company, 8810 Tenth Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55427-4319. 59639 Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riviera Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. 90963 Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Inc., Agent Name: Lewis & Harrison, LLC, 122 C Street NW., Suite 505, Washington, DC 20001. III. Summary of Public Comments Received and Agency Response to Comments

    During the public comment period provided, EPA received no comments in response to the June 10, 2015 Federal Register notice announcing the Agency's receipt of the requests for amendments to terminate uses of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II.

    IV. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f) (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)), EPA hereby approves the requested amendments to terminate uses of clothianidin and chloroxylenol registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. Accordingly, the Agency orders that the product registrations identified in Table 1 of Unit II. are hereby amended to terminate the affected uses. The effective date of the amendments to terminate affected uses is July 15, 2016. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in Table 1 of Unit II. in a manner inconsistent with any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in Unit VI. will be considered a violation of FIFRA.

    V. What is the agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 136d(f)(1)) provides that a registrant of a pesticide product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter, following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve such a request. The notice of receipt for this action was published for comment in the Federal Register of June 10, 2015, (80 FR 32947) (FRL-9928-01). The comment period for chloroxylenol closed on July 10, 2015, and the comment period for clothianidin closed on January 6, 2016.

    VI. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    EPA's existing stocks policy published in the Federal Register of June 26, 1991 (56 FR 29362) provides that: “If a registrant requests to voluntarily cancel a registration where the Agency has identified no particular risk concerns, the registrant has complied with all applicable conditions of reregistration, conditional registration, and data call ins, and the registration is not subject to a Registration Standard, Label Improvement Program, or reregistration decision, the Agency will generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for 1 year after the cancellation request was received. Persons other than registrants will generally be allowed to sell, distribute, or use existing stocks until such stocks are exhausted.”

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products which are currently in the United States and which were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the cancellation action. The effective date of this cancellation is July 15, 2016. The cancellation order that is the subject of this notice includes the following existing stock provisions:

    The registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until July 17, 2017. Persons other than the registrant may sell and distribute existing stocks of products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. until exhausted. Use of the products listed in Table 1 of Unit II. may continue until existing stocks are exhausted, provided that such use is consistent with the terms of the previously approved labeling on, or that accompanied, the canceled products.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 7, 2016. Michael Goodis, Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16793 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9028-1] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 07/05/2016 Through 07/08/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20160153, Final, Caltrans, CA, High Desert Corridor, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Ron Kosinski 213-897-0703 EIS No. 20160154, Final, NPS, MA, Herring River Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Mark Husbands 303-987-6965 EIS No. 20160155, Final, FTA, MN, Bottineau Light Rail Transit Metro Blue Line Extension, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Maya Sarna 202-366-5811 EIS No. 20160156, Draft, FRA, TX, Texas-Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study Service-Level, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2016, Contact: Melissa Hatcher 202-493-6075 EIS No. 20160157, Final, USN, WA, Land-Water Interface and Service Pier Extension at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Robin Senner 360-396-0029 EIS No. 20160158, Draft, MARAD, USCG, LA, Port Delfin LNG Project Deepwater Port Application, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2016, Contact: Roddy C. Bachman 202-372-1451

    The U.S. Coast Guard and the Maritime Administration are joint lead agencies for the above project.

    EIS No. 20160159, Draft, FERC, OH, NEXUS Gas Transmission Project and Texas Eastern Appalachian Lease Project, Comment Period Ends: 08/29/2016, Contact: Joanne Wachholder 202-502-8056 EIS No. 20160160, Final, BR, CA, Mendota Pool Bypass and Reach 2B Improvements Project, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Becky Victorine 916-978-4624 EIS No. 20160161, Final, USACE, WA, Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Nancy C. Gleason 206-764-6577 EIS No. 20160162, Final, USFS, MT, Telegraph Vegetation Project, Review Period Ends: 08/15/2016, Contact: Sharon Scott 406-495-3943 EIS No. 20160163, Final, DOE, LA, ADOPTION—Lake Charles Liquefaction Project, Contact: John Anderson 202-586-0521

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has adopted the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Final EIS #20150233 filed 08/14/2015 with EPA. DOE was a cooperating agency, therefore recirculation of the document is not necessary under Section 1506.3(b) of the CEQ Regulations.

    Amended Notices EIS No. 20160085, Draft, USFWS, WY, Eagle Take Permits for the Chokecherry and Sierra Madre Phase I Wind Energy Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/29/2016, Contact: Louise Galiher 303-236-8677

    Revision to FR Notice Published 04/29/2016; The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has reopened the comment period to end 07/29/2016

    EIS No. 20160115, Draft, DOD, Other, Continental United States (CONUS) Interceptor Site, Comment Period Ends: 08/17/2016, Contact: Christopher Johnson 571-231-8212

    Revision to FR Notice Published 06/03/2016; Extending Comment Period from 07/18/2016 to 08/17/2016

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16800 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [IB Docket No. 16-185; DA 16-630 and DA 16-780] Announcement of Rechartering and First Meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announces that the charter for the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee (WRCAC) has been renewed by the General Services Administration (GSA) for a two-year period. The WRCAC is a federal advisory committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This notice advises interested persons that the initial meeting of the WRCAC will be held to begin preparations for the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, August 2, 2016; 11:00 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dante Ibarra, Designated Federal Official, World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee, FCC International Bureau, Global Strategy and Negotiation Division, at (202) 418-0610. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, this notice advises interested persons that the GSA has renewed the charter of the WRCAC through April 8, 2018. Its scope of activities is to address issues contained in the agenda for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Radiocommunication Conferences. The WRCAC will continue to provide to the FCC advice, data, and technical analyses, and will formulate recommendations relating to the preparation of U.S. proposals and positions for ITU World Radiocommunication Conferences, specifically the World Radiocommunication Conference that has been preliminarily scheduled for the year 2019 (WRC-19).

    This notice advises interested persons of the first meeting of the WRCAC. Additional information regarding the WRC-19 and the WRCAC is available on the WRCAC's Web site, https://www.fcc.gov/wrc-19. The meeting is open to the public.

    Open captioning will be provided for this event. Other reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. Requests for such accommodations should be submitted via email to [email protected] or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). Such requests should include a detailed description of the accommodation needed. In addition, please include a way for the FCC to contact the requester if more information is needed to fill the request. Please allow at least five days' advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may not be possible to accommodate.

    The proposed agenda for the first meeting is as follows:

    Agenda First Meeting of the World Radiocommunication Conference Advisory Committee

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Room TW-C305, Washington, DC 20554, August 2, 2016; 11:00 a.m.

    1. Opening Remarks 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Advisory Committee Structure 4. WRC-19 Preparatory Process Timeline 5. Other Business Federal Communications Commission. Denise Coca, Chief, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16716 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 12, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. CheckSpring Community Corporation NY, Bronx, New York; to become a bank holding company by acquiring 100 percent of the shares of Spring Bank, Bronx, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 12, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16748 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 1, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Jeffrey A. Fisher, Bigfork, Minnesota; to retain 25 percent or more of the shares of Bigfork Bancshares, Inc., Bigfork, Minnesota, and thereby indirectly retain control of First State Bank of Bigfork, Bigfork, Minnesota.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 11, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16696 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3034] Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Consent Agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 10, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/warnerbrothersconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “In the Matter of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc., File No. 152 3034—Consent Agreement” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/warnerbrothersconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc., File No. 152 3034—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Linda K. Badger, (415-848-5151), FTC Western Region, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for July 11, 2016), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 10, 2016. Write “In the Matter of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc., File No. 152 3034—Consent Agreement” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/warnerbrothersconsent by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc., File No. 152 3034—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 10, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing consent order from Warner Bros. Home Entertainment Inc. (“Warner Bros.” or “respondent”). The proposed consent order (“proposed order”) has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves respondent's use of social media influencers to advertise the video game, Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor (“Shadow of Mordor”). According to the Commission's complaint, Warner Bros., through its ad agency, Plaid Social Labs, LLC, hired individuals who had earned reputations as video game enthusiasts on YouTube (“YouTube influencers”) to post positive videos promoting Shadow of Mordor on YouTube. The Commission's complaint alleges that these YouTube influencers were given free access to a pre-release version of Shadow of Mordor and cash payments often ranging from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars, if the videos they created about Shadow of Mordor met certain requirements defined by Warner Bros. Among other things, Warner Bros. required influencer videos to promote a positive sentiment about the game, and not to disclose any bugs or glitches that the game might have. Consequently, these videos were sponsored advertisements, and did not necessarily reflect the independent experiences of the individual YouTube influencers.

    The complaint also alleges that while Warner Bros. instructed the YouTube influencers to provide a disclosure that their videos had been sponsored, it specified that the disclosure be written, and placed in the description box appearing below the YouTube videos. Warner Bros. did not require the YouTube influencers to place a sponsorship disclosure clearly and conspicuously in the video itself. Nor did Warner Bros. require that the YouTube influencers be instructed to place the sponsorship disclosure “above the fold” in the description box, or visible without consumers having to scroll down or click on a link, as it had for other promotional information about Shadow of Mordor. (See, e.g., Exhibit A-1) As a result, most YouTube influencers did not include any sponsorship disclosures in their videos, and only placed their sponsorship disclosures “below the fold” in the description box below the video. Therefore, consumers had to click on a “Show More” button in the description box and potentially scroll down before they could see the sponsorship disclosure. As a result, consumers who watched these YouTube videos were unlikely to learn that the videos were paid promotions for Warner Bros.

    The Commission's complaint further alleges that when YouTube influencers posted their Shadow of Mordor videos for viewing on Facebook or Twitter, consumers were even less likely to see these sponsorship disclosures because such posts did not include the “Show More” button. In addition, the complaint states that on at least two occasions, the influencers disclosed only that they had been given early access to the game, and did not adequately disclose that they had also been paid to post the video.

    According to the complaint, in numerous instances, YouTube influencers did not disclose or adequately disclose that Warner Bros., through Plaid Social, offered compensation to the influencers in exchange for creating and uploading gameplay videos as part of a Shadow of Mordor advertising campaign. The Commission's complaint alleges that these videos were false and misleading because they did not reflect the independent opinions or experiences of impartial video game enthusiasts. The complaint further alleges that the videos were deceptive because they failed to disclose or disclose adequately that the influencers who posted the videos were compensated in connection with their endorsements.

    The proposed order includes injunctive relief to address these alleged violations and requires Warner Bros. to follow certain monitoring and compliance procedures related to its use of influencer campaigns.

    Part I of the proposed order prohibits Warner Bros., in connection with the advertising of any home entertainment product or service, from misrepresenting in any influencer campaign that an influencer or endorser of such product or service is an independent user or ordinary consumer of the product or service.

    Part II of the proposed order requires Warner Bros., in connection with the advertising of any home entertainment product or service by means of an endorsement, in any influencer campaign, to disclose clearly and conspicuously a material connection, if one exists, between the influencer or endorser and Warner Bros.

    Part III of the proposed order sets out certain monitoring and compliance obligations to ensure that Warner Bros., or any entity it engages to conduct an influencer campaign, comply with Parts I and II of the proposed order. These obligations include: Obtaining signed acknowledgements from such influencers that they will disclose their material connection to Warner Bros.; monitoring the influencers' representations and disclosures; maintaining records of monitoring efforts; and, under certain circumstances, terminating and ceasing payment to influencers who misrepresent their independence, or fail to properly disclose any material connection to Warner Bros. Part III specifically provides that if Warner Bros. engages an entity to conduct an influencer campaign, Warner Bros. must take steps to ensure that the entity complies with this Part, and to monitor its compliance. If the entity fails to comply with this Part, Warner Bros. must cease payment to the entity until it cures any noncompliance. Furthermore, Warner Bros. is required to disqualify the entity from conducting future influencer campaigns upon a repeat incident, unless it reasonably concludes that the entity's failure to comply was inadvertent.

    Part IV of the proposed order contains recordkeeping requirements for relevant documents.

    Parts V through VII of the proposed order require the company to: Provide copies of the order to certain personnel having responsibilities with respect to the subject matter of the order; notify the Commission of changes in corporate structure that might affect compliance obligations under the order; and file compliance reports with the Commission.

    Part VIII of the proposed order provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint or proposed order, or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16729 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-339 and CMS-460] Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information (including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information) and to allow 60 days for public comment on the proposed action. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding our burden estimates or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by September 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:

    1. Electronically. You may send your comments electronically to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for “Comment or Submission” or “More Search Options” to find the information collection document(s) that are accepting comments.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address: CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development, Attention: Document Identifier/OMB Control Number ____, Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

    To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, you may make your request using one of the following:

    1. Access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995.

    2. Email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to [email protected]

    3. Call the Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Reports Clearance Office at (410) 786-1326.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Contents

    This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES).

    CMS-339 Provider Cost Report Reimbursement Questionnaire CMS-460 Medicare Participation Agreement for Physicians and Suppliers

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

    Information Collection

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Provider Cost Report Reimbursement Questionnaire; Use: The information collected in this form (Exhibits 1 and 2) is authorized under Sections 1815(a) and 1833(e) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 1395g. Regulations at 42 CFR 413.20 and 413.24 require providers to submit financial and statistical records to verify the cost data disclosed on their annual Medicare cost report. Providers participating in the Medicare program are reimbursed for furnishing covered services to eligible beneficiaries on the basis of an annual cost report (filed with the provider's MAC) in which the proper reimbursement is computed. Consequently, it is necessary to collect this documentation of providers' costs and activities that supports the Medicare cost report data in order to ensure proper Medicare reimbursement to providers. Form Number: CMS-339 (OMB control number: 0938-0301); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits); Number of Respondents: 2,273; Total Annual Responses: 2,273; Total Annual Hours: 15,911. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Christine Dobrzycki at 410-786-3389.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Participation Agreement for Physicians and Suppliers; Use: Section 1842(h) of the Social Security Act permits physicians and suppliers to voluntarily participate in Medicare Part B by agreeing to take assignment on all claims for services to Medicare beneficiaries. The law also requires that the Secretary provide specific benefits to the physicians, suppliers and other persons who choose to participate. The CMS-460 is the agreement by which the physician or supplier elects to participate in Medicare. Form Number: CMS-460 (OMB control number: 0938-0373); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits); Number of Respondents: 120,000; Total Annual Responses: 120,000; Total Annual Hours: 30,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Mark Baldwin at 410-786-8139.)

    Dated: July 12, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16797 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-3333-N2] Medicare Program; Announcement of Requirements and Registration for the MIPS Mobile Challenge; Deadline Extension AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice launches a challenge related to the new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program, which will assist the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accelerating the transition from the traditional fee-for-service payment model to a system that rewards health care providers for providing better care, not just more care. This challenge will address one of the most important aspects of our programs, which is educating and providing outreach to the potential hundreds of thousands of MIPS eligible clinicians.

    DATES:

    Important dates concerning the Challenge include the following:

    MIPS Mobile Challenge: To be announced on www.challenge.gov and opened for submissions in www.challenge.gov April 25, 2016.

    Deadline for Phase I Submissions: August 15, 2016.

    HHS announces top three-five challenge applicants and launches Phase II. Applicants that did not win Phase I will be permitted to compete for Phase II: August 30, 2016.

    Deadline for Phase II Submissions: October 31, 2016.

    HHS announces grand prize winner: November 15, 2016 (tentative).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stan Ostrow, (410) 786-7207 for inquiry on Information Systems Group.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Pub. L. 114-10, enacted April 16, 2015) (MACRA) requires the Secretary to establish a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) program, which will assist the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in accelerating the transition from the traditional fee-for-service payment model to a system that rewards health care providers for value rather than volume of services provided. The MIPS program combines parts of the Physician Quality Reporting System, the Value Modifier (VM or Value-based Payment Modifier), and the Medicare Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program into one single program that assesses the performance of MIPS eligible clinicians based on four performance categories: (1) Quality; (2) Resource use; (3) Clinical practice improvement activities; and (4) Meaningful use of certified EHR technology. This program has the potential of impacting hundreds of thousands of MIPS eligible clinicians.

    One of the most important aspects and challenges of our program is educating and providing outreach to the potential hundreds of thousands of MIPS eligible clinicians. Feedback we have received from our customers/end users is that they want more real-time information and access to assistance so they can successfully report to our programs. Therefore, we are launching a MIPS mobile challenge to find innovative ways of improving communication to educate physicians, support staff, health organization leadership, data vendors, and others impacted parties. Due to the multiple user types and facets of the MIPS program we are looking at utilizing a mobile platform, which could be a mobile site or application to determine how to best keep our customers/end users informed and meet their specific needs. We also want to provide the capability to access assistance to help MIPS eligible clinicians learn and get help with specific areas. This challenge has the potential to make a significant impact as not only are there hundreds of thousands of MIPS eligible clinicians but also millions of people who support the success of these MIPS eligible clinicians. Having key information and access to the right support at the right time reduces burden and provides increased satisfaction for the MIPS eligible clinicians and their supporting entities. The challenge will run in the two phases listed below in this section. Phase I participants can move onto Phase II even if their Phase I design was not selected. The focus of the two phases are as follows:

    • Phase I: Creation of an initial mobile platform that will feature innovative ways of transmitting educational materials or fostering collaboration among users to provide meaningful education. This will entail creating wireframes, storyboards, mobile screen mock-ups and initial usability testing focused on the design and user experience. In addition, participants will co-design with end users to understand their needs to influence their submission.

    • Phase II: Development and functional integration of any features from Phase I, and user experience testing. During this phase, the participants must submit the object and source code, as well as a detailed description showing that the output meets section 508 compliance per the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794d), as amended by the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-220, enacted August 7, 1998) (WIA) including at least instructions on how to install and operate, and system requirements for running the mobile platform. Participants may submit, as part of the submission, additional software documentation, if they believe it provides a more complete description of the mobile platforms.

    II. Provisions of the Notice A. Subject of Challenge Competition: MIPS Mobile Challenge 1. Eligibility Rules for Participating in the Competition

    To be eligible to win a prize under this challenge, participants (individual or entity) must comply with each and every rule set forth in this section:

    1. Shall register to participate in the competition under the rules promulgated below by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    2. In the case of a private entity, shall be incorporated in and maintain a primary place of business in the United States, and in the case of an individual, whether participating individually or in a group, shall be a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.

    3. HHS Employees may participate in the MIPS Mobile Challenge, but may not submit in the scope of their employment and may not pursue an application while in the federal workplace or while on duty.

    4. Shall not be an employee of the CMS.

    5. Federal grantees may not use federal funds to develop the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-358, enacted January 4, 2011) (COMPETES Act) challenge applications unless consistent with the purpose of their grant award.

    6. Federal contractors may not use federal funds from a contract to develop COMPETES Act challenge applications or to fund efforts in support of a COMPETES Act challenge submission.

    7. Applicants must agree to provide the federal government an irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive worldwide license in the winning work(s) or component parts thereof, in the event that they are prize winner(s). HHS shall be granted the rights to reproduce, distribute copies to the public, publicly display, create derivative works, and publicly post, link to, and share the winning work(s) or parts thereof.

    A submission may be disqualified if, in CMS's sole judgment:

    • Fails to function as expressed in the detailed description,

    • The detailed description is significantly inaccurate or incomplete, or

    • Malware or other security threats are present.

    Participants agree that we may conduct testing on the submitted code to determine whether malware or other security threats may be present such that they may damage the equipment or operating environments of the Federal Government or those acting on its behalf.

    An individual or entity shall not be deemed ineligible because the individual or entity used federal facilities or consulted with federal employees during a competition if the facilities and employees are made available to all individuals and entities participating in the competition on an equitable basis.

    Challenge participants will sign a liability release as part of the contest registration process. The liability release will use the following language:

    By participating in this competition, I agree to assume any and all risks and waive claims against the federal government and its related entities, except in the case of willing misconduct, for any injury, death, damage, or loss of property, revenue, or profits, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, arising from my participation in this prize contest, whether the injury, death, damage, or loss arises through negligence or otherwise.

    B. Selection Process for Participants 1. Amount of the Prize

    The top three to five winners for Phase I of the challenge will be provided a monetary cash prize totaling $10,000 per winner. The Phase II final challenge winner will be provided a monetary cash prize totaling $25,000.

    2. How Winners Will Be Selected

    Challenge submissions will be judged by a panel selected by CMS with relevant expertise in current CMS reporting systems. The expert panel of judges, qualified by training and experience, will evaluate the submissions on the criteria identified below in this section. Judges will be fair and impartial, may not have a personal or financial interest in, or be an employee, officer, director, or agent of, any entity that is a registered participant in the competition, and may not have a personal or financial relationship with an individual who is a registered contestant. The panel will provide expert advice on the merits of each submission to CMS officials responsible for final selections for award. Awardees will be notified on or around the dates listed in the “Date” section. Winners will be selected based on the following criteria:

    • Phase 1

    ++ Ease in which a user can navigate Usability and Design;

    ++ Evidence of design with User feedback;

    ++ Innovation in Design; and

    ++ Look and Feel.

    • Phase 2

    ++ Ease in which a user can navigate Usability and Design;

    ++ Evidence of design with User feedback;

    ++ Innovation in Design;

    ++ Functionality/Accuracy; and

    ++ Look and Feel.

    C. Additional Information

    Challenge participants will draw from existing information provided on www.cms.gov and collaborate directly with health professionals and/or end users to build their application. The participants will have access to www.cms.gov and to end users. Challenge details and registration are located at www.challenge.gov.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16808 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Refugee Microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development

    OMB No.: New.

    Description: New data collection tool for refugee microenterprise and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Program.

    Respondents: Refugee Microenterprise Development Grantees and Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Refugee Microenterprise Development 22 8 4 704 Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development 23 7 4 644 Total Burden 1,348

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: (1,340 hours × $30 per hour) $40,440 per year.

    Explanation:

    The Refugee Microenterprise Development Program

    • Currently, there are twenty two grantees (respondents) in the program and the semi-annual progress, which includes the data and information required, is submitted twice per year.

    • The request covers one form (Form I. attached) which includes eight data points. Based on experience (the information was provided by technical assistance service provider in the past), it takes about two hours per respondent per six months (i.e., four hours per year per grantee (respondent) or 88 hours per year for all respondents) to complete the form.

    • No survey will be undertaken since the collection of this data (information) is part of the implementation process of the project and its collection and reporting does not constitute a separate and additional cost to the grantees (respondents). The cost is covered by the grant the grantee receives. The grantees have Down Home database which captures and stores the data required for reporting. The grantee uploads the semi-annual report in Grant Solution where it is stored. ORR derives the data it requires for reporting and management decision from Grant Solution.

    The Refugee Home-Based Child Care Microenterprise Development Group

    • Currently, there are twenty three grantees (respondents) in the program and the semi-annual progress.

    • The request covers one form (Form II. attached) which includes seven data points. It takes about two hours per respondent per six months (i.e., four hours per year grantee (respondent) or 92 hours per year for all respondents) to complete the form.

    • The collection of this data (information) is part of the process and its collection and reporting does not include separate and additional cost to the grantees (respondents). The cost is covered by the grant the grantee receives. The grantees have database which captures and stores the data required for reporting. The grantee uploads the data required in Grant Solution where it is stored. ORR derives the data it requires for reporting and management decision from Grant Solution.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 370 L'Enfant Promenade SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16700 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Tribal Reporting Requirements—ACF-700.

    OMB No.: 0970-0430.

    Description: The Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Tribal Annual Report (ACF-700) requests annual Tribal aggregate information on services provided through the CCDF, which is required by CCDF regulations (45 CFR parts 98 and 99). Tribal Lead Agencies (TLAs) are required to submit annual aggregate data appropriate to Tribal programs on children and families receiving CCDF-funded child care services. The revised ACF-700 report consists of two parts: (1) Administrative Data, and (2) Tribal Narrative. The content and format of the narrative section have been revised to make the form easier to complete with new check box formatting. These revisions will allow the Office of Child Care (OCC) to more easily generate and quantify data in the report. These changes will help us better understand Tribal activities as they relate to compliance, quality of child care, use of funds, and technical assistance needs. Information from the ACF-700 will be included in the Secretary's Report to Congress, as appropriate, and will be shared with all TLAs to inform them of CCDF-funded activities in other Tribal programs. CCDF-funded Tribes that receive their funds under Public Law 102-477 are not required to submit the ACF-700.

    Respondents: Tribal Governments.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    ACF-700 Report 260 1 38 9,880

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 9,880.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected]. Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16697 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1703] Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device With a Therapeutic Product; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product.” This draft guidance is intended to be a practical guide to assist therapeutic product sponsors and in vitro diagnostic device (IVD) sponsors in developing a therapeutic product with an accompanying IVD companion diagnostic, a process referred to as codevelopment. This draft guidance is also intended to assist FDA staff participating in the review of such IVD companion diagnostics or their associated therapeutic products. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 13, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-1703 for “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    An electronic copy of the draft guidance s available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance entitled “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Bradley, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-731-3734; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911; or Christopher Leptak, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6462, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-0017.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This draft guidance is intended to be a practical guide to assist therapeutic product sponsors and IVD sponsors in developing a therapeutic product, with an accompanying IVD companion diagnostic, a process referred to as codevelopment. This draft guidance is also intended to assist FDA staff participating in the review of such IVD companion diagnostics or their associated therapeutic products.

    This draft guidance describes general principles to guide codevelopment to support obtaining contemporaneous marketing authorization for a therapeutic product and its corresponding IVD companion diagnostic; certain regulatory requirements that sponsors should be aware of as they develop such products; considerations for planning and executing a therapeutic product clinical trial that also includes the investigation of an IVD companion diagnostic; and administrative issues in the submission process for the therapeutic product and the IVD companion diagnostic.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Principles for Codevelopment of an In Vitro Companion Diagnostic Device with a Therapeutic Product” may send an email request to [email protected]fda.hhs.gov to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1400027 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This draft guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance documents. 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 21 CFR parts 801 and 809 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485; the collections of information in parts 50 and 56 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814 subparts B and E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E, have been approved under OMB control number 0901-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 312 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0014; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001; and the collections of information resulting from special protocol assessments have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0470.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16735 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1984] Request for Nominations on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is requesting that any industry organizations interested in participating in the selection of a nonvoting industry representative of the tobacco manufacturing industry to serve on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee for the Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), notify FDA in writing. FDA is also requesting nominations for a nonvoting industry representative of the tobacco manufacturing industry to serve on the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, and an alternate to this representative. A nominee may either be self-nominated or nominated by an organization to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Nominations will be accepted for current vacancies effective with this notice.

    DATES:

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests must send a letter stating that interest to the FDA by August 15, 2016 (see sections I and II of this document for further details). Concurrently, nomination materials for prospective candidates should be sent to FDA by August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All statements of interest from industry organizations interested in participating in the selection process should be sent to Caryn Cohen (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). All nominations for nonvoting industry representatives should be submitted electronically by accessing the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/FACTRSPortal/FACTRS/index.cfm or by mail to Advisory Committee Oversight and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 5103, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Information about becoming a member of an FDA advisory committee can also be obtained by visiting FDA's Web site http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caryn Cohen, Office of Science, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products Document Control Center, Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1373 (choose Option 5), email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Agency intends to add nonvoting industry representatives to the following advisory committee.

    I. CTP Advisory Committee, Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee

    The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (the Committee) advises the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or designee in discharging responsibilities related to the regulation of tobacco products. The Committee reviews and evaluates safety, dependence, and health issues relating to tobacco products and provides appropriate advice, information, and recommendations to the Commissioner.

    II. Selection Procedure

    Any industry organization interested in participating in the selection of an appropriate nonvoting member to represent industry interests should send a letter stating that interest to the FDA contact (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). Within the subsequent 30 days, FDA will send a letter to each organization that has expressed an interest, attaching a complete list of all such organizations and a list of all nominees along with their current resumes. The letter will also state that it is the responsibility of the interested organizations to confer with one another and to select a candidate, within 60 days after the receipt of the FDA letter, to serve as the nonvoting member to represent industry interests for the committee. The interested organizations are not bound by the list of nominees in selecting a candidate. However, if no individual is selected within 60 days, the Commissioner will select the nonvoting member to represent industry interests.

    III. Application Procedure

    Individuals may self-nominate and/or an organization may nominate one or more individuals to serve as a nonvoting industry representative. Contact information, current curriculum vitae, and the name of the committee of interest should be sent to the FDA Advisory Committee Membership Nomination Portal (see ADDRESSES) within 30 days of publication of this document (see DATES). FDA will forward all nominations to the organizations expressing interest in participating in the selection process for the committee. (Persons who nominate themselves as nonvoting industry representatives will not participate in the selection process.)

    FDA seeks to include the views of women and men, members of all racial and ethnic groups, and individuals with and without disabilities on its advisory committees and, therefore, encourages nominations of appropriately qualified candidates from these groups.

    This notice is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2) and 21 CFR part 14, relating to advisory committees.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16739 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0508] Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments; Guidance for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments.” This guidance is intended to assist persons making tobacco product establishment registration and product listing submissions to FDA.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0508 for “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    • Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the guidance document may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Collins, Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a revised guidance for industry entitled, “Registration and Product Listing for Owners and Operators of Domestic Tobacco Product Establishments.” This guidance is intended to assist persons making tobacco product establishment registration and product listing submissions to FDA. We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate given the requirement that registration and listing submissions be submitted by December 31, 2016 (§ 10.115(g)(2)). We made this determination because the guidance presents a less burdensome policy consistent with the public health. Although this guidance document is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA”s GGP regulation.

    The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) added section 905 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 387e), establishing requirements for tobacco product establishment registration and product listing.

    FDA revised the registration and listing guidance to include newly deemed tobacco products. Cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco were immediately covered by FDA's tobacco product authorities in chapter IX of the FD&C Act, including section 905, when the Tobacco Control Act went into effect. As for other types of tobacco products, section 901(b) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387a) grants FDA authority to deem those products subject to chapter IX of the FD&C Act. Pursuant to that authority, FDA issued a proposed rule seeking to deem all other products that meet the statutory definition of tobacco product, set forth in section 201(rr) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 321(rr)) (except for accessories of those products) (79 FR 23142). After review and consideration of comments on the proposed rule, FDA published the final rule on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28974) (“the deeming rule”) and it will become effective on August 8, 2016. As a result, owners and operators of domestic establishments engaged in the manufacture, preparation, compounding, or processing of tobacco products subject to the deeming rule are now required to comply with chapter IX of the FD&C Act, including the establishment registration and product listing requirements in section 905.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (§ 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on registration and product listing for owners and operators of domestic tobacco product establishments. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance contains information collection provisions that are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 3.75 hours per response, including the time to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather the data needed, and complete and review the information collection. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or suggestions for reducing this burden to: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Tobacco Products, Document Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002.

    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for this information collection is 0910-0650 (expires June 30, 2019).

    IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain an electronic version of the guidance at either http://www.regulations.gov or http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/Labeling/RulesRegulationsGuidance/default.htm.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16734 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Council on Graduate Medical Education; Request for Nominations AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) is requesting nominations to fill vacancies on the Council on Graduate Medical Education (COGME). COGME is authorized by Section 762 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 294o), as amended. The Advisory Council is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), as amended, which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees, and applies to the extent that the provisions of FACA do not conflict with the requirements of PHS Act Section 762.

    DATES:

    The agency will receive nominations on a continuous basis.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations should be submitted to Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, 11W45C, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Mail delivery should be addressed to Advisory Council Operations, Bureau of Health Workforce, HRSA, at the above address, or via email to: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Joan Weiss, Ph.D., RN, CRNP, FAAN, Designated Federal Official, COGME at 301-443-0430 or email at [email protected] A copy of the current committee membership, charter, and reports can be obtained by accessing the Web site http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/COGME/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    COGME provides advice and makes policy recommendations to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) and ranking members of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce on matters concerning the supply and distribution of physicians in the United States, physician workforce trends, training issues, and financing policies. Meetings are held twice a year.

    Specifically, HRSA is requesting nominations for voting members of COGME representing: Practicing primary care physicians, national and specialty physician organizations, foreign medical graduates, medical student and house staff associations, as well as representatives of schools of medicine, schools of osteopathic medicine, public and private teaching hospitals, health insurers, business, and labor. Among these nominations, medical students, residents, and/or fellows from these programs are encouraged to apply.

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will consider nominations of all qualified individuals with the areas of subject matter expertise noted above. Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals, and professional associations and organizations may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership. Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of COGME and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude COGME membership. Potential candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning financial interests, consultancies, research grants, and/or contracts that might be affected by recommendations of COGME to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflicts of interest.

    A nomination package should include the following information for each nominee:

    (1) A letter of nomination from an employer, a colleague, or a professional organization stating the name, affiliation, and contact information for the nominee, the basis for the nomination (i.e., what specific attributes, perspectives, and/or skills does the individual possess that would benefit the workings of the COGME, and the nominee's field(s) of expertise);

    (2) A letter of self-interest stating the reasons the nominee would like to serve on COGME;

    (3) A biographical sketch of the nominee and a copy of his/her curriculum vitae; and

    (4) The name, address, daytime telephone number, and email address at which the nominator can be contacted.

    Nominations will be considered as vacancies occur on COGME. Nominations should be updated and resubmitted every 3 years to continue to be considered for committee vacancies. HHS strives to ensure that the membership of HHS federal advisory committees is balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. The Department encourages nominations of qualified candidates from all groups and locations. Appointment to COGME shall be made without discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and cultural, religious, or socioeconomic status. Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16751 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Public Availability of the Department of Health and Human Services FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public availability of FY 2015 Service Contract Inventories.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its FY 2015 Service Contract Inventory. This inventory provides information on service contract actions over $25,000 that was awarded in FY 2015. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 and December 19, 2011 by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. HHS has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the HHS homepage at the following link: http://www.hhs.gov/grants/contracts/get-ready-to-do-business/service-contract-inventory/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding the service contract inventory should be directed to Dr. Angela Billups, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Senior Procurement Executive HHS/Office of the Secretary, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources at 202-260-6187 or [email protected].

    Angela Billups, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Senior Procurement Executive, Assistant Secretary for Financial Resources, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16802 Filed 7-14-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-24-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes; National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/Diabetes

    Announcement Type: Limited New and Competing Continuation.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2016-IHS-NIHOE-1-PBD-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: August 15, 2016.

    Review Date: August 22, 2016.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 15, 2016.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: August 15, 2016.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting competitive cooperative agreement applications for the National Indian Health Outreach and Education, Policy/Budget/Diabetes (NIHOE-I) limited competition cooperative agreement program. This award includes the following four components, as described in this announcement: “Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funds,” “Health Care Policy Analysis and Review,” “Budget Formulation,” and “Tribal Leaders Diabetes Committee” (TLDC). This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. 13. The TLDC component is authorized by section 330C of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 254c-3. This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.933.

    Background

    The NIHOE-I program carries out health program objectives in American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities in the interest of improving Indian health care for all 567 Federally-recognized Tribes, including Tribal governments operating their own health care delivery systems through self-determination contracts with the IHS and Tribes that continue to receive health care directly from the IHS. This program addresses health policy and health program issues and disseminates educational information to all AI/AN Tribes and villages. This program requires that public forums be held at Tribal educational consumer conferences to disseminate changes and updates in the latest health care information. This program also requires that regional and national meetings be coordinated for information dissemination as well as the inclusion of planning and technical assistance and health care recommendations on behalf of participating Tribes to ultimately inform IHS based on Tribal input through a broad based consumer network.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement is to further IHS's mission and goals related to providing quality health care to the AI/AN community through outreach and education efforts with the sole outcome of improving Indian health care. This award includes the following four health services components: Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funds, Health Care Policy Analysis and Review, Budget Formulation, and TLDC.

    Limited Competition Justification

    Competition for the award included in this announcement is limited to national Indian health care organizations with at least ten years of experience providing education and outreach on a national scale. This limitation ensures that the awardee will have: (1) A national information-sharing infrastructure which will facilitate the timely exchange of information between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Tribes and Tribal organizations on a broad scale; (2) a national perspective on the needs of AI/AN communities that will ensure that the information developed and disseminated through the projects is appropriate, useful and addresses the most pressing needs of AI/AN communities; and (3) established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations that will foster open and honest participation by AI/AN communities. Regional or local organizations will not have the mechanisms in place to conduct communication on a national level, nor will they have an accurate picture of the health care needs facing AI/ANs nationwide. Organizations with less experience will lack the established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations throughout the country that will facilitate participation and the open and honest exchange of information between Tribes and HHS. With the limited funds available for these projects, HHS must ensure that the education and outreach efforts described in this announcement reach the widest audience possible in a timely fashion, are appropriately tailored to the needs of AI/AN communities throughout the country, and come from a source that AI/ANs recognize and trust. For these reasons, this is a limited competition announcement.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current fiscal period covering (FY) 2016-2018 is approximately $2,475,000 or approximately $825,000 per FY. Three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) per fiscal year is estimated for outreach, education, and support to Tribes who have elected to leave their Tribal shares with the IHS (this amount could vary based on Tribal shares assumptions; Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funding will be awarded in partial increments based on availability and amount of funding); $200,000 per fiscal year for the Health Care Policy Analysis and Review; $75,000 per fiscal year for Budget Formulation; and $250,000 per fiscal year associated with providing legislative education, outreach and communications support to the IHS TLDC and to facilitate Tribal consultation on the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI). The amount of funding available for both competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    One award will be issued under this program announcement comprised of the following four components: Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach; Health Care Policy Analysis and Review; Budget Formulation; and TLDC.

    Project Period

    The project period will run for three years from September 15, 2016 through September 14, 2019.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by HHS are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    1. The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee in all decisions involving strategy, hiring of personnel, deployment of resources, release of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, any training, reports, budget and evaluation. Collaboration includes data analysis, interpretation of findings and reporting.

    2. The IHS assigned program official will monitor the overall progress of the awardee's execution of the requirements of the award noted below, as well as their adherence to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement. This includes providing guidance for required reports, development of tools and other products, interpreting program findings and assisting with evaluation and overcoming any slippages encountered.

    3. The IHS assigned program official will coordinate review and provide final approval of any deliverables, including printed materials, reports, testimony, and PowerPoint slides, prior to their distribution or dissemination to HHS, Tribes, or the public.

    4. The IHS assigned program official will also coordinate the following:

    • Discussion and release of any and all special grant conditions upon fulfillment.

    • Monthly scheduled conference calls.

    • Appropriate dissemination of required reports to each participating IHS program.

    5. IHS will jointly with the awardee, plan and set an agenda for an annual conference that:

    • Shares the outcomes of the outreach and health education training provided.

    • Fosters collaboration amongst the participating IHS program offices.

    • Increases visibility for the partnership between the awardee and IHS.

    • Includes HHS Conference Policy:

    6. IHS will provide guidance in preparing articles for publication and/or presentations of program successes, lessons learned and new findings.

    7. IHS staff will review articles concerning the HHS for accuracy and may, if requested by the awardee, provide relevant articles.

    8. IHS will communicate, via monthly conference calls and meetings, individual or collective (all participating programs) site visits to the awardee.

    9. IHS will provide technical assistance to the awardee as requested.

    10. IHS staff may, at the request of the entity's board, participate on study groups, attend board meetings, and recommend topics for analysis and discussion.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    The awardee must obtain written IHS approval of all deliverables produced with award funds, including printed materials, reports, testimony, and PowerPoint slides, prior to their distribution or dissemination to HHS, Tribes, or the public.

    The awardee must comply with relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular provisions regarding lobbying, any applicable lobbying restrictions provided under other law and any applicable restriction on the use of appropriated funds for lobbying activities.

    Pre-Conference Grants

    1. Pre-Conference Grant Requirements. The awardee is required to comply with the “HHS Policy on Promoting Efficient Spending: Use of Appropriated Funds for Conferences and Meeting Space, Food, Promotional Items, and Printing and Publications,” dated December 16, 2013 (“Policy”), as applicable to conferences funded by grants and cooperative agreements. The Policy is available at http://www.hhs.gov/asfr/ogapa/acquisition/policies/promoting-efficient-conference-spending-policy-12-16-2013.html.

    The awardee is required to:

    Provide a separate detailed budget justification and narrative for each conference anticipated. The cost categories to be addressed are as follows: (1) Contract/Planner, (2) Meeting Space/Venue, (3) Registration Web site, (4) Audio Visual, (5) Speakers Fees, (6) Non-Federal Attendee Travel, (7) Registration Fees, (8) Other (explain in detail and cost breakdown). For additional questions please contact Ms. Michelle EagleHawk on (301) 443-1104 or email her at [email protected]

    2. Line Item 128 Health Education and Outreach funding is utilized for outreach, health education, and support to Tribes—approximately $300,000 per fiscal year funding is available totaling $900,000.

    The awardee is expected to fulfill the following:

    Meeting Responsibilities ANNUAL (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000 per fiscal year. The awardee shall work with IHS/Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) closely on this item. As the sponsoring agency, IHS meeting attendees will not incur registration fees.

    a. Host an annual conference to disseminate changes and updates on health care information relative to AI/AN.

    Meeting Responsibilities MID-YEAR (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000 per fiscal year. The awardee shall work with IHS/ODSCT closely on this item. As the sponsoring agency, IHS meeting attendees will not incur registration fees.

    a. Host a mid-year consumer conference(s) as appropriate to disseminate changes and updates on health care information relative to AI/AN.

    Coordination, Dissemination, and Technical Assistance Responsibilities (Required)

    Estimated Costs: The estimated costs for this activity shall not exceed $100,000 per fiscal year. The awardee shall work with IHS/ODSCT closely on this item.

    a. Conduct regional and national meeting coordination as appropriate.

    b. Conduct health care information dissemination as appropriate.

    c. Coordinate planning and technical assistance needs on behalf of Tribes/Tribal organizations (T/TO) with IHS.

    d. Convey health care recommendations on behalf of T/TO to IHS.

    3. Health Care Policy Analysis and Review.

    This funding component requires the awardee to provide IHS with research and analysis of the impact of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) programs on AI/AN beneficiaries and the health care delivery system that serves these beneficiaries. $200,000 funding is available per fiscal year totaling $600,000 for analysis of CMS programs that affect AI/AN beneficiaries.

    The awardee will produce measurable outcomes to include:

    a. Analytical reports, policy review and recommendation documents—The products will be in the form of written (hard copy and/or electronic files) documents that contain analysis of relevant health care issues to be reported on a monthly or quarterly basis and face-to-face meetings with hard copies submitted to the Director, IHS/Office of Resource, Access and Partnerships (ORAP).

    b. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the overall impact of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) implementation, including the regulations and policies, on the Indian health care system, in terms of whether or not it is working as intended. That is, whether Tribes and AI/AN consumers are receiving the benefits of the special provisions for Indians, and whether all of the necessary stakeholders including Indian Health Service/Tribes/Urbans (I/T/Us), qualified health plans, providers, and consumers have the information and capacity to ensure successful outcomes and are working cooperatively and effectively to that end.

    c. Policy rec