Federal Register Vol. 81, No.138,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 138 (July 19, 2016)

Page Range46827-47000
FR Document

81_FR_138
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 46994 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 46988 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 46957 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records NoticePDF
81 FR 46925 - Sunshine Act; Notice of FRTIB Board Member MeetingPDF
81 FR 46970 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 46920 - Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 46926 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46887 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal OrganizationsPDF
81 FR 46904 - Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013PDF
81 FR 46866 - Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year ReportPDF
81 FR 46956 - Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes TechnologiesPDF
81 FR 46956 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex Charles CityPDF
81 FR 46925 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46883 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 113PDF
81 FR 46906 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 46899 - Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014PDF
81 FR 46913 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46970 - Guidance for Closure of Activities Related to Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Hazard ReevaluationPDF
81 FR 46904 - Meeting of the United States Manufacturing CouncilPDF
81 FR 46940 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug and Biological ProductsPDF
81 FR 46848 - Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2016 Recreational Accountability Measures and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray TriggerfishPDF
81 FR 46951 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 46952 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Registration for Classification as a Refugee, Form I-590; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 46957 - Annual Determination of Average Cost of IncarcerationPDF
81 FR 46833 - Safety Zone; Navy UNDET, Apra Outer Harbor, GUPDF
81 FR 46907 - State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) and the First Responder Network Authority Nationwide Public Safety Broadband NetworkPDF
81 FR 46898 - In the Matter of: Fang Liwu, Nan Hu Xi Yuan 50505, Chai Yang District, Wang Ging, Beijing, China; Order Denying Export PrivilegesPDF
81 FR 46941 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request-Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students ProgramPDF
81 FR 46827 - Program Fraud Civil Remedies: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation AdjustmentPDF
81 FR 46918 - Rio Grande LNG, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement NationsPDF
81 FR 46917 - Excess Uranium Management: Effects of DOE Transfers of Excess Uranium on Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries; Request for InformationPDF
81 FR 46954 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW160587, WyomingPDF
81 FR 46924 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 46954 - Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW178491, WyomingPDF
81 FR 46954 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0132PDF
81 FR 46943 - Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure CohortPDF
81 FR 46935 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Protection of Human Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review BoardsPDF
81 FR 46941 - Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training Workshop; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 46956 - Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on a Settlement AgreementPDF
81 FR 46920 - Alaska Energy Authority; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental AssessmentPDF
81 FR 46938 - E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report and E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report-Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidances for Industry; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 46928 - Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Red Blood Cells for Transfusion; Public WorkshopPDF
81 FR 46848 - Inspection of Towing VesselsPDF
81 FR 46833 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; State Boat Channel, Captree Island, NYPDF
81 FR 46942 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Rural Health Care Coordination Network PartnershipPDF
81 FR 46951 - Approval of Barrios Measurement Services LLC, as a Commercial GaugerPDF
81 FR 46946 - Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46947 - Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46988 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46978 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 46988 - Order Granting Limited Exemptions from Exchange Act Rule 10b-17 and Rules 101 and 102 of Regulation M to PowerShares DWA Momentum & Low Volatility Rotation Portfolio Pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 10b-17(b)(2) and Rules 101(d) and 102(e) of Regulation MPDF
81 FR 46945 - Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46948 - Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46950 - Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46949 - Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and LaboratoryPDF
81 FR 46945 - Approval of SGS North America, Inc., As a Commercial GaugerPDF
81 FR 46947 - Approval of Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., as a Commercial GaugerPDF
81 FR 46996 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Homeland Surveillance and Electronics LLCPDF
81 FR 46997 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Flirtey Inc.PDF
81 FR 46996 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Area-I, IncorporatedPDF
81 FR 46997 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Continuum Dynamics Inc.PDF
81 FR 46974 - International Product Change-Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 46994 - Request for Public Comments To Compile the National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade BarriersPDF
81 FR 46958 - Quarterly Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 46895 - Designation for the West Sacramento, CA; and Richmond, VA AreasPDF
81 FR 46886 - Notice of Availability of a Pest Risk Analysis for the Importation of Fresh Star Apple Fruit From Vietnam Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 46927 - Administration on Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual DisabilitiesPDF
81 FR 46835 - Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, 2016, Pier 66, Elliott Bay; Seattle, WAPDF
81 FR 46928 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Extension With No Changes of a Currently Approved Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Program ReportPDF
81 FR 46890 - Final Directive for National Saw ProgramPDF
81 FR 46927 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; OAA Title III-C EvaluationPDF
81 FR 46974 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to EDGX Rule 13.4(a), Stating It Will Utilize IEX Market Data From the CQS/UQDF for Purposes of Order Handling, Routing, and Related Compliance ProcessesPDF
81 FR 46990 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Introduce New Risk Protections on the Exchange and Provide Enhancements to Current Risk ProtectionsPDF
81 FR 46979 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rules To Implement the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 46975 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to the Automated Improvement MechanismPDF
81 FR 46986 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to the Automated Improvement MechanismPDF
81 FR 46984 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to EDGA Rule 13.4(a), Stating It Will Utilize IEX Market Data From the CQS/UQDF for Purposes of Order Handling, Routing, and Related Compliance ProcessesPDF
81 FR 46828 - Emergency Permit Control Regulations; Technical AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 46895 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017 Puerto Rico Census TestPDF
81 FR 46922 - Privacy Act System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 46836 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; UtahPDF
81 FR 46865 - Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; UtahPDF
81 FR 46852 - Approval and Revision of Air Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; ReconsiderationPDF
81 FR 46917 - State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB)PDF
81 FR 46972 - Information Collection: NRC Form 314, Certificate of Disposition of MaterialsPDF
81 FR 46916 - Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge ReservationPDF
81 FR 46916 - National Petroleum CouncilPDF
81 FR 46944 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 46945 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 46973 - Submission of Information Collection for OMB Review; Comment Request; Filings for ReconsiderationPDF
81 FR 46999 - Public Meeting Concerning Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint (THOR)PDF
81 FR 46953 - Intent To Grant an Exclusive LicensePDF
81 FR 46998 - Notice of Receipt of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model Year 2011 Ducati Multistrada Motorcycles Are Eligible for ImportationPDF
81 FR 46915 - President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and UniversitiesPDF
81 FR 46958 - Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards ConsiderationsPDF
81 FR 46851 - Proposed Establishment of Temporary Restricted Areas R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N; Twentynine Palms, CA; WithdrawalPDF
81 FR 46913 - Board on Coastal Engineering ResearchPDF
81 FR 46929 - Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 46870 - Process Reform for Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC Applications and Petitions Involving Foreign OwnershipPDF
81 FR 46839 - Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling ProceduresPDF
81 FR 46832 - Inversions and Related Transactions; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 46850 - Notice of Proposed RulemakingPDF
81 FR 46944 - Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request, Grants.govPDF

Issue

81 138 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Pest Risk Analysis: Importation of Fresh Star Apple Fruit from Vietnam into the Continental United States, 46886 2016-16981 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test, 46895-46898 2016-16966 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46925-46927 2016-17059 2016-17070 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: State Boat Channel, Captree Island, NY, 46833 2016-17006 Inspection of Towing Vessels, 46848 2016-17007 Safety Zones: Fleet Week Maritime Festival, 2016, Pier 66, Elliott Bay, Seattle, WA, 46835-46836 2016-16979 Navy UNDET, Apra Outer Harbor, GU, 46833-46835 2016-17036 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Community Living Administration Community Living Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: OAA Title III-C Evaluation, 46927 2016-16976 State Program Report, 46928 2016-16978 Meetings: Administration on Disabilities, President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 46927-46928 2016-16980 Corporation Corporation for National and Community Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46913 2016-17048 Defense Department Defense Department See

Engineers Corps

Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Cambrex Charles City, 46956 2016-17061 Importer of Controlled Substances; Applications: Rhodes Technologies, 46956-46957 2016-17062 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Meetings: President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 46915-46916 2016-16928 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization to Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations; Applications: Rio Grande LNG, LLC, 46918-46920 2016-17025 Meetings: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation, 46916 2016-16954 National Petroleum Council, 46916-46917 2016-16953 State Energy Advisory Board; Teleconference, 46917 2016-16956 Requests for Information: Excess Uranium Management: Effects of DOE Transfers of Excess Uranium on Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries, 46917-46918 2016-17024
Engineers Engineers Corps NOTICES Meetings: Board on Coastal Engineering Research, 46913-46914 2016-16918 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; Utah, 46836-46838 2016-16963 Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants under the Safe Drinking Water Act: Analysis and Sampling Procedures; Expedited Approval, 46839-46848 2016-16516 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration, 46852-46865 2016-16959 New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year Report, 46866-46870 2016-17063 Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; Utah, 46865-46866 2016-16960 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Restricted Areas: R-2509E, R-2509W, R-2509N, Twentynine Palms, CA; Withdrawal, 46851 2016-16922 Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace: Napa, CA, 46850-46851 2016-16385 NOTICES Petitions for Exemption; Summaries: Area-I, Incorporated, 46996-46997 2016-16989 Continuum Dynamics Inc., 46997-46998 2016-16988 Flirtey Inc., 46997 2016-16990 Homeland Surveillance and Electronics LLC, 46996 2016-16991 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Process Reform for Executive Branch Review: Certain FCC Applications and Petitions Involving Foreign Ownership, 46870-46883 2016-16780 NOTICES Privacy Act System of Records, 46922-46924 2016-16965 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Alaska Energy Authority, 46920 2016-17010 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46920-46922 2016-17121 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 46924-46925 2016-16936 2016-17022 Federal Retirement Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46925 2016-17141 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Emergency Permit Control Regulations; Technical Amendments, 46828-46832 2016-16968 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug and Biological Products, 46940-46941 2016-17044 Protection of Human Subjects—Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards, 46935-46938 2016-17016 International Council for Harmonisation Guidance: E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report and E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report—Questions and Answers, 46938-46940 2016-17009 Meetings: Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training Workshop; Correction, 46941 2016-17015 Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Red Blood Cells for Transfusion; Public Workshop, 46928-46929 2016-17008 Prescription Drug User Fee Act, 46929-46935 2016-16916 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal Organizations, 46887-46890 2016-17066 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Final Directive for National Saw Program, 46890-46895 2016-16977 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Intent to Grant an Exclusive License, 46953 2016-16944 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration NOTICES Designation for the West Sacramento, CA and Richmond, VA Areas, 46895 2016-16982 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Community Living Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46944 2016-15982 Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, 46943-46944 2016-17017 Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort, 46943 2016-17018 2016-17019
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership, 46942-46943 2016-17005 Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program, 46941-46942 2016-17031 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Orders Denying Export Privileges: Fang Liwu; Beijing, China, 46898-46899 2016-17033 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Inversions and Related Transactions; Correction, 46832-46833 2016-16470 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China, 46904-46906 2016-17064 Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China, 46899-46904, 46906-46907 2016-17049 2016-17050 Meetings: United States Manufacturing Council, 46904 2016-17046 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof, 46956 2016-17011 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Prisons Bureau

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46954-46955 2016-17020 Oil and Gas Leases: Wyoming; Proposed Reinstatement, 46954 2016-17021 2016-17023 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records; Withdrawal, 46957 2016-17146 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Importation Eligibilities: 2011 Ducati Multistrada Motorcycles, 46998-46999 2016-16935 Meetings: Test Device for Human Occupant Restraint, 46999-47000 2016-16949 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel, 46944 2016-16952 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, 46945 2016-16951 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico: Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish; Recreational Accountability Measures and Closure, 46848-46849 2016-17043 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 113, 46883-46885 2016-17051 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES State Alternative Plan Program and the First Responder Network Authority Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network, 46907-46913 2016-17034 National Women's National Women's Business Council NOTICES Meetings: Quarterly Public Meeting, 46958 2016-16983 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: NRC Form 314, Certificate of Disposition of Materials, 46972-46973 2016-16955 Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses: Applications and Amendments Involving Proposed No Significant Hazards Considerations, etc., 46958-46970 2016-16925 Guidance for Closure of Activities Related to Recommendation 2.1, Flooding Hazard Reevaluation, 46970-46972 2016-17047 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46970 2016-17140 Pension Benefit Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46973-46974 2016-16950 Personnel Personnel Management Office RULES Program Fraud Civil Remedies: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment, 46827-46828 2016-17026 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES International Product Changes: Inbound Market Dominant Registered Service Agreement, 46974 2016-16986 Prisons Prisons Bureau NOTICES Annual Determinations: Average Cost of Incarceration, 46957 2016-17040 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 46978-46979, 46988 2016-17000 2016-17001 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 46988, 46994 2016-17167 2016-17168 Order Granting Limited Exemptions from Exchange Act Rules: PowerShares DWA Momentum and Low Volatility Rotation Portfolio, 46988-46990 2016-16999 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Bats EDGA Exchange, Inc., 46984-46985 2016-16970 Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc., 46974-46975 2016-16975 BOX Options Exchange LLC, 46990-46994 2016-16974 C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 46986-46987 2016-16971 Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 46975-46978 2016-16972 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 46979-46984 2016-16973 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, 46994-46996 2016-16985 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, 46951-46952 2016-17042 Registration for Classification as a Refugee, 46952-46953 2016-17041 Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Accreditation and Approval as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory: Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 46945-46948 2016-17003 2016-16998 2016-17002 SGS North America, Inc., 46948-46951 2016-16994 2016-16995 2016-16996 2016-16997 Accreditation and Approval as a Commercial Gauger: Barrios Measurement Services LLC, 46951 2016-17004 Approval as a Commercial Gauger: Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., 46947 2016-16992 SGS North America, Inc., 46945 2016-16993 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.

81 138 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 Rules and Regulations OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 5 CFR Part 185 RIN 3206-AN39 Program Fraud Civil Remedies: Civil Monetary Penalty Inflation Adjustment AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

ACTION:

Interim rule.

SUMMARY:

This rule adjusts the level of civil monetary penalties contained in U.S. Office of Personnel Management regulations implementing the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, with an initial “catch-up” adjustment under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance.

DATES:

Effective Date: August 1, 2016.

Comment Date: Comments due on or before August 18, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by RIN 3206-AN39, by any of the following methods:

1. Internet—Send comments via email to [email protected]

2. Fax—(202) 606-0082.

3. Mail—Office of the General Counsel, ATTN: Katherine Pickar, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Washington, DC 20415.

Do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method. Regardless of which method you choose, please state that your comments refer to RIN 3206-AN39.

Caution: You should be careful to include in your comments only information that you wish to make publicly available as comments are posted without change, with any personal information provided. OPM strongly urges you not to include in your comments any personal information, such as Social Security numbers, Civil Service Annuity/Final numbers, and/or medical information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Katherine M. Pickar, Office of the General Counsel, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E St. NW., Washington, DC 20415, [email protected], (202) 606-1700.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (“the Act”). The Act requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rulemaking, and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties.

This rule adjusts the following civil monetary penalties:

CFR Citation Description of the penalty Current
  • penalty
  • Catchup
  • adjustment
  • Adjusted
  • penalty
  • 5 CFR 185.103(a) Civil Penalty for False Claims $5,000 $5,781 $10,781 5 CFR 185.103(f)(2) Civil Penalty for False Statements 5,000 5,781 10,781

    This interim final rule is being issued without prior public notice or opportunity for public comments. The 2015 Act's amendments to the Inflation Adjustment Act require the agency to adjust penalties initially through an interim final rulemaking, which does not require the agency to complete a notice and comment process prior to promulgating the interim final rule. The amendments also explicitly require the agency to make subsequent annual adjustments notwithstanding 5 U.S.C. 553 (the section of the Administrative Procedure Act that normally requires agencies to engage in notice and comment). Additionally, the formula used for adjusting the amount of civil penalties is given by statute, with no discretion provided to OPM regarding the substance of the adjustments. OPM is charged only with performing ministerial computations to determine the amount of adjustment to the civil penalties due to increases in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

    II. Calculation of Adjustment

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance on calculating the catch-up adjustment. See February 24, 2016, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, from Shaun Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget, re: Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015. Under this guidance, OPM has identified applicable civil monetary penalties and calculated the catch-up adjustment. A civil monetary penalty is any assessment with a dollar amount that is levied for a violation of a Federal civil statute or regulation, and is assessed or enforceable through a civil action in Federal court or an administrative proceeding. A civil monetary penalty does not include a penalty levied for violation of a criminal statute, or fees for services, licenses, permits, or other regulatory review. The calculated catch-up adjustment is based on the percent change between the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October in the year of the previous adjustment (or in the year of establishment, if no adjustment has been made) and the October 2015 CPI-U.

    For purposes of the initial adjustment under the 2015 Act, while 5 CFR part 185 was not promulgated until 1995, the civil penalties listed in part 185 were established in 1986 with the enactment of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, Public Law 99-509, §§ 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (October 21, 1986), codified at 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812. The amount of the penalties have not been changed since 1986. The 1986 establishment of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 serves as the base figure for the inflation calculation. Between October 1986 and October 2015, the CPI-U has increased by 215.628 percent. The post-adjustment penalty amount or range is obtained by multiplying the pre-adjustment penalty amount or range by the percent change in the CPI-U over the relevant time period, and rounding to the nearest dollar. Therefore, the new, post-adjustment penalty under the PFCRA is $5,000 × 2.15628 = $10,781.40, which rounds to $10,781. The new, post-adjustment penalties are less than 250 percent of the pre-adjustment penalties, so the limitation on the amount of the adjustment is not implicated.

    III. Procedural Requirements A. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Executive Order 12866, as Supplemented by Executive Order 13563

    OPM, with the concurrence of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has determined that this is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, no regulatory impact analysis is required.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a) and 604(a). The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires agencies to adjust civil penalties with an initial catch-up adjustment through an interim final rule. An interim final rule does not include first publishing a proposed rule. Thus, the RFA does not apply to this final rule.

    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    This rule is not a major rule under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:

    (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.

    (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.

    (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

    D. Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532)

    This rule does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. E.O. 12630, Takings

    This rule does not have takings implications.

    F. E.O. 13132, Federalism

    This rule does not have federalism implications. The rule does 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.

    G. E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This rule complies with the requirements of E.O. 12988. Specifically, this rule:

    (a) Does not unduly burden the judicial system.

    (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and

    (c) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.

    H. E.O. 13175, Consultation With Indian Tribes

    In accordance with Executive Order 13175, OPM has evaluated this rule and determined that it has no tribal implications.

    I. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.

    List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 185

    Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Fraud, Penalties.

    U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Beth F. Cobert, Acting Director.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, amend part 185 of title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 185—PROGRAM FRAUD CIVIL REMEDIES: CIVIL MONETARY PENALTY INFLATION ADJUSTMENT 1. The authority citation for part 185 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    28 U.S.C. 2461 note; 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.

    § 185.103 [Amended]
    2. Section 185.103 is amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a) introductory text, remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$10,781”. b. In paragraph (f)(2), remove “$5,000” and add in its place “$10,781”.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17026 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6325-48-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 108 [Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2819] Emergency Permit Control Regulations; Technical Amendments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending certain regulations pertaining to registration and process filings related to acidified foods and thermally processed low-acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers (historically referred to as “low-acid canned foods” or “LACF”). The amendments reflect new FDA process filing form numbers, make changes to addresses or locations where such forms can be found or must be sent, remove obsolete references to the effective dates that occurred years ago, and update a reference to another Federal Agency.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 18, 2016. See section VI for further information on the filing of objections. Submit either electronic or written objections and requests for a hearing by August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit objections and requests for a hearing as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic objections in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Objections submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your objection will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your objection 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 objection, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the objection 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 objections submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your objection, 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-2015-N-2819 for “Emergency Permit Control Regulations; Technical Amendments.” Received objections 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 an objection with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your objections only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Brecher, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-302), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740-3835, 240-402-1781.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Among other things, our current regulations at part 108 (21 CFR part 108) provide that a commercial processor, when first engaging in the manufacture, processing, or packing of acidified foods or low-acid canned foods, must, not later than 10 days after first so engaging, register and file with FDA information including the name of the establishment, principal place of business, the location of each establishment in which that processing is carried on, the processing method, and a list of foods so processed in each establishment (§§ 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(1) (21 CFR 108.25(c)(1) and 108.35(c)(1))). In addition, our regulations require the submission of process filing forms. Specifically, our regulations require that commercial processors engaged in the processing of acidified foods must, not later than 60 days after registration, and before packing any new product, provide FDA with information on the scheduled processes for each acidified food in each container size (§ 108.25(c)(2)). An analogous requirement for process filing applies to commercial processors of low-acid canned foods (§ 108.35(c)(2)). The regulations specify the specific process filing forms to be used (Forms FDA 2541a and 2541c), and also state where the forms can be obtained and where the forms should be sent.

    We recently engaged in an effort to modernize our forms and to provide a means for submitting the forms using electronic “smart form” technology. This effort involved the drafting of four new process filing forms: Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g. (For more information about the new process filing forms, see “Guidance for Industry: Submitting Form FDA 2541 (Food Canning Establishment Registration) and Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing Forms) to FDA in Electronic or Paper Format,” available at http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances.) We announced that drafts of the new forms were available for public comment in a notice published in the Federal Register of January 14, 2014 (79 FR 2448). After considering public comment, we modified the content of the forms where appropriate and announced the availability of the finalized new process filing forms in a notice published in the Federal Register of October 8, 2015 (80 FR 60909).

    II. Legal Authority

    We are issuing this final rule under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act). Section 404(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 344(a)) provides that whenever the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) finds after investigation that the distribution in interstate commerce of any class of food may, by reason of contamination with micro-organisms during the manufacture, processing, or packing thereof in any locality, be injurious to health, and that such injurious nature cannot be adequately determined after such articles have entered interstate commerce, the Secretary then shall issue regulations providing for the issuance, to manufacturers, processors, or packers of such class of food in such locality, of permits to which shall be attached such conditions governing the manufacture, processing, or packing of such class of food, for such temporary period of time, as may be necessary to protect the public health. Under section 404 of the FD&C Act, our regulations in part 108 have long required registration of food processing establishments, filing of process information, and maintenance of processing and production records for acidified foods and low-acid canned foods. Under section 701(e) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 371(e)), any action for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of any regulation under section 404(a) of the FD&C Act shall be begun by a proposal made either by the Secretary on his own initiative or by petition of any interested persons, showing reasonable grounds therefor, filed with the Secretary. The Secretary shall publish such proposal and shall afford all interested persons an opportunity to present their views thereon, orally or in writing. As soon as practicable thereafter, the Secretary shall by order act upon the proposal and make such order public. Except as provided in section 701(e)(2) of the FD&C Act, the order shall become effective at such time as may be specified therein, but not before the day following the last day on which objections may be filed under section 701(e)(2) of the FD&C Act.

    III. The Proposed Rule

    The new process filing forms described in section I will make it easier for firms to submit information to us and will improve the accuracy of the information submitted in the forms. In conjunction with these changes in the forms, in the Federal Register of September 22, 2015 (80 FR 57137), we proposed to make technical amendments to § 108.25, “Acidified Foods,” and § 108.35, “Thermal Processing of Low-Acid Foods Packaged in Hermetically Sealed Containers.” Specifically, we proposed to incorporate the new FDA form numbers. By incorporating the new FDA form numbers into part 108, the proposed rule would cause the new forms to fully replace the forms currently listed in part 108.

    In addition, we proposed to make changes to the addresses or locations where forms can be found or must be sent. Finally, we proposed to remove obsolete references to dates that occurred years ago and update the name of the Agency of the U.S. Department of Agriculture that administers the meat and poultry inspection programs under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act.

    IV. Public Comments

    We received one comment on the proposed rule. This comment alerted us to the omission of the word “and” in the name of the Federal Agency that administers the meat and poultry inspection programs under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. The name of that Federal Agency is the “Food Safety and Inspection Service,” not the “Food Safety Inspection Service,” and we have revised the rule accordingly.

    V. Description of the Final Rule

    The final rule makes those technical amendments to § 108.25, “Acidified Foods,” and § 108.35, “Thermal Processing of Low-Acid Foods Packaged in Hermetically Sealed Containers” that we described in the proposed rule and summarized in section I of this document, with the correction noted in section IV of this document. See the amended regulatory text of §§ 108.25(c)(1) and (2) and 108.35(c)(1) and (2) and (i). The final rule will cause the new process filing forms to fully replace the forms currently listed in part 108 (i.e. Forms FDA 2541a and FDA 2541c).

    VI. Objections

    This rule is effective as shown in the DATES section, except as to any provisions that may be stayed by the filing of proper objections. If you will be adversely affected by one or more provisions of this regulation, you may file with the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written objections. You must separately number each objection, and within each numbered objection you must specify with particularity the provision(s) to which you object, and the grounds for your objection. Within each numbered objection, you must specifically state whether you are requesting a hearing on the particular provision that you specify in that numbered objection. If you do not request a hearing for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on that objection. If you request a hearing, your objection must include a detailed description and analysis of the specific factual information you intend to present in support of the objection in the event that a hearing is held. If you do not include such a description and analysis for any particular objection, you waive the right to a hearing on the objection.

    Any objections received in response to the regulation may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. We will publish notice of the objections that we have received or lack thereof in the Federal Register.

    VII. Economic Analysis of Impacts

    We are publishing this final rule under the formal rulemaking process. Executive Order 12866 does not require us to analyze the costs and benefits of final rules that we publish under this rulemaking process.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires Agencies to analyze regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule on small entities. The final rule amends §§ 108.25 and 108.35 to delete obsolete references to long-expired effective dates, make changes to FDA addresses or locations, and reflect new process filing forms. With regard to the new process filing forms, we are replacing references to Forms FDA 2541a and FDA 2541c with references to four new process filing forms: Forms FDA 2541d, FDA 2541e, FDA 2541f, and FDA 2541g. Some of the data entry fields on the four new process filing forms are not on current Forms FDA 2541a and FDA 2541c. The new forms add certain data entry fields to improve the efficiency of our review of the process filings. For example, the new forms include data entry fields for the “food product group” (such as liquid, ready-to-eat “breakfast foods”). In addition, the new forms provide for “smart form” technology using an electronic submission system. The updated process filing portion of the electronic submission system queries the processor about the processes used to produce the food and presents only those data entry fields that are applicable. As a result, processors will no longer need to evaluate whether particular data entry fields are applicable to their products. For example, when a processor submits a process filing for a product that is processed using a low-acid retorted method with a process mode of “agitating,” smart form technology would bypass questions that are not applicable to this process mode option. We estimate that the additional time it would take processors to complete the new information requested on the new forms would be offset by the time processors will save by not having to evaluate whether certain data entry fields on Form FDA 2541a or FDA 2541c are applicable to their products. Hence, we certify that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Section 202(a) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that Agencies prepare a written statement, which includes an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits, before issuing “any rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year.” The current threshold after adjustment for inflation is $146 million, using the most current (2015) Implicit Price Deflator for the Gross Domestic Product. FDA does not expect this final rule to result in any 1-year expenditure that would meet or exceed this amount.

    VIII. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    FDA has determined, under 21 CFR 25.30(i), that this final rule is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

    IX. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final rule 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). These collections of information have been previously approved under OMB control number 0910-0037, which expires September 30, 2017.

    X. Federalism

    We have analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in Executive Order 13132. FDA has determined that the rule does not contain policies that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Accordingly, we conclude that the rule does not contain policies that have federalism implications as defined in the Executive order and, consequently, a federalism summary impact statement is not required.

    List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 108

    Administrative practice and procedure, Foods, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, part 108 is amended as follows:

    PART 108—EMERGENCY PERMIT CONTROL 1. The authority citation for part 108 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 344, 371.

    2. In § 108.25, revise paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
    § 108.25 Acidified foods.

    (c)(1) Registration. A commercial processor, when first engaging in the manufacture, processing, or packing of acidified foods in any State, as defined in section 201(a)(1) of the act, shall, not later than 10 days after first so engaging, register and file with the Food and Drug Administration on Form FDA 2541 (food canning establishment registration) information including, but not limited to, the name of the establishment, principal place of business, the location of each establishment in which that processing is carried on, the processing method in terms of acidity and pH control, and a list of foods so processed in each establishment. These forms are available from the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or at any Food and Drug Administration district office. The completed form shall be submitted to the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-565), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. These forms also are available on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/ucm2007436.htm. For electronic submission go to FDA's Industry Systems Web site at www.access.fda.gov. Foreign processors shall register before any offering of foods for import into the United States. Commercial processors duly registered under this section shall notify the Food and Drug Administration not later than 90 days after the commercial processor ceases or discontinues the manufacture, processing, or packing of the foods in any establishment, except that this notification shall not be required for temporary cessations due to the seasonal character of an establishment's production or by temporary conditions including, but not limited to, labor disputes, fire, or acts of God.

    (2) Process filing. A commercial processor engaged in the processing of acidified foods shall, not later than 60 days after registration, and before packing any new product, provide the Food and Drug Administration information on the scheduled processes including, as necessary, conditions for heat processing and control of pH, salt, sugar, and preservative levels and source and date of the establishment of the process, for each acidified food in each container size. Filing of this information does not constitute approval of the information by the Food and Drug Administration, and information concerning processes and other data so filed shall be regarded as trade secrets within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 331(j) and 18 U.S.C. 1905. This information shall be submitted on Form FDA 2541e (Food Process Filing for Acidified Method). Forms are available from the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or at any Food and Drug Administration district office. The completed form shall be submitted to the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-618), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. These forms also are available on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/ucm2007436.htm. For electronic submission go to FDA's Industry Systems Web site at www.access.fda.gov.

    3. In § 108.35, revise paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2) introductory text, (c)(2)(ii), and (i) to read as follows:
    § 108.35 Thermal processing of low-acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers.

    (c) * * *

    (1) Registration. A commercial processor when first engaging in the manufacture, processing, or packing of thermally processed low-acid foods in hermetically sealed containers in any State, as defined in section 201(a)(1) of the act, shall, not later than 10 days after first so engaging, register with the Food and Drug Administration on Form FDA 2541 (food canning establishment registration) information including (but not limited to) his name, principal place of business, the location of each establishment in which such processing is carried on, the processing method in terms of the type of processing equipment employed, and a list of the low-acid foods so processed in each such establishment. These forms are available from the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or at any Food and Drug Administration district office. The completed form shall be submitted to the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-618), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. These forms also are available on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/default.htm. For electronic submission go to FDA's Industry Systems Web site at www.access.fda.gov. Commercial processors duly registered in accordance with this section shall notify the Food and Drug Administration not later than 90 days after such commercial processor ceases or discontinues the manufacture, processing, or packing of thermally processed foods in any establishment: Provided, that such notification shall not be required as to the temporary cessation necessitated by the seasonal character of the particular establishment's production or caused by temporary conditions including but not limited to strikes, lockouts, fire, or acts of God.

    (2) Process filing. A commercial processor engaged in the thermal processing of low-acid foods packaged in hermetically sealed containers shall, not later than 60 days after registration and prior to the packing of a new product, provide the Food and Drug Administration information as to the scheduled processes including but not limited to the processing method, type of retort or other thermal processing equipment employed, minimum initial temperatures, times and temperatures of processing, sterilizing value (Fo), or other equivalent scientific evidence of process adequacy, critical control factors affecting heat penetration, and source and date of the establishment of the process, for each such low-acid food in each container size: Provided, that the filing of such information does not constitute approval of the information by the Food and Drug Administration, and that information concerning processes and other data so filed shall be regarded as trade secrets within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. 331(j) and 18 U.S.C. 1905. This information shall be submitted on the following forms as appropriate: Form FDA 2541d (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Retorted Method), Form FDA 2541f (Food Process Filing for Water Activity/Formulation Control Method), or Form FDA 2541g (Food Process Filing for Low-Acid Aseptic Systems). These forms are available from the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, or at any Food and Drug Administration district office. The completed form(s) shall be submitted to the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. These forms also are available on the Food and Drug Administration's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FoodFacilityRegistration/AcidifiedLACFRegistration/default.htm. For electronic submission, go to FDA's Industry Systems Web site at www.access.fda.gov.

    (ii) If a packer intentionally makes a change in a previously filed scheduled process by reducing the initial temperature or retort temperature, reducing the time of processing, or changing the product formulation, the container, or any other condition basic to the adequacy of scheduled process, he shall prior to using such changed process obtain substantiation by qualified scientific authority as to its adequacy. Such substantiation may be obtained by telephone, telegram, or other media, but must be promptly recorded, verified in writing by the authority, and contained in the packer's files for review by the Food and Drug Administration. Within 30 days after first use, the packer shall submit to the LACF Registration Coordinator (HFS-303), Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740 a complete description of the modifications made and utilized, together with a copy of his file record showing prior substantiation by a qualified scientific authority as to the safety of the changed process. Any intentional change of a previously filed scheduled process or modification thereof in which the change consists solely of a higher initial temperature, a higher retort temperature, or a longer processing time, shall not be considered a change subject to this paragraph, but if that modification is thereafter to be regularly scheduled, the modified process shall be promptly filed as a scheduled process, accompanied by full information on the specified forms as provided in this paragraph.

    (i) This section shall not apply to the commercial processing of any food processed under the continuous inspection of the meat and poultry inspection program of the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (34 Stat. 1256, as amended by 81 Stat. 584 (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (71 Stat. 441, as amended by 82 Stat. 791 (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.)).

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16968 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9761] RIN 1545-BM88 Inversions and Related Transactions; Correction AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final and temporary regulations; correcting amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains corrections to a correction document for final and temporary regulations (TD 9761) that was published in the Federal Register on June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40810).

    DATES:

    This correction is effective on July 19, 2016 and applicable on June 23, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rose E. Jenkins at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The final and temporary regulations (TD 9761) that are the subject of this correction are under sections 304, 367, 956, 7701(l), and 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Correction of Publication

    In correcting amendment FR Doc. 2016-14649, published in the issue of Thursday, June 23, 2016 (81 FR 40810), make the following correction:

    On page 40811, in the first column, remove amendatory instruction 6.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.956-2T is amended by revising the first sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(iv) Example 3.(A), the second sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(iv) Example 3.(B), and the third sentence of paragraph (a)(4)(iv) Example 4.(B) to read as follows:
    § 1.956-2T Definition of United States property (temporary).

    (a) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (iv) * * *

    Example 3. (A) Facts. Before the inversion transaction, FA also wholly owns USP, a domestic corporation, which, in turn, wholly owns, LFS, a foreign corporation that is a controlled foreign corporation. * * *

    (B) * * * Because LFS was a controlled foreign corporation and a member of the EAG with respect to the inversion transaction on the completion date, and DT was not a United States shareholder with respect to LFS on or before the completion date, LFS is excluded from the definition of expatriated foreign subsidiary pursuant to § 1.7874-12T(a)(9)(ii). * * *

    Example 4. * * *

    (B) * * * Because LFSS was not a member of the EAG with respect to the inversion transaction on the completion date, LFSS is not excluded from the definition of expatriated foreign subsidiary pursuant to § 1.7874-12T(a)(9)(ii). * * *

    Par. 3. Section 1.7874-8T is amended by revising the ninth sentence of paragraph (h) Example 3.(ii) to read as follows:
    § 1.7874-8T Disregard of certain stock attributable to multiple domestic entity acquisitions (temporary).

    (h) * * *

    Example 3. * * *

    (ii) * * * Accordingly, the excluded amount is $112.50x calculated as 150 (200, the total number of prior acquisition shares, less 50, the allocable redeemed shares) multiplied by $0.75x (the fair market value of a single share of FA stock on the completion date with respect to the DT2 acquisition). * * *

    Martin V. Franks, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration).
    [FR Doc. 2016-16470 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0645] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; State Boat Channel, Captree Island, NY 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 Captree State Parkway Bridge across the State Boat Channel, mile 30.7 at Captree Island, New York. This deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to perform painting and steel repairs.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from September 6, 2016 to December 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0645] 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 Captree State Parkway Bridge, mile 30.7, across the State Boat Channel, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 29 feet at mean high water and 30 feet at mean low water. The existing bridge operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.799(i).

    The waterway is transited by seasonal recreational traffic.

    New York State DOT, the owner of the bridge, requested a temporary deviation from the normal operating schedule to perform painting and steel repairs.

    Under this temporary deviation, the Captree State Parkway Bridge will not open for marine traffic from September 6, 2016 to December 16, 2016.

    Vessels able to pass under the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. 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 14, 2016. C.J. Bisignano, Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17006 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0555] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Navy UNDET, Apra Outer Harbor, GU AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 700-yard radius on the surface and 1400-yard radius underwater of the Navy underwater detonation operations in the waters of Apra Outer Harbor, Guam. The Coast Guard believes this safety zone regulation is necessary to protect all persons and vessel that would otherwise transit or be within the affected areas from possible safety hazards associated with underwater detonation operations. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Guam.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0555 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this rule, call or email Chief Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (671) 355-4866, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § 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 public interest. The final details for this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the operation to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective dates of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect vessels and waterway users from the hazards associated with this operation.

    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Due to the late notice and inherent danger in underwater detonation exercises, delaying the effective period of this safety zone would be contrary to public interest.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port Guam has determined that potential hazards associated with the U.S. Navy training exercise, which include detonation of underwater explosive on July 28, 2016, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 700-yard radius on the surface and 1400-yard radius underwater of the operation. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the exercise. Mariners and divers approaching too close to such exercises could potentially expose the mariner to flying debris or other hazardous conditions.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 700-yards on the surface and 1400-yards underwater of vessels and machinery being used by the Navy. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters during the underwater detonation exercise. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zones without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will impact a small designated area of waters in Apra Outer Harbor for 8 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such 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 eight hours that will prohibit entry within 700-yards on the surface and 1400-yards underwater of vessels and machinery being used by Navy personnel. 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, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Add § 165.T14-0555 to read as follows:
    § 165.T14-0555 Safety Zone; Navy UNDET, Apra Outer Harbor, GU.

    (a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, are safety zones: Apra Outer Harbor, Guam July 28, 2016. All surface waters bounded by a circle with a 700-yard radius and all underwater areas bounded by a circle with a 1400 yard radius centered at 13°27′42″ North Latitude and 144°38′30″ East Longitude, (NAD 1983).

    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 8 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 28th, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones contained in § 165.23 apply. No vessels may enter or transit safety zones and no persons in the water may enter or transit safety zone unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative thereof.

    (d) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may enforce these temporary safety zones.

    (e) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this section for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the purpose of maritime security.

    (f) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: June 24, 2016. James B. Pruett, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17036 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2010-0062] Safety Zone; Fleet Week Maritime Festival, 2016, Pier 66, Elliott Bay; Seattle, WA AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Fleet Week Maritime Festival's Pier 66 Safety Zone in Elliott Bay, WA will be subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 2, 2016, but within this time period the zone will only be enforced 30 minutes prior to the beginning, during, and 30 minutes following the conclusion of the parade of ships. This action is necessary to promote safety on navigable waters. During the enforcement period, entry into, transit through, mooring, or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1330 will be subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 2, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this notice of enforcement, call or email LT Kate Haseley, Sector Puget Sound Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (206) 217-6051, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The safety zone for the Fleet Week Maritime Festival in 33 CFR 165.1330 will be subject to enforcement from 8 a.m. until 8 p.m. on August 2, 2016; however, it will only be enforced 30 minutes prior to the beginning, during, and 30 minutes following the conclusion of the parade of ships. The COTP may issue a general permission to enter the zone during some of this time period if he or she determines the zone need not be enforced for a certain period of time because the parade of ships starts late or ends early. If the COTP issues a general permission to enter, the public would be notified via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

    In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, no vessel operator may enter, transit, moor, or anchor within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative, thirty minutes prior to the beginning, during, and thirty minutes following the conclusion of the Parade of Ships. The Captain of the Port may be assisted by other federal, state, or local agencies as needed.

    In order to transit through this safety zone, authorization must be granted by the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound or his designated representative. All vessel operators desiring entry into this safety zone shall gain authorization by contacting either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16, or Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via telephone at (206) 217-6002. Vessel operators granted permission to enter this safety zone will be escorted by the on-scene patrol until no longer within the safety zone.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.1330 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with advanced notification of the safety zone via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the Captain of the Port determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice of enforcement, he may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. M.W. Raymond, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16979 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0221; FRL-9948-89-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; Utah AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 10, 2012 and August 29, 2014. These submittals request SIP revisions to remove changes to the major source baseline date that were disapproved by the EPA on July 15, 2011. The submittals also address the EPA's February 6, 2014 disapproval of several permit rules related to the public availability of good engineering practice stack height demonstrations in the public comment process for an approval order, and the process for making emission reductions enforceable in an approval order. The EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 19, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 18, 2016. If adverse comments are received, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0221, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Why is EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are received on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

    If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

    II. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    A. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA through www.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.

    B. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

    • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).

    • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.

    • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.

    • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.

    • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.

    • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives.

    • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

    III. Analysis of the State Submittals

    Utah's February 10, 2012 submittal removes changes to the major source baseline date that were disapproved by the EPA on July 15, 2011. The EPA disapproved R307-405-3(3)(a)(i) because it defined “Major Source Baseline Date” in a manner inconsistent with the federal definition found at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(14). The EPA approves these revisions.

    The August 29, 2014 SIP revisions address the EPA's February 6, 2014 disapproval of R307-410-2, Permits: Emissions Impact Analysis, Definitions; R307-410-6, Permits: Emissions Impact Analysis, Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques; and R307-401-12, Permit: New and Modified Sources, Reduction in Air Contaminants. The submittal also amends R307-410-2 to incorporate by reference the date of the Code of Federal Regulations referenced in R307-101-3. The EPA approves these revisions. The submittal amends R307-410-6 to require the director to notify the public of the availability of a demonstration that the source stack height meets good engineering practice, and to provide an opportunity for public hearing on it as required by 40 CFR 51.164. This conforms to what is required by R307-401-7, Public Notice, and the EPA approves this revision.

    Finally, the submittal amends R307-401-12 to exempt an owner or operator of a stationary source of air contaminants that reduces or eliminates air contaminants from the requirement to submit a notice of intent and obtain an approval order prior to construction if certain conditions are met. Those conditions are: a) the project does not increase the potential to emit of any air contaminant or cause emissions of any new air contaminant; and b) the director is notified of the change and the reduction of air contaminants is made enforceable through an approval order in accordance with the notification requirements of R307-401-12. The EPA approves these revisions.

    IV. What action is the EPA taking today?

    The EPA is taking direct final action to approve the SIP revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 10, 2012 and August 29, 2014. The EPA is approving the proposed SIP revisions as a direct final action without prior proposal because the agency views the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register publication, the EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions if adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective September 19, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 18, 2016. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Utah rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan, have been incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.1 The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

    1 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state actions, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this direct final action merely approves a state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact in a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 19, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that the EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart TT—Utah 2. Section 52.2320 paragraph (c) is amended by: a. In the table, under the heading “R307-401, Permit: New and Modified Sources”, adding in numerical order, a table entry for “R307-401-12”; b. In the table, under the heading “R307-405. Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD)” revising the table entry for “R307-405-03”; and c. In the table, under the heading “R307-410. Permits: Emissions Impact Analysis”, revising the table entries for “R307-410-02” and “R307-410-06”.

    The revisions and addition read as follows:

    § 52.2320 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    Rule No. Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-401. Permit: New and Modified Sources *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-401-12 Reduction in Air Contaminants 08/07/2014 7/19/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-405. Permits: Major Sources in Attainment or Unclassified Areas (PSD) *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-405-03 Definitions 02/02/2012 7/19/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-410. Permits: Emissions Impact Analysis *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-410-02 Definitions 08/07/2014 7/19/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         * R307-410-06 Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques 08/07/2014 7/19/2016. [Insert Federal Register citation] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-16963 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 141 [EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281; FRL-9948-54-OW] Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action announces the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) approval of alternative testing methods for use in measuring the levels of contaminants in drinking water and determining compliance with national primary drinking water regulations. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to approve the use of alternative testing methods through publication in the Federal Register. EPA is using this streamlined authority to make 16 additional methods available for analyzing drinking water samples. This expedited approach provides public water systems, laboratories, and primacy agencies with more timely access to new measurement techniques and greater flexibility in the selection of analytical methods, thereby reducing monitoring costs while maintaining public health protection.

    DATES:

    This action is effective July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-2016-0281. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Safe Drinking Water Hotline (800) 426-4791 or Glynda Smith, Technical Support Center, Standards and Risk Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (MS 140), Environmental Protection Agency, 26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; telephone number: (513) 569-7652; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. General Information A. Does this action apply to me?

    Public water systems are the regulated entities required to measure contaminants in drinking water samples. In addition, EPA Regions as well as states and tribal governments with authority to administer the regulatory program for public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) may measure contaminants in water samples. When EPA sets a monitoring requirement in its national primary drinking water regulations for a given contaminant, the Agency also establishes in the regulations standardized test procedures for analysis of the contaminant. This action makes alternative testing methods available for particular drinking water contaminants beyond the testing methods currently established in the regulations. EPA is providing public water systems required to test water samples with a choice of using either a test procedure already established in the existing regulations or an alternative test procedure that has been approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. Categories and entities that may ultimately be affected by this action include:

    Category Examples of potentially regulated entities NAICS 1 State, local, & tribal governments State, local and tribal governments that analyze water samples on behalf of public water systems required to conduct such analysis; state, local and tribal governments that directly operate community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor 924110 Industry Private operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor 221310 Municipalities Municipal operators of community and non-transient non-community water systems required to monitor 924110 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be impacted. To determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability language in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 141.2 (definition of public water system). If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Abbreviations and Acronyms Used in This Action APHA: American Public Health Association ATP: Alternate Test Procedure CFR: Code of Federal Regulations DPD: N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency LED: Light Emitting Diode NAICS: North American Industry Classification System NEMI: National Environmental Methods Index NTU: Nephelometric Turbidity Unit QC: Quality Control SDWA: The Safe Drinking Water Act TOC: Total Organic Carbon VCSB: Voluntary Consensus Standard Bodies II. Background A. What is the purpose of this action?

    In this action, EPA is approving 16 analytical methods for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under SDWA. Regulated parties required to sample and monitor may use either the testing methods already established in existing regulations or the alternative testing methods being approved in this action or in prior expedited approval actions. The new methods are listed along with other methods similarly approved through previous expedited actions in 40 CFR part 141, appendix A to subpart C and on EPA's drinking water methods Web site at https://www.epa.gov/dwanalyticalmethods.

    B. What is the basis for this action?

    When EPA determines that an alternative analytical method is “equally effective” (i.e., as effective as a method that has already been promulgated in the regulations), SDWA allows EPA to approve the use of the alternative method through publication in the Federal Register (see Section 1401(1) of SDWA). EPA is using this streamlined approval authority to make 16 additional methods available for determining contaminant concentrations in drinking water samples collected under SDWA. EPA has determined that, for each contaminant or group of contaminants listed in Section III, the additional testing methods being approved in this action are as effective as one or more of the testing methods already approved in the regulations for those contaminants. Section 1401(1) of SDWA states that the newly approved methods “shall be treated as an alternative for public water systems to the quality control and testing procedures listed in the regulation.” Accordingly, this action makes these additional 16 analytical methods legally available as options for meeting EPA's monitoring requirements.

    This action does not add regulatory language, but does, for informational purposes, update an appendix to the regulations at 40 CFR part 141 that lists all methods approved under Section 1401(1) of SDWA. Accordingly, while this action is not a rule, it is updating CFR text and therefore is being published in the “Final Rules” section of the Federal Register.

    III. Summary of Approvals

    EPA is approving 16 methods that are equally effective relative to methods previously promulgated in the regulations. By means of this rule, these 16 methods are added to appendix A to subpart C of 40 CFR part 141.

    A. Methods developed by Voluntary Consensus Standard Bodies (VCSB)

    ASTM International. EPA compared the most recent versions of seven ASTM International methods to the earlier versions of those methods that are currently approved in 40 CFR part 141. Changes between the earlier approved version and the most recent version of each method are summarized in Smith (2015). The revisions primarily involve editorial changes (e.g., updated references, definitions, terminology, procedural clarifications, and reorganization of text). The revised methods are the same as the approved versions with respect to sample collection and handling protocols, sample preparation, analytical methodology, and method performance data; thus, EPA finds they are equally effective relative to the approved methods.

    EPA is thus approving the use of the following ASTM methods for the contaminants and their respective regulations listed in the following table:

    ASTM revised version Approved method Contaminant Regulation D 1253-14 (ASTM 2014a) D 1253-03 (ASTM 2003a) Free Chlorine; Total Chlorine 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2); 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1). D 1253-14 (ASTM 2014a) D 1253-03 (ASTM 2003a) Combined Chlorine 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1). D 1125-14 A (ASTM 2014b) D 1125-95 A (ASTM 1995) Conductivity 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). D 511-14 A (ASTM 2014c) D 511-03 A (ASTM 2003b) Calcium; Magnesium 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). D 511-14 B (ASTM 2014c) D 511-03 B (ASTM 2003b) Calcium; Magnesium 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). D 1688-12 A (ASTM 2012a) D 1688-02 A (ASTM 2002a) Copper 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). D 1688-12 C (ASTM 2012a) D 1688-02 C (ASTM 2002a) Copper 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). D 3697-12 (ASTM 2012b) D 3697-02 (ASTM 2002b) Antimony 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1).

    The ASTM methods are available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or http://www.astm.org.

    B. Methods Developed by Vendors

    1. Hach Method 10241—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Free Chlorine (Cl2) in Finished Drinking Water (Hach Company 2015a). In Hach Method 10241, free chlorine is converted to monochloramine by addition of an ammonia solution to a drinking water sample. In the presence of a cyanoferrate catalyst, monochloramine reacts with a substituted phenol to form an intermediate monoamine compound. The intermediate monoamine compound couples with excess substituted phenol to form a green indophenol compound. Spectrophotometric measurement of absorbance at 655 nm (610 nm for colorimeters) is directly proportional to the concentration of free chlorine in the sample.

    The currently approved methods for free chlorine in drinking water are listed in the tables at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2) and 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1). One of the most widely used approved methods is Standard Method 4500-Cl G-00 (APHA 2000a), which uses a N,N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine (DPD) indicator for spectrophotometric determination of residual chlorine concentrations in drinking water. The DPD methodology can be subject to interferences associated with the presence of manganese, chloramines, and other oxidants. Hach Method 10241 is not subject to such interferences.

    A multi-laboratory study compared the performance characteristics of Hach Method 10241 to the performance characteristics of the approved Standard Method 4500-Cl G-00. A variety of samples, including drinking water samples from both surface water and ground water sources, were fortified with known chlorine concentrations and analyzed by each method. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2015b). EPA has determined that Hach Method 10241 is equally as effective as the approved Standard Method 4500-Cl G-00. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 10241 for determining free chlorine concentrations in drinking water. Hach Method 10241 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com.)

    2. Hach Method 8026—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water (Hach Company 2015c). In Hach Method 8026, cuprous copper is measured colorimetrically by complexation with bicinchoninic acid. The intensity in color is proportional to the copper concentration, and spectrophotometer measurements are taken at 560 nm. Cupric copper present in samples is chemically reduced to cuprous copper. Metal and hardness interferences in samples are mitigated through the use of a chelating agent. The method is performed by the addition of powder pillows containing reagents to the water samples.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of copper in drinking water are listed in the table at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). The approved methods are based on atomic spectroscopy technologies. Hach Method 8026 employs a spectrophotometer, and is based on known complexation principles and simple color/absorbance measurements to determine copper concentrations.

    A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted to compare the performance of Hach Method 8026 to EPA Method 200.7 (USEPA 1994), one of the approved methods for the analysis of copper in drinking water. Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of copper standards. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2015d). EPA has determined that Hach Method 8026 is equally as effective as the approved EPA Method 200.7. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 8026 for the analysis of copper in drinking water. Hach Method 8026 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com).

    3. Hach Method 10261—Total Organic Carbon in Finished Drinking Water by Catalyzed Ozone Hydroxyl Radical Oxidation Infrared Analysis (Hach Company 2015e). Hach Method 10261 is a method for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in drinking water using an advanced oxidation process and non-dispersive infrared spectroscopy. In this method, ozone and a base are added to water to produce hydroxyl radicals. The hydroxyl radicals oxidize organic carbon to produce carbon dioxide and sodium oxalate. The sodium oxalate is further oxidized to carbon dioxide using acidification and a manganese catalyst. The carbon dioxide produced by both oxidation processes is then measured using non-dispersive infrared spectroscopy.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of TOC in drinking water are listed in 40 CFR 141.131(d)(3). The approved oxidation method, Standard Method 5310 C-00 (APHA 2000b), may not completely oxidize certain organic compounds. Hach Method 10261 uses a more efficient advanced oxidation process to ensure more complete oxidation.

    A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted to compare the performance of Hach Method 10261 to the approved Standard Method 5310 C-00. Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of TOC. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2015f). EPA has determined that Hach Method 10261 is equally as effective as the approved Standard Method 5310 C-00. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 10261 for the analysis of TOC in drinking water. Hach Method 10261 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com).

    4. Hach Method 10267—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Finished Drinking Water (Hach Company 2015g). Hach Method 10267 is used for the determination of TOC in drinking water using acid persulfate digestion and visible spectrum spectrophotometry. In this method, samples are oxidized using acid persulfate digestions to convert TOC into carbon dioxide. The generated carbon dioxide is passed through a gas-permeable membrane into an indicator solution that is measured spectrophotometrically at 435 nm. Hach Method 10267 uses pre-packaged reagents to simplify sample preparation and quickly perform the analysis. Interfering inorganic carbon is removed from the sample prior to digestion by acidification and agitation.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of TOC in drinking water are listed in 40 CFR 141.131(d)(3). A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted to compare the performance of Hach Method 10267 to the approved Standard Method 5310 C-00 (APHA 200b). Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of TOC. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2015h). EPA has determined that Hach Method 10267 is equally as effective as the approved Standard Method 5310 C-00. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 10267 for the analysis of TOC in drinking water. Hach Method 10267 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com).

    5. Hach Method 10272—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water (Hach Company 2015i). In Hach Method 10272, cuprous copper is measured colorimetrically by complexation with bicinchoninic acid. The intensity in color is proportional to the copper concentration, and spectrophotometer measurements are taken at 560 nm. Cupric copper present in samples is chemically reduced to cuprous copper. Metal and hardness interferences in samples are mitigated through the use of a chelating agent. The method is performed through the use of a copper Chemkey and portable analyzer.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of copper in drinking water are listed in the table at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). The approved methods are based on atomic spectroscopy technologies. Hach Method 10272 uses a spectrophotometer, simple color/absorbance measurements to determine copper concentrations, and incorporates portability and streamlining into the analysis.

    A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted to compare the performance of Hach Method 10272 to EPA Method 200.7 (USEPA 1994), one of the approved methods for the analysis of copper in drinking water. Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of copper standards. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2015j). EPA has determined that Hach Method 10272 is equally as effective as the approved EPA Method 200.7. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 10272 for the analysis of copper in drinking water. Hach Method 10272 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com).

    6. Hach Method 10258—Determination of Turbidity by 360° Nephelometry (Hach Company 2016). In Hach Method 10258 turbidity is determined in conventional-filtered and membrane-filtered treated drinking water using a 360 degree nephelometer. In this method, a non-incandescent light source operates at a wavelength of 660 + 30 nm and light scattered by the sample is collected and detected at an angle 90 degrees to the incident light, 360 degrees around the sample vial. This design offers improved sensitivity (minimum quantitation limit of 0.0005 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) and resolution (0.0001 NTU) relative to the approved methods.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of turbidity in treated drinking water are listed in the regulations at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1). A multi-facility validation study was conducted to compare the performance of Hach Method 10258 to the approved Hach FilterTrak Method 10133 (Hach Company 2000) for the analysis of turbidity in treated drinking water. Seven public drinking water facilities participated in the study. Three facilities produced treated water using both conventional-filtration and membrane-filtration, two facilities produced only conventional-filtration treated water, and two facilities produced only membrane-filtration treated water. Source waters encompassed both surface waters and ground waters under the direct influence of surface water. Turbidity comparison data were collected at each facility by operating the instrument collecting the Hach Method 10258 turbidity data in parallel with an instrument collecting turbidity data using the approved Hach FilterTrack Method 10133. Precision and accuracy (based on recovery of matrix spike injections) data were collected over a range of spike levels (0.0015-0.500 NTU) and calibration verification data were collected from each facility. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Hach Company 2014). EPA has determined that Hach Method 10258 is equally as effective as the approved Hach FilterTrak Method 10133. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Hach Method 10258 for the analysis of turbidity in treated drinking water. Hach Method 10258 can be obtained from Hach Company, 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (http://www.hach.com).

    7. Nitrate Elimination Company, Inc. (NECi)—Method for Nitrate Reductase Nitrate-Nitrogen Analysis of Drinking Water (NECi 2016a). The NECi nitrate reductase method is used for the determination of nitrate plus nitrite (as nitrogen) in drinking water. In this method, a eukaryotic nitrate reductase is used to catalyze the conversion of nitrate to nitrite in the presence of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide as a reductant in a buffer with a near neutral pH. The combined nitrite (both the original and reduced nitrate) is reacted with sulfanilamide and N-(1-napthyl) ethylenediamine dihydrochloride to produce a chromophore. The combined nitrite concentration is then measured spectrophotometrically at ~540 nm. The method entails the use of a discrete analyzer that incorporates a spectrophotometric detector.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water are listed in 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). The approved EPA Method 353.2 (USEPA 1993a) uses cadmium to reduce nitrate to nitrite and subsequently measures the combined nitrite colorimetrically. The NECi nitrate reductase method provides an environmentally friendly approach to nitrate-nitrogen analysis by eliminating the use of toxic cadmium and requires only a fraction of the sample volume used in the approved EPA method.

    A multi-laboratory validation study was conducted to compare the performance of the NECi nitrate reductase method to the approved EPA Method 353.2. Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of nitrate standards. The results are summarized in the validation study report (NECi 2016b). EPA has determined that the NECi nitrate reductase method is equally as effective as the approved EPA Method 353.2. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams and Wendelken (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving the NECi nitrate reductase method for the analysis of nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. The NECi nitrate reductase method can be obtained from the Nitrate Elimination Company, Inc. (NECi) at Superior Enzymes, Inc., 334 Hecla St., Lake Linden, Michigan 49945.

    8. Thermo Fisher Scientific Drinking Water Orthophosphate Method for Thermo Scientific Gallery Discrete Analyzer (Thermo Fisher 2016a). The Thermo Fisher orthophosphate drinking water method employing Thermo Scientific Gallery discrete analyzers is used for the colorimetric determination of orthophosphate in drinking water. In this method, orthophosphate is reacted with ammonium molybdate and antimony potassium tartrate in an acidic medium to form an antimony-phospho-molybdate complex. The complex is subsequently reduced by ascorbic acid to form an intensely blue complex that can be measured spectrophotometrically at 880 nm.

    The currently approved methods for the analysis of orthophosphate in drinking water are listed in 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1). Standard Methods 4500-P E (APHA, 1995) is an approved method that uses ascorbic acid to reduce reacted orthophosphate into a complex that can be measured spectrophotometrically. The Thermo Fisher orthophosphate method incorporates an automated discrete analyzer, which minimizes the use of chemical reagents, generation of waste and human handling errors.

    A validation study was conducted to compare the performance of the automated Thermo Fisher orthophosphate discrete analyzer method to the approved Standard Method 4500-P E. Multiple finished drinking water samples drawn from both ground water and surface water sources were used in the validation study. Precision, accuracy and sensitivity data were collected by analyzing drinking water samples fortified with varying concentrations of orthophosphate standards. The results are summarized in the validation study report (Thermo Fisher 2016b). EPA has determined that the Thermo Fisher discrete analyzer method for orthophosphate is equally as effective as the approved Standard Method 4500-P E. Therefore, EPA is approving the Thermo Fisher method for the analysis of orthophosphate in treated drinking water. The basis for this determination is discussed in Adams (2016). The Thermo Fisher discrete analyzer method for orthophosphate can be obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ratastie 2, 01620 Vantaa, Finland.

    9. Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.2—Determination of Turbidity by LED or Laser Nephelometry (Mitchell 2016). Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.1 (Mitchell 2009) was approved for the determination of turbidity in drinking water by light emitting diode (LED) nephelometry in the August 2009 expedited methods approval action (USEPA 2009). The currently approved methods for turbidity are listed in 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1) and different sources, including lasers, have been approved. The Mitchell Method M5331 has been updated to incorporate the option of using a solid-state laser in place of a LED as the light source for the turbidimeter. The vendor cites multiple advantages associated with the use of lasers relative to LEDs (Mitchell 2015). Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.1 specifies a light source of 525 ± 15 nm, and now lasers at 520 nm and 532 nm are readily available. In addition to meeting the specified wavelength range, solid-state lasers can offer longer source lifetimes, greater stability, and improved stray light rejection. The updated method is the same as the approved Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.1 relative to the divergence of the light source measurement area, the detector, and all other instrumental features. EPA has determined that the updated method is equally as effective as the promulgated EPA Method 180.1 (USEPA 1993b), which established the criteria for nephelometric determination of turbidity. The basis for this determination is discussed in Wendelken and Smith (2016). Therefore, EPA is approving Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.2 for the determination of turbidity in drinking water. Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.2 can be obtained from Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado 81507.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    As noted in Section II, under the terms of SDWA Section 1401(1), this streamlined method approval action is not a rule. Accordingly, the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Similarly, this action is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act because it is not subject to notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. In addition, because this approval action is not a rule but simply makes alternative testing methods available as options for monitoring under SDWA, EPA has concluded that other statutes and executive orders generally applicable to rulemaking do not apply to this approval action.

    V. References Adams. 2016. Memo to the record describing basis for expedited approval of Thermo Fisher discrete analyzer method for orthophosphate. February 18, 2016. Adams and Smith. 2016. Memo to the record describing basis for expedited approval of Hach Company methods. February 29, 2016. Adams and Wendelken. 2016. Memo to the record describing basis for expedited approval of Nitrate Elimination Company Inc. (NECi) nitrate reductase method. February 9, 2016. American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. 19th Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association, 800 I Street NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710. American Public Health Association (APHA). 2000a. Standard Method 4500-Cl G-00, Chlorine (Residual)—DPD Colorimetric Method. Approved by Standard Methods Committee 2000. Standard Methods Online (Available at http://www.standardmethods.org). American Public Health Association (APHA). 2000b. Standard Method 5310 C-00, Total Organic Carbon (TOC)—Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated Persulfate Oxidation Method. Approved by Standard Methods Committee 2000. Standard Methods Online (Available at http://www.standardmethods.org). ASTM International. 1995. ASTM D 1125-95 A. Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2002a. ASTM D 1688-02 A, C. Standard Test Methods for Copper in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2002b. ASTM D 3697-02. Standard Test Method for Antimony in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2003a. ASTM D 1253-03. Standard Test Method for Residual Chlorine in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2003b. ASTM D 511-03 A, B. Standard Test Methods for Calcium and Magnesium in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2012a. ASTM D 1688-12 A, C. Standard Test Methods for Copper in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2012b. ASTM D 3697-12. Standard Test Method for Antimony in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2014a. ASTM D 1253-14. Standard Test Method for Residual Chlorine in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2014b. ASTM D 1125-14 A. Standard Test Methods for Electrical Conductivity and Resistivity of Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) ASTM International. 2014c. ASTM D 511-14 A, B. Standard Test Methods for Calcium and Magnesium in Water. ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. (Available at http://www.astm.org.) Hach Company. 2000. Hach FilterTrak Method 10133—Determination of Turbidity by Laser Nephelometry. January 2000. Revision 2.0. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2014. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 10258—Measurement of Turbidity in Drinking Water by 360 Degree Nephelometry. December 2014. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2015a. Hach Method 10241—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Free Chlorine (Cl2) in Finished Drinking Water. November 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2015b. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 10241—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Free Chlorine in Drinking Water. November 2015. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2015c. Hach Method 8026—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water. December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2015d. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 8026—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Drinking Water. November 2015. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2015e. Hach Method 10261—Total Organic Carbon in Finished Drinking Water by Catalyzed Ozone Hydroxyl Radical Oxidation Infrared Analysis. December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2015f. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 10261—Total Organic Carbon in Finished Drinking Water by Catalyzed Ozone Hydroxyl Radical Oxidation Infrared Analysis. December 2015. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2015g. Hach Method 10267—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Finished Drinking Water. December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2015h. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 10267—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Finished Drinking Water. December 2015. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2015i. Hach Method 10272—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water. December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Hach Company. 2015j. Validation Study Report for Hach Method 10272—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water. December 2015. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Hach Company. 2016. Hach Method 10258—Determination of Turbidity by 360° Nephelometry. January 2016. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.) Mitchell, L. and Mitchell, P. 2009. Mitchell Method M5331—Determination of Turbidity by LED Nephelometry. March 2009. Revision 1.1. Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Drive, Grand Junction, CO 81507. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Mitchell, L. 2015. Mitchell ATP Submission with Justification for Revision to Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.1. September 2015. Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Drive, Grand Junction, CO 81507. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Mitchell, L. and Mitchell, P. 2016. Mitchell Method M5331—Determination of Turbidity by LED or Laser Nephelometry. February 2016. Revision 1.2. Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Drive, Grand Junction, CO 81507. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Nitrate Elimination Company, Inc. (NECi). 2016a. Method for Nitrate Reductase Nitrate-Nitrogen Analysis of Drinking Water. February 2016. Version 1.0. Revision 2.0. Superior Enzymes, Inc., 334 Hecla Street, Lake Linden, Michigan 49945. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Nitrate Elimination Company, Inc. (NECi). 2016b. Validation Study Report for NECi Nitrate-Reductase Nitrate plus Nitrite Nitrogen Method. January 2016. Superior Enzymes, Inc., 334 Hecla Street, Lake Linden, Michigan 49945. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Smith, G. 2015. Memo to the record describing basis for expedited approval of updated methods from ASTM International. December 30, 2015. Thermo Fisher. 2016a. Thermo Fisher Scientific Drinking Water Orthophosphate Method for Thermo Scientific Gallery Discrete Analyzer. February 2016. Revision 5. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ratastie 2, 01620 Vantaa, Finland. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) Thermo Fisher. 2016b. Validation Study Report for Thermo Fisher Orthophosphate Discrete Analyzer Method. February 2016. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ratastie 2, 01620 Vantaa, Finland. (Available at http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0281.) USEPA. 1993a. EPA Method 353.2. Revision 2.0, “Determination of Nitrate-Nitrite Nitrogen by Automated Colorimetry,” August 1993. (Available at https://www.nemi.gov.) USEPA. 1993b. EPA Method 180.1. Revision 2.0, “Determination of Turbidity by Nephelometry,” August 1993. (Available at https://www.nemi.gov.) USEPA. 1994. EPA Method 200.7. Revision 4.4, “Determination of Metals and Trace Elements in Water and Wastes by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry,” May 1994. (Available at https://www.nemi.gov.) USEPA. 2009. Expedited Approval of Alternative Test Procedures for the Analysis of Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Analysis and Sampling Procedures, 74 FR 38348, August 3, 2009. Wendelken and Smith. 2016. Memo to record describing basis for expedited approval of Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.2. February 24, 2016. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 141

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.

    Dated: July 7, 2016. Peter Grevatt, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR part 141 is amended as follows:

    PART 141—NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 300f, 300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-4, 300j-9, and 300j-11.

    2. Appendix A to subpart c of part 141 is amended as follows: a. By revising entries for “Antimony,” “Calcium,” “Copper,” “Conductivity,” “Magnesium,” “Nitrate,” “Nitrite,” and “Orthophosphate,” in the table entitled “ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS FOR CONTAMINANTS LISTED AT 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1).” b. By revising the entry for “Turbidity” in the table entitled “ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS FOR CONTAMINANTS LISTED AT 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1).” c. By revising entries for “Free Chlorine” and “Total Chlorine” in the table entitled “ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS FOR DISINFECTANT RESIDUALS LISTED AT 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2).” d. By revising the entries for “Free Chlorine”, “Combined Chlorine,” and “Total Chlorine” in the table entitled “ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS FOR DISINFECTANT RESIDUALS LISTED AT 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1).” e. By revising the entire table entitled “ALTERNATIVE TESTING METHODS FOR PARAMETERS LISTED AT 40 CFR 141.131(d).” f. By revising footnotes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 24-27, 29, and 33. g. By adding footnotes 34-42 to the table.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:

    Appendix A to Subpart C of Part 141—Alternative Testing Methods Approved for Analyses Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.23(k)(1) Contaminant Methodology EPA method SM 21st Edition 1 SM 22nd
  • Edition 28
  • SM Online 3 ASTM 4 Other
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * Antimony Hydride-Atomic Absorption D 3697-07, -12 Atomic Absorption; Furnace 3113 B 3113 B 3113 B-04, B-10 Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) 200.5, Revision 4.2.2 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Calcium EDTA Titrimetric 3500-Ca B 3500-Ca B D 511-09, -14 A Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration 3111 B 3111 B D 511-90, -14 B Inductively Coupled Plasma 3120 B 3120 B Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) 200.5, Revision 4.2.2 Ion Chromatography D 6919-09 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Copper Atomic Absorption; Furnace 3113 B 3113 B 3113 B-04, B-10 D 1688-07, -12 C Atomic Absorption; Direct Aspiration 3111 B 3111 B D 1688-07, -12 A Inductively Coupled Plasma 3120 B 3120 B Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) 200.5, Revision 4.2.2 Colorimetric Hach Method 8026 35 Hach Method 10272.36 Conductivity Conductance 2510 B 2510 B D 1125-14 A *         *         *         *         *         *         * Magnesium Atomic Absorption 3111 B 3111 B D 511-09, −14 B Inductively Coupled Plasma 3120 B 3120 B Complexation Titrimetric Methods 3500-Mg B 3500-Mg B D 511-09, -14 A Axially viewed inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry (AVICP-AES) 200.5, Revision 4.2.2 Ion Chromatography D 6919-09 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Nitrate Ion Chromatography 4110 B 4110 B D 4327-11 Automated Cadmium Reduction 4500-NO3 - F 4500-NO3 - F Manual Cadmium Reduction 4500-NO3 - E 4500-NO3 - E Ion Selective Electrode 4500-NO3 - D 4500-NO3 - D Reduction/Colorimetric Systea Easy (1-Reagent) 8 NECi Nitrate-Reductase.40 Colorimetric; Direct Hach TNTplus TM 835/836 Method 10206.23 Nitrite Ion Chromatography 4110 B 4110 B D 4327-11 Automated Cadmium Reduction 4500-NO3 - F 4500-NO3 - F Manual Cadmium Reduction 4500-NO3 - E 4500-NO3 - E Spectrophotometric 4500-NO2 - B 4500-NO2 - B Reduction/Colorimetric Systea Easy (1-Reagent) 8 NECi Nitrate-Reductase.40 Orthophosphate Ion Chromatography 4110 B 4110 B D 4327-11 Colorimetric, ascorbic acid, single reagent 4500-P E 4500-P E 4500-P E-99 Colorimetric, Automated, Ascorbic Acid 4500-P F 4500-P F 4500-P F-99 Thermo-Fisher Discrete Analyzer.41 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Alternative Testing Methods for Contaminants Listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(1) Organism Methodology SM 21st Edition 1 SM 22nd Edition 28 SM Online 3 Other *         *         *         *         *         *         * Turbidity Nephelometric Method 2130 B 2130 B Laser Nephelometry (on-line) Mitchell M5271,10 Mitchell M5331, Rev. 1.2.42 LED Nephelometry (on-line) Mitchell M5331,11 Mitchell M5331, Rev. 1.2.42 LED Nephelometry (on-line) AMI Turbiwell.15 LED Nephelometry (portable) Orion AQ4500.12 360° Nephelometry Hach Method 10258.39 Alternative Testing Methods for Disinfectant Residuals Listed at 40 CFR 141.74(a)(2) Residual Methodology SM 21st Edition 1 SM 22nd Edition 28 ASTM 4 Other Free Chlorine Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl D 4500-Cl D D 1253-08, −14 DPD Ferrous Titrimetric 4500-Cl F 4500-Cl F DPD Colorimetric 4500-Cl G 4500-Cl G Hach Method 10260.31 Syringaldazine (FACTS) 4500-Cl H 4500-Cl H On-line Chlorine Analyzer EPA 334.0.16 Amperometric Sensor ChloroSense.17 Indophenol Colorimetric Hach Method 10241.34 Total Chlorine Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl D 4500-Cl D D 1253-08, −14 Amperometric Titration (Low level measurement) 4500-Cl E 4500-Cl E DPD Ferrous Titrimetric 4500-Cl F 4500-Cl F DPD Colorimetric 4500-Cl G 4500-Cl G Hach Method 10260.31 Iodometric Electrode 4500-Cl I 4500-Cl I On-line Chlorine Analyzer EPA 334.0.16 Amperometric Sensor ChloroSense.17 *         *         *         *         *         *         * Alternative Testing Methods for Disinfectant Residuals Listed at 40 CFR 141.131(c)(1) Residual Methodology SM 21st
  • Edition 1
  • SM 22nd
  • Edition 28
  • ASTM 4 Other
    Free Chlorine Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl D 4500-Cl D D 1253-08, −14 DPD Ferrous Titrimetric 4500-Cl F 4500-Cl F DPD Colorimetric 4500-Cl G 4500-Cl G Hach Method 10260.31 Syringaldazine (FACTS) 4500-Cl H 4500-Cl H Amperometric Sensor ChloroSense.17 On-line Chlorine Analyzer EPA 334.0.16 Indophenol Colorimetric Hach Method 10241.34 Combined Chlorine Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl D 4500-Cl D D 1253-08, −14 DPD Ferrous Titrimetric 4500-Cl F 4500-Cl F DPD Colorimetric 4500-Cl G 4500-Cl G Hach Method 10260.31 Total Chlorine Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl D 4500-Cl D D 1253-08, −14 Low level Amperometric Titration 4500-Cl E 4500-Cl E DPD Ferrous Titrimetric 4500-Cl F 4500-Cl F DPD Colorimetric 4500-Cl G 4500-Cl G Hach Method 10260.31 Iodometric Electrode 4500-Cl I 4500-Cl I Amperometric Sensor ChloroSense.17 On-line Chlorine Analyzer EPA 334.0.16 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Alternative Testing Methods for Parameters Listed at 40 CFR 141.131(d) Parameter Methodology SM 21st Edition 1 SM 22nd Edition 28 SM
  • Online 3
  • EPA Other
    Total Organic Carbon (TOC) High Temperature Combustion 5310 B 5310 B 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated Persulfate Oxidation 5310 C 5310 C 415.3, Rev 1.2 19 Hach Method 10267.38 Wet Oxidation 5310 D 5310 D 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Ozone Oxidation Hach Method 10261.37 Specific Ultraviolet Absorbance (SUVA) Calculation using DOC and UV254 data 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) High Temperature Combustion 5310 B 5310 B 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Persulfate-Ultraviolet or Heated Persulfate Oxidation 5310 C 5310 C 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Wet Oxidation 5310 D 5310 D 415.3, Rev 1.2.19 Ultraviolet absorption at 254 nm (UV254) Spectrophotometry 5910 B 5910 B 5910 B-11 415.3, Rev 1.2.19

    1Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 21st edition (2005). Available from American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.

    2 EPA Method 200.5, Revision 4.2. “Determination of Trace Elements in Drinking Water by Axially Viewed Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectrometry.” 2003. EPA/600/R-06/115. (Available at http://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.)

    3 Standard Methods Online are available at http://www.standardmethods.org. The year in which each method was approved by the Standard Methods Committee is designated by the last two digits in the method number. The methods listed are the only online versions that may be used.

    4 Available from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 or http://astm.org. The methods listed are the only alternative versions that may be used.

    8 Systea Easy (1-Reagent). “Systea Easy (1-Reagent) Nitrate Method,” February 4, 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Systea Scientific, LLC., 900 Jorie Blvd., Suite 35, Oak Brook, IL 60523.

    9 EPA Method 524.3, Version 1.0. “Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,” June 2009. EPA 815-B-09-009. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815B09009”.

    10 Mitchell Method M5271, Revision 1.1. “Determination of Turbidity by Laser Nephelometry,” March 5, 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Dr., Grand Junction, CO 81507.

    11 Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.1. “Determination of Turbidity by LED Nephelometry,” March 5, 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Dr., Grand Junction, CO 81507.

    12 Orion Method AQ4500, Revision 1.0. “Determination of Turbidity by LED Nephelometry,” May 8, 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Thermo Scientific, 166 Cummings Center, Beverly, MA 01915, http://www.thermo.com.

    14 EPA Method 557. “Determination of Haloacetic Acids, Bromate, and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (IC-ESI-MS/MS),” September 2009. EPA 815-B-09-012. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815B09012”.

    15 AMI Turbiwell, “Continuous Measurement of Turbidity Using a SWAN AMI Turbiwell Turbidimeter,” August 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Markus Bernasconi, SWAN Analytische Instrumente AG, Studbachstrasse 13, CH-8340 Hinwil, Switzerland.

    16 EPA Method 334.0. “Determination of Residual Chlorine in Drinking Water Using an On-line Chlorine Analyzer,” September 2009. EPA 815-B-09-013. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815B09013”.

    17 ChloroSense. “Measurement of Free and Total Chlorine in Drinking Water by Palintest ChloroSense,” August 2009. Available at https://www.nemi.gov or from Palintest Ltd, 1455 Jamike Avenue (Suite 100), Erlanger, KY 41018.

    18 EPA Method 302.0. “Determination of Bromate in Drinking Water using Two-Dimensional Ion Chromatography with Suppressed Conductivity Detection,” September 2009. EPA 815-B-09-014. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815B09014”.

    19 EPA 415.3, Revision 1.2. “Determination of Total Organic Carbon and Specific UV Absorbance at 254 nm in Source Water and Drinking Water,” September 2009. EPA/600/R-09/122. Available at http://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.

    23 Hach Company. “Hach Company TNTplus TM 835/836 Nitrate Method 10206—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Nitrate in Water and Wastewater,” January 2011. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, Colorado 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    24 EPA Method 525.3. “Determination of Semivolatile Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water by Solid Phase Extraction and Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” February 2012. EPA/600/R-12/010. Available at http://www.epa.gov/water-research/epa-drinking-water-research-methods.

    25 EPA Method 536. “Determination of Triazine Pesticides and their Degradates in Drinking Water by Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC/ESI-MS/MS),” October 2007. EPA 815-B-07-002. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815B07002”.

    26 EPA Method 523. “Determination of Triazine Pesticides and their Degradates in Drinking Water by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS),” February 2011. EPA 815-R-11-002. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815R11002”.

    27 EPA Method 1623.1. “Cryptosporidium and Giardia in Water by Filtration/IMS/FA,” 2012. EPA-816-R-12-001. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “816R12001”.

    28Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd edition (2012). Available from American Public Health Association, 800 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20001-3710.

    29 EPA Method 524.4, Version 1.0. “Measurement of Purgeable Organic Compounds in Water by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry using Nitrogen Purge Gas,” May 2013. EPA 815-R-13-002. Available at the National Service Center for Environmental Publications (www.epa.gov/nscep). Search “815R13002”.

    31 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10260—Determination of Chlorinated Oxidants (Free and Total) in Water Using Disposable Planar Reagent-filled Cuvettes and Mesofluidic Channel Colorimetry,” April 2013. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    33 Tecta EC/TC. “TechtaTM EC/TC Medium and TechtaTM Instrument: A Presence/Absence Method for the Simultaneous Detection of Total Coliforms and Escherichia coli (E. coli) in Drinking Water,” version 1.0, May 2014. Available from Veolia Water Solutions and Technologies, Suite 4697, Biosciences Complex, 116 Barrie Street, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, K7L 3N6.

    34 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10241—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Free Chlorine (Cl2) in Finished Drinking Water,” November 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    35 Hach Company. “Hach Method 8026—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water,” December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    36 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10272—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Copper in Finished Drinking Water,” December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    37 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10261—Total Organic Carbon in Finished Drinking Water by Catalyzed Ozone Hydroxyl Radical Oxidation Infrared Analysis,” December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    38 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10267—Spectrophotometric Measurement of Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in Finished Drinking Water,” December 2015. Revision 1.2. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    39 Hach Company. “Hach Method 10258—Determination of Turbidity by 360° Nephelometry,” January 2016. 5600 Lindbergh Drive, P.O. Box 389, Loveland, CO 80539. (Available at http://www.hach.com.)

    40 Nitrate Elimination Company, Inc. (NECi). “Method for Nitrate Reductase Nitrate-Nitrogen Analysis of Drinking Water,” February 2016. Superior Enzymes, Inc., 334 Hecla Street, Lake Linden, Michigan 49945.

    41 Thermo Fisher. “Thermo Fisher Scientific Drinking Water Orthophosphate Method for Thermo Scientific Gallery Discrete Analyzer,” February 2016. Revision 5. Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ratastie 2, 01620 Vantaa, Finland.

    42 Mitchell Method M5331, Revision 1.2. “Determination of Turbidity by LED or Laser Nephelometry,” February 2016. Available from Leck Mitchell, Ph.D., PE, 656 Independence Valley Dr., Grand Junction, CO 81507.

    [FR Doc. 2016-16516 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 199 [Docket No. USCG-2006-24412] RIN 1625-AB06 Inspection of Towing Vessels AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; information collection approval.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard announces that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the collection of information described in the Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule published on June 20, 2016. In that rule, which establishes safety regulations governing the inspection, standards, and safety management systems of towing vessels, we stated that before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in the rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information. This document announces that approval. On June 23, 2016, OMB approved this Coast Guard request and assigned this collection of information OMB control number 1625-0117.

    DATES:

    On June 23, 2016, OMB approved a new collection of information assigned OMB control number 1625-0117. That approval expires on June 30, 2019. Based on this OMB approval, the Coast Guard may start enforcing applicable collection of information requirements in the Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2016 (81 FR 40004), starting on that rule's effective date, July 20, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander William Nabach, Project Manager, CG-OES-2, Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-1386, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 23, 2016, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved a new collection of information for the Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule published on June 20, 2016 (81 FR 40004). In that rule, which establishes safety regulations governing the inspection, standards, and safety management systems of towing vessels, we stated that before the Coast Guard could enforce the collection of information requirements in the rule, OMB would need to approve the Coast Guard's request to collect this information. This document announces the approval of that collection which has been assigned OMB control number 1625-0117. OMB's approval of that collection will expire on June 30, 2019.

    On July 12, 2016, OMB approved the insertion of “CFR” in the title of the collection of information so it conforms with the title presented in the final rule: Towing Vessels—Title 46 CFR Subchapter M. We have included that notice of action in the docket as well as OMB's June 23, 2016 notice of action.

    The Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule becomes effective July 20, 2016, and the Coast Guard may start enforcing that rule's applicable collection of information requirements on that date. As noted in the summary of that rule, certain existing towing vessels subject to this rule will have an additional 2 years before having to comply with most of its requirements, but we anticipate receiving applications from organizations seeking to become third-party organizations soon after the rule becomes effective.

    A copy of the two approval memos from OMB and the Inspection of Towing Vessels final rule are in docket USCG-2006-24412 which is available on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2006-24412 in the “Search” box, and clicking “Search.”

    This document, which announces approval of the collection of information assigned OMB control number 1625-0117, is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 14, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17007 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 121004518-3398-01] RIN 0648-XE701 Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; 2016 Recreational Accountability Measures and Closure for Gulf of Mexico Gray Triggerfish AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS implements accountability measures (AMs) for the gray triggerfish recreational sector in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for the 2016 fishing year through this temporary rule. NMFS has determined that the 2015 recreational annual catch limit (ACL) for Gulf gray triggerfish was exceeded; therefore, NMFS reduces the gray triggerfish recreational ACL and annual catch target (ACT) in 2016. NMFS has also determined that the recreational ACT for Gulf gray triggerfish was reached prior to the June 1 annual season closure. Therefore, the gray triggerfish recreational season in the Gulf EEZ will remain closed and will not be re-opening on August 1, 2016. This closure is necessary to protect the Gulf gray triggerfish resource.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m., local time, August 1, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rich Malinowski, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the Gulf reef fish fishery, which includes gray triggerfish, under the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf (FMP). The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared the FMP and NMFS implements the FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. All gray triggerfish weights discussed in this temporary rule are in round weight.

    The 2016 recreational ACL for Gulf gray triggerfish specified in 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(iii) is 241,200 lb (109,406 kg) and the recreational ACT is 217,100 lb (98,475 kg). However, in 2015, the recreational harvest of gray triggerfish exceeded the 2015 recreational ACL by 39,997 lb (18,142 kg). Therefore, consistent with the requirements specified in 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(ii), NMFS reduces the recreational ACL for gray triggerfish in 2016 to 201,223 lb (91,273 kg) and the recreational ACT to 177,123 lb (80,342 kg).

    Under 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(i), NMFS is required to close the recreational sector for gray triggerfish when the recreational ACT is reached, or is projected to be reached, by filing a notification to that effect with the Office of the Federal Register. NMFS has determined the 2016 recreational ACT was reached prior to the annual season closure, which is effective from June 1 through July 31 each year. Accordingly, the recreational sector for Gulf gray triggerfish will not re-open on August 1, because NMFS is closing recreational harvest of triggerfish for the 2016 fishing year effective at 12:01 a.m., local time, August 1, 2016, until 12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2017, the start of the next fishing year.

    During the recreational closure, the bag and possession limits for gray triggerfish in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. The prohibition on possession in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued applies regardless of whether gray triggerfish were harvested in state or Federal waters.

    The recreational sector for gray triggerfish will reopen on January 1, 2017, the beginning of the 2017 recreational fishing year.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, has determined this temporary rule is necessary for the conservation and management of Gulf gray triggerfish and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws.

    This action is taken under 50 CFR 622.41(b)(2)(i) and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    These measures are exempt from the procedures of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the temporary rule is issued without opportunity for prior notice and comment.

    This action responds to the best scientific information available. The Assistant Administrator for NOAA Fisheries (AA), finds that the need to immediately implement this action to close the recreational sector for gray triggerfish constitutes good cause to waive the requirements to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment on this temporary rule pursuant to the authority set forth in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), because such procedures are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Such procedures are unnecessary because the rule establishing the closure provisions was subject to notice and comment, and all that remains is to notify the public of the closure. Such procedures are contrary to the public interest because of the need to immediately implement this action to protect gray triggerfish. Prior notice and opportunity for public comment would require time and would potentially allow the recreational sector to exceed the recreational ACL.

    For the aforementioned reasons, the AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effectiveness of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17043 Filed 7-14-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 138 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5574; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-5] Notice of Proposed Rulemaking AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sonoma County Airport, Napa, CA, by removing an irregular shaped area located approximately 20 miles southwest of Napa County Airport. This airspace area is discontinuous from the airspace surrounding Napa County Airport and is not essential to instrument flight rules (IFR) operation at the airport. This proposal would also update the airport geographic coordinates. This action is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport, with the minimum amount of airspace restriction.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or (202-366-9826). You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-5574; airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tom Clark, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone (425) 203-4511.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-5574; Airspace Docket No. 16ANM-5.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Napa County Airport, Napa, CA, by removing an irregular shaped area located approximately 20 miles southwest of the airport. This airspace area is discontinuous from the airspace surrounding Napa County Airport and is not necessary to support IFR operations. This proposal also would update the airport geographic coordinates to lat. 38°12′48″ N., long. 122°16′51″ W., to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AWA CA E5 Napa, CA [Amended] Napa County Airport, CA (Lat. 38°12′48″ N., long. 122°16′51″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Napa County Airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on June 23, 2016. Tracey Johnson, Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16385 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4282; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-3] Proposed Establishment of Temporary Restricted Areas R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N; Twentynine Palms, CA; Withdrawal AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    This action withdraws the NPRM published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2016, proposing to establish temporary restricted areas R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N, Twentynine Palms, CA. The FAA has determined that withdrawal of that NPRM is warranted due to aeronautical impacts associated with the proposed action.

    DATES:

    Effective date: 0901 UTC, July 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colby Abbott, Airspace Policy Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington DC, 20591; telephone (202) 267-8783.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    History

    An NPRM was published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17619), to establish new temporary restricted areas R-2509E, R-2509W, and R-2509N to accommodate a United States Marine Corps (USMC) Large Scale Exercise (LSE) on new Twentynine Palms lands planned for August 1 to August 18, 2016. The proposed new temporary restricted areas would support live fire activities including anti-tank weapons, mortars, and artillery, as well as Unmanned Aircraft Systems, fixed wing, and rotary wing training activities conducting close air support and live ordnance delivery. Efforts to mitigate the aeronautical impacts associated with the proposed action have been unsuccessful and there is no longer sufficient time remaining to complete the actions required to process the airspace proposal in time for the August 1, 2016, exercise start date. Therefore, the NPRM is being withdrawn.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    The Withdrawal

    In consideration of the foregoing, the NPRM for FR Doc. FAA-2016-4282, Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-3, as published in the Federal Register of March 30, 2016 (81 FR 17619) (FR Doc. 2016-07166), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority:

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

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16922 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0292; FRL-9949-06-Region 9] Approval and Revision of Air Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans; Reconsideration AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a source-specific revision to the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART) at Cholla Generating Station (Cholla). The EPA proposes to find that the SIP revision fulfills the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for BART at Cholla. In conjunction with this proposed approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the federal implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Cholla. We previously partially granted petitions for reconsideration of that FIP from Cholla's owners, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and PacifiCorp. We are now proposing to find that final withdrawal of the FIP, as it applies to Cholla, would constitute our action on APS's and PacifiCorp's petitions for reconsideration of the FIP.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before September 2, 2016. Requests for public hearing must be received on or before August 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0292 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vijay Limaye, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Vijay Limaye can be reached at telephone number (415) 972-3086 and via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to the EPA.

    Table of Contents I. General Information II. Background III. Summary of the Cholla SIP Revision IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Cholla SIP Revision V. Proposed Action VI. Environmental Justice Considerations VII. Incorporation by Reference VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. General Information A. Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    • The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    • The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    • The initials AFUDC mean or refer to Allowance for Funds Used During Construction.

    • The initials APS mean or refer to Arizona Public Service Company.

    • The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.

    • The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

    • The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

    1 Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to “mandatory Class I Federal areas.”

    • The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information.

    • The initials CCM mean or refer to the EPA's Control Cost Manual.

    • The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    • The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

    • The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX burners.

    • The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British thermal units

    • The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

    • The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.

    • The initials PM 10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.

    • The initials RHR mean or refer to the EPA's Regional Haze Rule.

    • The initials RP mean or refer to Reasonable Progress.

    • The initials RPG or RPGs mean or refer to Reasonable Progress Goal(s).

    • The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic Reduction.

    • The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    • The initials SNCR mean or refer to Selective Non-catalytic Reduction

    • The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated over fire air.

    • The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

    B. Docket

    The EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0292 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    C. Public Hearings

    If anyone contacts the EPA by August 3, 2016 requesting to speak at a public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Vijay Limaye at (415) 972-3086 or at [email protected] to request a hearing or to determine if a hearing will be held.

    II. Background A. Statutory and Regulatory Background

    This section provides a brief overview of the requirements of the CAA and RHR, as they apply to this particular action. Please refer to our previous rulemakings on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP for additional background regarding the visibility protection provisions of the CAA and the RHR.2

    2 77 FR 42834, 42837-42839 (July 20, 2012), (Arizona Regional Haze “Phase 1” Rule) 77 FR 75704, 75709-75712 (December 21, 2012), (Arizona Regional Haze “Phase 2” Rule).

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national goal the “prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.” 3 It also directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 (known as “BART-eligible” sources) procure, install, and operate BART. In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.4

    3 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1).

    4 See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.

    In 1999, we promulgated the RHR, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas (Class I areas) 5 by reducing emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.6 Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct an analysis and make a BART determination for each BART-eligible source that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.7 In particular, under CAA section 169A(g)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A), states must analyze and consider the following five factors as part of each source-specific BART analysis: (1) The costs of compliance of each technically feasible control technology, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance of the control technologies, (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology (collectively known as the “five-factor BART analysis”).

    5 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.”

    6 See generally 40 CFR 51.308.

    7 40 CFR 51.308(e).

    In 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (“BART Guidelines”) on July 6, 2005. The BART Guidelines assist states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each such “subject-to-BART” source. In making BART determinations for fossil fuel-fired electric generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, states must use the approaches set forth in the BART Guidelines. States are encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources. In lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an alternative measure as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions than BART (i.e., the alternative must be “better than BART”).8

    8 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).

    In addition to the visibility protection requirements of the CAA and the RHR, SIP revisions concerning regional haze are also subject to the general requirements of CAA section 110. In particular, they are subject to the requirement in CAA section 110(l) that SIP revisions must not “interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in [CAA section 171]), or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA],” as well as the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that SIPs must include enforceable emission limits.

    B. Cholla Generating Station

    Cholla Generating Station consists of four primarily coal-fired electricity generating units with a total plant-wide generating capacity of 1,150 megawatts. Unit 1 is a 126 MW tangentially-fired, dry-bottom boiler that is not BART-eligible. Units 2, 3 and 4 have capacities of 272 MW, 272 MW and 410 MW, respectively, and are tangentially-fired, dry-bottom boilers that are each BART-eligible. Units 1, 2, and 3 are owned and operated by APS and Unit 4 is owned by PacifiCorp and operated by APS.

    C. Summary of State Submittals and EPA Actions 1. 2011 Arizona Regional Haze SIP

    On February 28, 2011, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze SIP under Section 308 of the RHR (“Arizona Regional Haze SIP”) to EPA. This submittal included BART analyses and determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4. ADEQ's BART analyses for Cholla included the following seven steps:

    • Step 1: Identify the Existing Control Technologies in Use at the Source,

    • Step 2: Identify All Available Retrofit Control Options,

    • Step 3: Eliminate All Technically Infeasible Control Options,

    • Step 4: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining Technologies,

    • Step 5: Evaluate the Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts and Document Results,9

    9 We note that, while ADEQ referred to its Step 5 as an evaluation of energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, this step also includes consideration of the costs of compliance and the remaining useful life of the source, consistent with the BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.

    • Step 6: Evaluate Visibility Impacts, and

    • Step 7: Select BART.10

    10 Arizona Regional Haze SIP Revision, Appendix D, section XI.

    2. 2012 EPA Action on Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP

    On December 5, 2012, we issued a final rule approving in part and disapproving in part ADEQ's BART determinations for three sources, including Cholla.11 We found that ADEQ's overall approach to conducting BART analyses and its implementation of the first four steps of its approach were generally reasonable and consistent with the RHR and the BART Guidelines. However, we found significant flaws in ADEQ's implementation of the last three steps. In particular, under step 5, we found that the costs of compliance were not calculated in accordance with the BART Guidelines; under step 6, we found that the visibility benefits were not appropriately evaluated and considered; and under step 7, we found that ADEQ did not provide a sufficient explanation and rationale for its determinations.12 As a result of these flaws, we disapproved ADEQ's BART determinations for NOX at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4. We also found that the SIP lacked enforceable emission limits for all units and pollutants. In the same action, we promulgated a FIP for the disapproved portions of the SIP, including NOX BART determinations for Units 2, 3, and 4. We determined that BART for NOX at Units 2, 3, and 4 was an emission limit of 0.055 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) determined as an average across the three units, based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, which is achievable with the use of low-NOX burners (LNB), overfire air (OFA) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The compliance date for the NOX BART emission limit is December 5, 2017. In addition, we established an SO2 removal efficiency requirement of 95 percent for the scrubbers on Cholla Units 2, 3 and 4. Cholla Units 3 and 4 were required to achieve this removal efficiency by December 5, 2013, and Cholla Unit 2 was required to comply by April 1, 2016. We also established requirements for equipment maintenance, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for all units and all pollutants.

    11 77 FR 72511.

    12 See 77 FR 42834, 42840-42941.

    3. 2015 APS Application for Significant Permit Revision for Cholla Generating Station

    On January 15, 2015, APS and PacifiCorp submitted an “Application for Significant Permit Revision and Five-Factor BART Reassessment for Cholla” to ADEQ. APS and PacifiCorp requested that ADEQ conduct a revised BART analysis and determination based on new facts (“BART Reassessment”) and submit this BART Reassessment to the EPA as a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. Under the Cholla BART Reassessment, APS and PacifiCorp would commit to the following measures in lieu of implementing the FIP requirements for the Cholla Generating Station:

    • Unit 2 would be permanently shut down by April 1, 2016;

    • Unit 3 and Unit 4 would continue to operate with currently installed LNB and separated over fire air (SOFA). In addition, by April 30, 2025, APS and PacifiCorp would permanently cease burning coal at both units with the option to convert to pipeline-quality natural gas by July 31, 2025, with a ≤20 percent annual average capacity factor.

    4. 2015 Arizona Regional Haze SIP Revision for Cholla Generating Station

    On October 22, 2015, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that incorporates the Cholla BART Reassessment (“Cholla SIP Revision”). The Cholla SIP Revision is the subject of this proposal.

    III. Summary of the Cholla SIP Revision

    The Cholla SIP Revision consists of a revised BART analysis and determination for NOX at Cholla, an analysis under CAA section 110(l), and a revision to Cholla's operating permit (“Cholla Permit Revision”) 13 to implement both the revised BART determination for NOX and ADEQ's prior BART determinations for SO2 and PM10 at Cholla. If fully approved by the EPA, the Cholla SIP Revision would fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP that resulted from the EPA's disapproval of ADEQ's BART determinations for NOX at Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4 and the lack of enforceable emission limits for all units and pollutants. Accordingly, full approval of the Cholla SIP Revision would enable the EPA to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Cholla.

    13 Cholla BART SIP Revision, Appendix A Significant Permit Revision No. 61713 to Operating Permit No. 53399 for Arizona Public Service Company Cholla Generating Station (October 16, 2015).

    In the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ determined that, if Unit 2 were shut down by April 1, 2016, no BART determination for Unit 2 would be necessary “because the enforceable shutdown date is within the five-year BART window.” 14 For Units 3 and 4, ADEQ performed a revised BART analysis, taking into account the new requirements that would be imposed as part of the Cholla BART Reassessment. This re-analysis and the resulting BART determinations are summarized in the following sections.

    14 Cholla SIP Revision, section 2.2, page 4.

    A. BART Re-Analysis for Cholla Units 3 and 4

    ADEQ's BART re-analysis for Units 3 and 4 consists of an evaluation of each of the five BART factors, effectively replacing step 5 (evaluation of costs of compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful life) and step 6 (evaluation of visibility benefits) of ADEQ's prior BART analysis for Cholla in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP.

    1. Cost of Compliance

    ADEQ evaluated the costs of compliance for three control options: (1) LNB and SOFA, (2) SNCR with LNB and SOFA, and (3) SCR with LNB and SOFA. Two fuel-use scenarios were used as a comparison: (1) Twenty years of operation on coal and (2) eight years of operation on coal followed by twelve years of operation on natural gas (as provided for under the BART Reassessment). The cost-effectiveness values for each control option under each of these scenarios are shown in Tables 1 and 2. For all options, the costs associated with the BART Reassessment are due to lower utilization periods (coal firing until 2025 instead of for 20 years) as well as significantly lower NOX emissions after conversion to natural gas.

    Table 1—Cost-Effectiveness of NOX Control Options at Cholla Assuming 20 Years of Operation on Coal Unit Control option Average Annual cost
  • ($/year)
  • Emission
  • reduction
  • relative to
  • baseline
  • (ton/year)
  • Average cost-effectiveness
  • ($/ton)
  • Incremental a Incremental annual cost
  • ($/year)
  • Incremental emission
  • reduction
  • (ton/year)
  • Incremental cost-
  • effectiveness
  • ($/ton)
  • 3 LNB and SOFA $483,300 1,219 $396 SNCR with LNB and SOFA 3,070,443 1,911 1,607 2,587,143 691 3,742 SCR with LNB and SOFA 9,448,912 3,300 2,838 8,965,612 2,110 4,248 4 LNB and SOFA 673,550 1,756 384 SNCR with LNB and SOFA 4,086,366 2,643 1,546 3,412,816 887 3,848 SCR with LNB and SOFA 13,590,853 4,408 3,083 12,917,303 2,652 4,871 a The incremental cost effectiveness results for SNCR and SCR are based on the emission and cost differences between these technologies and the proposed LNB + SOFA option.
    Table 2—Cost-Effectiveness of NOX Control Options at Cholla Assuming 8 Years of Operation on Coal and 12 years of Operation on Natural Gas Unit Control option Average Annual cost
  • ($/year)
  • Emission
  • reduction
  • relative to
  • baseline
  • (ton/year)
  • Average cost-effectiveness
  • ($/ton)
  • Incremental Incremental annual cost
  • ($/year)
  • Incremental emission
  • reduction
  • (ton/year)
  • Incremental cost-
  • effectiveness
  • ($/ton)
  • 3 LNB and SOFA $411,300 488 $843 SNCR with LNB and SOFA 2,497,743 786 3,177 2,086,443 299 6,989 SCR with LNB and SOFA 8,716,452 1,387 6,286 8,305,152 899 9,237 4 LNB and SOFA 571,550 702 814 SNCR with LNB and SOFA 3,283,930 1,085 3,027 2,712,380 383 7,091 SCR with LNB and SOFA 12,480,744 1,833 6,810 11,909,194 1,130 10,539
    2. Energy and Non-Air Environmental Impacts

    ADEQ indicated that the energy impacts of LNB, SOFA, and SNCR are minimal and that there are no non-air quality environmental impacts associated with LNB and SOFA. ADEQ also noted that SNCR and SCR would result in ammonia slip and that the transport and handling of anhydrous ammonia presents potential safety hazards.

    3. Existing Air Pollution Controls

    ADEQ noted that, under the Cholla BART Reassessment, use of the existing LNB and SOFA would be continued at Units 3 and 4. ADEQ proposed no additional controls for these two units. Unit 2 would be shut down in April 2016, while Unit 1 (the non-BART unit) would cease burning coal in 2025.

    4. Remaining Useful Life

    ADEQ used a 20-year amortization period in order to calculate the costs of compliance for Units 3 and 4 because neither unit is subject to an enforceable shutdown date.

    5. Degree of Visibility Improvement

    ADEQ included the results of modeling conducted by APS and PacifiCorp to predict the degree of visibility improvement associated with the three BART scenarios. This modeling predicted visibility impacts at the thirteen Class I areas within 300 km of the Cholla facility under a baseline scenario (based on 2001-2003 emissions with all four units operating), as well as the three BART control scenarios:

    • BART Option 1: Unit 1 with 2001-2003 baseline controls (pre-LNB), Unit 2 shut down, LNB/SOFA on Units 3 and 4;

    • BART Option 2: Unit 1 with 2001-2003 baseline controls (pre-LNB), Unit 2 shut down, LNB/SOFA and SNCR on Units 3 and 4; and

    • BART Option 3: Unit 1 with 2001-2003 baseline controls (pre-LNB), Unit 2 shut down, LNB/SOFA and SCR on Units 3 and 4.

    APS and PacifiCorp used CALPUFF version 5.8 and incorporated meteorological data for 2001-2003, an assumption of 1.0 part per billion background concentration for ammonia, and “Method 8b” 20 percent best days background conditions for all cases. The results of this modeling are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3—Predicted Visibility Impacts [22nd highest delta-dv over 3-year period] Class I area Baseline BART Option 1
  • (LNB/SOFA)
  • BART Option 2
  • (LNB/SOFA/SNCR)
  • BART Option 3
  • (LNB/SOFA/SCR)
  • Petrified Forest NP 5.31 4.33 4.05 3.55 Grand Canyon NP 3.40 1.79 1.62 1.20 Capitol Reef NP 2.19 1.04 0.91 0.62 Mazatzal WA 2.23 0.96 0.87 0.69 Sycamore Canyon WA 2.27 1.00 0.88 0.67 Mount Baldy WA 2.10 0.97 0.85 0.62 Gila WA 1.53 0.53 0.47 0.39 Sierra Ancha WA 2.28 1.05 0.97 0.81 Mesa Verde NP 2.08 0.88 0.78 0.60 Galiuro WA 0.96 0.34 0.31 0.27 Superstition WA 2.00 1.00 0.93 0.73 Saguaro NP 0.70 0.22 0.22 0.20 Pine Mountain WA 1.64 0.67 0.59 0.48
    Table 4—Predicted Visibility Improvement over the Baseline Visibility Impacts [22nd highest delta-dv over 3-year period] Class I area BART
  • Option 1
  • (LNB/SOFA)
  • BART
  • Option 2
  • (LNB/SOFA
  • /SNCR)
  • BART
  • Option 3
  • (LNB/SOFA
  • /SCR)
  • Option 2 over Option 1 Option 3 over Option 1
    Petrified Forest NP 0.98 1.26 1.77 0.28 0.79 Grand Canyon NP 1.61 1.78 2.20 0.17 0.59 Capitol Reef NP 1.15 1.28 1.57 0.13 0.42 Mazatzal WA 1.27 1.36 1.54 0.09 0.27 Sycamore Canyon WA 1.27 1.39 1.60 0.12 0.33 Mount Baldy WA 1.14 1.26 1.48 0.12 0.34 Gila WA 1.00 1.06 1.14 0.06 0.14 Sierra Ancha WA 1.22 1.30 1.47 0.08 0.25 Mesa Verde NP 1.21 1.30 1.49 0.09 0.28 Galiuro WA 0.62 0.65 0.69 0.03 0.07 Superstition WA 1.00 1.07 1.28 0.07 0.28 Saguaro NP 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.01 0.02 Pine Mountain WA 0.97 1.04 1.16 0.07 0.19 Cumulative 13.92 15.24 17.89 1.32 3.97 Average 1.07 1.17 1.38 0.10 0.31
    B. BART Determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4

    ADEQ's BART determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4 in the Cholla SIP Revision effectively replaces step 7 (select BART) of its prior BART analysis for NOX BART for Cholla in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. In making this determination, ADEQ compared the three emission control options (LNB and SOFA, SNCR with LNB and SOFA, SCR with LNB and SOFA). For Option 1, it found that the LNB and SOFA controls could be installed at reasonable cost-effectiveness and would deliver visibility improvements ranging from 0.48 to 1.61 dv over baseline conditions across thirteen Class I areas. For Option 2, it found the SNCR control option to be too costly in comparison to the small additional visibility benefits it would be expected to deliver. For Option 3, ADEQ noted that the visibility benefits of SCR (3.97 dv cumulative incremental visibility improvement) would only last until 2025 when coal firing would cease, after which the incremental benefits of SCR would be “negligible.” Based on its analysis, ADEQ found Option 1 (LNB with SOFA) to be BART for NOX at Cholla Units 3 and 4. The rolling 30-boiler-operating-day NOX emission limits associated with this BART determination are 0.22 lb/MMbtu (effective until April 30, 2025), which reflects the use of coal, and 0.080 lb/MMbtu (effective May 1, 2025), which reflects the use of natural gas.

    C. 110(l) Analysis

    In addition to the BART re-analysis and determinations, the Cholla SIP Revision also includes a demonstration of “noninterference” under CAA section 110(l). In particular, ADEQ considered whether the Cholla SIP Revision would interfere with (1) any applicable requirement concerning attainment of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or (2) any other applicable requirement of the CAA.

    1. Demonstration of Noninterference With NAAQS Attainment

    ADEQ noted that Cholla is located in Navajo County, Arizona, which is currently designated as attainment or unclassifiable for the following NAAQS: Carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) (2008 NAAQS), PM2.5 (1997 and 2006 NAAQS), PM10, and SO2 (1971 NAAQS). ADEQ also noted that it has recommended an attainment/unclassifiable designation for this area for the 2012 PM2.5 and 2010 SO2 standards.

    ADEQ's demonstration of noninterference with attainment focused on the NAAQS for PM10, SO2, NO2, and O3 because ambient levels of these pollutants are affected by emissions of PM10, SO2, and/or NOX. Specifically, ADEQ analyzed emissions of PM10, SO2, and NOX under the control strategies in the Cholla BART Reassessment, as compared with the existing control requirements in the applicable SIP and FIP. This assessment was conducted by considering revised emissions limits included in the Cholla SIP Revision, summarized in Table 5.

    Table 5—Emission Limits for Cholla BART Reassessment Unit Dates Emission limit
  • (lb/MMbtu)
  • NOX PM10 SO2
    Unit 2 Unit shut down on April 1, 2016 Unit 3 until April 30, 2025 0.22 0.015 0.15 after April 30, 2025 0.08 0.01 0.0006 Unit 4 until April 30, 2025 0.22 0.015 0.15 after April 30, 2025 0.08 0.01 0.0006

    For its PM10 analysis, ADEQ found that the emission control strategies in the Cholla BART Reassessment will result in greater PM10 reductions than those in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP beginning in 2016 and continuing into the future, as shown in Table 6. Beginning in 2026, PM10 emissions will be further reduced under the Cholla BART Reassessment, due to the 20 percent capacity factor limit and the more stringent emission limits (0.01 lb/MMBtu rather than 0.015 lb/MMBtu) that will apply after the switch to natural gas at Units 3 and 4. Therefore, ADEQ found that the Cholla SIP Revision will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the PM10 NAAQS.

    Table 6—Comparison of Annual PM10 Emissions for 2011 Arizona SIP vs. Cholla BART Reassessment Time period Unit No. Annual PM10
  • (tons per year (tpy))
  • 2011 AZ SIP Cholla SIP
  • revision
  • 2016 Unit 1 84 84 Unit 2 a 214 b 78 Unit 3 197 197 Unit 4 269 269 Total 764 628 2017-2025 Unit 1 84 84 Unit 2 181 0 Unit 3 197 197 Unit 4 269 269 Total 731 550 2026 forward Unit 1 84 13 Unit 2 181 0 Unit 3 197 30 Unit 4 269 39 Total 731 82 a Based on compliance date of April 1, 2016 for emissions limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. b Based on operation of Unit 2 until April 1, 2016.

    ADEQ also compared SO2 emission control strategies in the 2011 SIP with those in the Cholla BART Reassessment. As shown in Table 7, the control strategies in the Cholla BART Reassessment will result in greater SO2 reductions than those in the 2011 SIP beginning in 2016 and continuing into the future. Therefore, ADEQ found that the emissions reductions achieved by the control strategy outlined in the Cholla SIP Revision will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS.

    Table 7—Comparison of Annual SO2 Emissions for 2011 Arizona SIP vs. Cholla BART Reassessment Time period Unit No. Annual SO2
  • (tpy)
  • 2011 AZ SIP Cholla SIP
  • revision
  • 2016 Unit 1 844 844 Unit 2 1,614 a 452 Unit 3 1,966 1,966 Unit 4 2,688 2,688 Total 7,112 5,950 2017-2025 Unit 1 844 844 Unit 2 1,614 0 Unit 3 1,966 1,966 Unit 4 2,688 2,688 Total 7,112 5,498 2026 forward Unit 1 844 1 Unit 2 1,614 0 Unit 3 1,966 2 Unit 4 2,688 2 Total 7,112 5 a Based on operation of Unit 2 until April 1, 2016.

    ADEQ also analyzed the emission control strategies for NOX in the Cholla BART Reassessment (Unit 2 shutdown and LNB/SOFA controls at Units 3 and 4 until conversion to natural gas by 2025 with a ≤20 percent annual average capacity factor) in comparison to the FIP, which requires the installation of SCR with LNB and SOFA at all units by December 5, 2017. As shown in Table 8, while the shutdown of Unit 2 results in lower NOX emissions than the FIP for 2016, the Reassessment will allow for 4,161 tpy more NOX emissions than the FIP between 2018 and 2025. However, after 2025, due to the conversion to natural gas, the Cholla BART Reassessment will result in greater annual NOX emission reductions than the FIP. ADEQ found that, because there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs that rely on emission reductions at Cholla to ensure continued attainment of the NO2 NAAQS and the Cholla BART Reassessment will result in NOX emission reductions relative to the existing operating conditions of the facility, it will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the current NO2 NAAQS.

    Table 8—Comparison of NOX Annual Emissions for FIP vs. Cholla BART Reassessment Time period Unit No. Annual NOX
  • (tpy)
  • EPA FIP Cholla BART
  • reassessment
  • Annual emission change (Cholla BART
  • reassessment
  • to EPA FIP)
  • 2016 Unit 1 1,131 1,131 0 Unit 2 3,601 a 900 −2,701 Unit 3 2,766 2,766 0 Unit 4 3,548 3,548 0 Total 11,046 8,345 −2,701 2017 Unit 1 1,131 1,131 0 Unit 2 3,601 0 −3,601 Unit 3 2,766 2,766 0 Unit 4 3,548 3,548 0 Total 11,046 7,445 −3,601 2018-2025 Unit 1 1,131 1,131 0 Unit 2 602 0 −602 Unit 3 655 2,766 2,111 Unit 4 896 3,548 2,652 Total 3,284 7,445 4,161 2026 forward Unit 1 1,131 105 −1,026 Unit 2 602 0 −602 Unit 3 655 244 −411 Unit 4 896 308 −588 Total 3,284 657 −2,627 a Based on operation of Unit 2 until April 1, 2016.

    Similarly, with regard to ozone, for which NOX emissions are a precursor, ADEQ noted that there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs that rely on emission reductions at Cholla to ensure continued attainment of the NAAQS and that the Cholla BART Reassessment will result in greater long-term NOX emission reductions than the existing FIP. Accordingly, ADEQ concluded that the Cholla BART Reassessment will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

    2. Demonstration of Noninterference With Other CAA Requirements

    With regards to the other applicable CAA requirements, ADEQ considered whether the Cholla BART Reassessment would interfere with (1) the requirements of the Regional Haze program or (2) the CAA's air toxics requirements.

    In evaluating potential interference with the RHR, ADEQ relied primarily on the results of air quality modeling (using CALPUFF) performed by APS and PacifiCorp to assess the visibility impacts of Cholla under the Cholla SIP Revision compared to the existing SIP and FIP requirements.15 These results, summarized in Table 9, show that, compared with the existing SIP and FIP requirements, the Cholla SIP Revision would result in less visibility improvement at all affected Class I areas between 2018 and 2025, but would result in greater improvement starting in 2026. Based on these results and taking into consideration the long-term goal of the Regional Haze Rule to achieve natural visibility conditions, ADEQ found that the BART Reassessment will not interfere with the requirements of the regional haze program.

    15Id.

    Table 9—Modeled Visibility Impacts of Cholla Class I Area EPA FIP and
  • existing SIP
  • Visibility impacts
  • (dv)
  • SIP Revision BART
  • (2018-2025)
  • Visibility impacts
  • (dv)
  • SIP Revision BART
  • (2026 forward)
  • Visibility impacts
  • (dv)
  • Petrified Forest NP 2.64 3.75 1.45 Grand Canyon NP 1.11 1.48 0.45 Capitol Reef NP 0.62 0.92 0.29 Mazatzal WA 0.75 0.83 0.30 Sycamore Canyon WA 0.73 0.94 0.29 Mount Baldy WA 0.69 0.87 0.28 Gila WA 0.46 0.47 0.17 Sierra Ancha WA 0.82 0.94 0.36 Mesa Verde NP 0.63 0.84 0.30 Galiuro WA 0.29 0.30 0.09 Superstition WA 0.73 0.88 0.30 Saguaro NP 0.20 0.19 0.05 Pine Mountain WA 0.51 0.58 0.17 Cumulative impacts 10.18 12.99 4.50

    Concerning air toxics, ADEQ noted that in addition to ceasing operation of Unit 2, the Cholla facility proposes to implement sorbent injection at Units 1, 3, and 4 by March 2016 to reduce air toxics and achieve compliance with the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) rule. Therefore, ADEQ concluded that the Cholla BART Reassessment will not interfere with any air toxics requirements of the CAA.

    D. Cholla Permit Revision

    The Cholla Permit Revision, which is incorporated as Appendix A to the Cholla SIP Revision, was issued by ADEQ on October 16, 2015. The Permit Revision incorporates emission limits and compliance dates as well as monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to implement both the Cholla BART Reassessment and ADEQ's prior BART determinations for SO2 and PM10 at Cholla.

    IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the Cholla SIP Revision

    We have evaluated the Cholla SIP Revision for compliance with the requirements of the CAA, the RHR, and the BART Guidelines.16 Our evaluation of each of the major components of the Cholla SIP Revision is summarized in the following sections.

    16 CAA section 169A(b)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) require that BART for each fossil-fuel fired generating power plant having a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts be determined pursuant to the BART Guidelines. Cholla has a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, so the BART Guidelines are mandatory for the Cholla BART analysis and determination.

    A. The EPA's Evaluation of the Enforceable Retirement Provision for Cholla Unit 2

    The Cholla Permit Revision requires Unit 2 to be permanently retired by no later than April 1, 2016.17 This date coincides with the compliance deadlines for SO2 and PM10 in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP and precedes the deadline for NOX by over a year.18 In fact, the unit was shut down on October 1, 2015.19 If Unit 2 were not retired, APS would have been required to install additional controls to meet the SO2 and PM10 limits in the SIP, as well as the NOX limit in the FIP, which is achievable with SCR. The requirement for permanent retirement will become effective and federally enforceable when the Cholla SIP Revision is approved into the SIP and the FIP provisions applicable to Cholla are withdrawn.20 Accordingly, we agree with ADEQ that no further analysis is required for Cholla Unit 2, and we propose to approve the requirement for permanent retirement as satisfying the requirements of the CAA and RHR for Cholla Unit 2.

    17 Cholla Permit Revision section I.C.1.

    18See 40 CFR 51.145(f)(4).

    19 Letter from Edward Seal, APS, to Kathleen Johnson, EPA, and Eric Massey, ADEQ (October 28, 2015).

    20 Cholla Permit Revision section I.A.

    B. The EPA's Evaluation of ADEQ's BART Analysis for Cholla Units 3 and 4

    We find that ADEQ's BART analysis for Cholla Units 3 and 4 is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, RHR, and the BART Guidelines. In particular, we find that ADEQ's BART re-analysis addresses the flaws that were the basis for our disapproval of ADEQ's prior BART analysis for Cholla.21

    21See 77 FR 42840-42941 and 42849, 77 FR 72565-72566.

    With regard to the cost of compliance, in its previous BART analysis for Cholla, ADEQ included certain line item costs not allowed by the EPA Control Cost Manual (CCM),22 such as owner's costs, surcharge, and Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC).23 This approach did not comply with BART Guidelines' direction that cost estimates should be based on the CCM. In the Cholla SIP revision, by contrast, ADEQ used the cost estimates that the EPA developed as part of the Regional Haze FIP,24 which were calculated using the CCM methodology.25

    22 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/cost_manual.html.

    23See 77 FR 42849.

    24See, e.g., Cholla SIP Revision, Appendix B, Table B-1, footnote (a).

    25See 77 FR 42852.

    We note that in May 2016, EPA revised the CCM chapter that concerns SCR systems.26 The revised CCM recommends use of a 30-year equipment life for SCR systems,27 whereas the previous version recommended a 20-year life.28 As noted above, ADEQ used a 20-year remaining useful life in its cost calculations in the Cholla SIP Revision, which was consistent with the current CCM recommendation at the time of SIP submittal in October 2015. Given that the majority of other BART analyses, including the EPA's analysis for Cholla in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP,29 have used a 20-year remaining useful life for SCR, we believe that this remains an appropriate assumption in this instance in order to ensure a consistent comparison with the cost estimates for SCR in other BART determinations. Nonetheless, we have also conducted an additional analysis to evaluate how use of a 30-year remaining useful life would affect the cost-effectiveness values for SCR at Cholla Units 3 and 4. We found that use of a 30-year remaining useful life would increase the average cost-effectiveness of SCR at Unit 3 from $6,286/ton to $7,864/ton and the “incremental” cost-effectiveness (as compared with LNB+SOFA) from $9,237/ton to $11,295/ton.30 The average and “incremental” (as compared with LNB+SOFA) cost-effectiveness of SCR at Unit 4 would be increased from $6,810/ton to $8,401/ton and from $10,539 to $12,674, respectively.31 Thus, if ADEQ had calculated the average and incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR based on a 30-year remaining useful life, it would have provided further support for ADEQ's determination that the incremental costs of compliance for SCR are not warranted by the incremental benefits.

    26 CCM (7th Edition), Section 4, Chapter 2—Selective Catalytic Reduction (May 2016), available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/docs/SCRCostManualchapter7thEdition_2016.pdf.

    27See id. at 2-78 (“broadly speaking, a representative value of the equipment life for SCR at power plants can be considered as 30 years.”)

    28 CCM (6th edition), Section 4.2, Chapter 2—Selective Catalytic Reduction (October 2000), available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/docs/cs4-2ch2.pdf, at 2-48 (“An economic lifetime of 20 years is assumed for the SCR system.”)

    29See 77 FR 42854.

    30See Cholla_SCR_costs (30 yr life).xlsx.

    31Id.

    With regard to visibility modeling, in its previous BART analysis for Cholla, ADEQ considered the benefits from controls on only one emitting unit at a time and overlooked significant benefits at multiple Class I areas, thereby understating the full visibility benefits of the candidate controls.32 By contrast, in the Cholla SIP revision, ADEQ looked at the visibility impacts and potential improvements from all three BART-eligible units together and also considered impacts and potential improvements at all 13 Class I areas within 300 km of Cholla, based on modeling performed by APS and PacifiCorp.33

    32See 77 FR 42849.

    33See, e.g., Cholla SIP Revision, Table 4 and 5.

    In considering the results of this modeling, it should be noted that the baseline scenario included emissions from Unit 2, but the control scenarios did not include any emissions from Unit 2. As a result, the total visibility improvement anticipated under each of the control scenarios represents not only the visibility benefits of controls on Units 3 and 4, but also the visibility benefits of the closure of Unit 2. We consider this to be a reasonable approach because it is consistent with the requirement of the BART Guidelines for states to consider the visibility improvement from controls applied to the entire BART-eligible source.34 However, given that ADEQ is not making a BART determination for Unit 2 in this instance, we believe it is appropriate to also consider the visibility improvement expected to result from controls on Units 3 and 4 only. ADEQ's evaluation of the “incremental” visibility benefits of SNCR (“Option 2 over Option 1” in Table 4) and SCR (“Option 3 over Option 1” in Table 4) effectively excludes the benefits of the Unit 2 shutdown because Options 1, 2, and 3 all exclude emissions from Unit 2. Given that ADEQ relied heavily on these “incremental” visibility benefits in reaching its ultimate BART determination,35 we find that ADEQ appropriately considered the visibility benefits of controls on Units 3 and 4 only, as well as the benefits of the Cholla BART Reassessment as a whole.

    34 In particular, the BART Guidelines explain that, “[i]f the emissions from the list of emissions units at a stationary source exceed a potential to emit of 250 tons per year for any visibility-impairing pollutant, then that collection of emissions units is a BART-eligible source.” 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section II.A.4. In other words, the BART-eligible source (the list of BART emissions units at a source) is the collection of units for which one must make a BART determination. The BART Guidelines also state “you must conduct a visibility improvement determination for the source(s) as part of the BART determination.” Id, section IV.D.5. This requires consideration of the visibility improvement from BART applied to the BART-eligible source as a whole.

    35See Cholla SIP Revision section 2.3.

    We also note that ADEQ did not quantify the expected visibility benefits of SCR and SNCR on Units 3 and 4 after these units are converted to gas in 2025, but characterized these benefits as “negligible.” In order to evaluate ADEQ's characterization, we scaled the modeled visibility benefits of SCR under the coal-fired scenario to roughly estimate what the benefits would be under the gas-fired scenario. The results of this scaling indicate that, under the gas-fired scenario, the approximate benefits of SNCR would be 0.07 dv at the most-improved Class I area and 0.31 dv cumulatively over all affected Class I areas, while the approximate benefits of SCR would be 0.15 dv at the most-improved Class I area and 0.77 dv cumulatively over all affected Class I areas.36 Thus, the benefits of SNCR or SCR under the gas-fired scenario would be significantly less than under the coal-fired scenario, for which the expected “incremental” benefits over LNB+SOFA are 0.28 dv at the most-improved area and 1.32 dv cumulative for SNCR and 0.79 dv at the most-improved Class I area and 3.97 dv cumulative for SCR.

    36See Cholla_SCR_vs_NG rev2.xlsx.

    In the Cholla SIP Revision, ADEQ also appropriately accounted for the requirements that will apply to Units 3 and 4 as of 2025, i.e., the permanent cessation of coal burning by April 30, 2025, with the option to convert to pipeline-quality natural gas and comply with a 20 percent annual average capacity factor limit by July 31, 2025. These new requirements significantly decrease the emission reductions achievable by SCR or SNCR beginning in 2025 and thus increase the average $/ton of both SCR and SNCR over the remaining useful life of the units, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 above. Similarly, these requirements limit the timeframe in which significant visibility benefits would result from either SCR or SNCR to less than eight years.

    We note that ADEQ did diverge slightly from the BART Guidelines in its calculation of the incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR. In particular, ADEQ calculated the incremental cost, as well as incremental visibility benefits, based on a comparison between SCR with LNB+SOFA and LNB+SOFA only. This differs from the approach to calculating incremental cost-effectiveness that is set forth in the BART Guidelines, under which incremental cost-effectiveness is calculated by comparing “the costs and performance level of a control option to those of the next most stringent option . . . .” 37 In this case, SNCR with LNB+SOFA is the next most stringent option compared to SCR with LNB+SOFA. Had ADEQ compared SCR with LNB+SOFA to SNCR with LNB+SOFA, the incremental cost-effectiveness using a 20-year remaining useful life would have been $10,347/ton for Unit 3 and $12,295/ton for Unit 4,38 rather than $9,237/ton for Unit 3 and $10,539/ton for Unit 4. Similarly, had ADEQ calculated the incremental visibility benefits of SCR with LNB+SOFA based on a comparison to SNCR with LNB+SOFA, the per area incremental benefits would have ranged from 0.01 dv to 0.51 dv, rather than 0.07 dv to 0.79 dv, and the cumulative incremental benefit would have been 2.65 dv rather than 3.97 dv.39 Thus, if ADEQ had calculated the incremental costs and benefits of SCR in accordance with the BART Guidelines, it would have resulted in higher incremental cost-effectiveness values and lower incremental visibility benefits compared with the figures provided in the Cholla SIP Revision, which would provide further support for ADEQ's determination that the incremental costs of compliance for SCR are not warranted by the incremental benefits. Accordingly, in reviewing the reasonableness of ADEQ's re-analysis of BART for these units, we find that ADEQ's diversion from the BART Guidelines in this regard was of no consequence.

    37 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section IV.D.4.e (emphasis added). The BART Guidelines do not specify a method for calculating incremental visibility benefits. We consider it appropriate to calculate these benefits in the same manner as incremental costs, i.e. by comparing the expected benefits of a control option to those of the next most stringent option.

    38 Cholla Units 3 and 4 Incremental Costs and Benefits.xlsx.

    39Id.

    Based on our findings that the Cholla SIP Revision addresses the flaws that were the basis for our disapproval of ADEQ's prior BART analysis for Cholla and otherwise meets the requirements of the CAA, RHR, and the BART Guidelines, we propose to approve ADEQ's BART re-analysis for Cholla Units 3 and 4.

    C. The EPA's Evaluation of ADEQ's BART Determination for Cholla Units 3 and 4

    We also find that ADEQ's BART determination for NOX at Cholla Units 3 and 4 is consistent with the requirements of the CAA, RHR, and the BART Guidelines. In particular, we find that ADEQ appropriately considered and weighed the five BART factors in relation to the available control options and reached a reasonable BART determination based on its consideration of the factors.

    With regard to SCR, we find that it was reasonable for ADEQ to conclude that the costs of SCR were not warranted by the visibility benefits in this instance. In particular, with regard to costs, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has determined SCR to be BART where the average cost-effectiveness of SCR was greater than $6,000/ton and the incremental cost-effectiveness (calculated in accordance with the BART Guidelines) was greater than $10,000/ton, as is the case with Cholla Units 3 and 4. Similarly, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has disapproved a state's BART determination that rejected SCR as BART based on similar cost-effectiveness values. Furthermore, while the total visibility benefits of the SCR-based control scenario (“BART Option 3”) are large (2.20 dv at the most improved area and 17.89 dv cumulative across all affected areas), as noted in the previous section, these benefits include not only the effect of SCR installation on Units 3 and 4, but also the retirement of Unit 2. Thus, we believe it was appropriate for ADEQ to focus primarily on what it characterized as the “incremental” visibility benefits, i.e., the relative degree of visibility improvement expected under Option 3 (Unit 2 retired and SCR with LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4) compared with Option 1 (Unit 2 retired and LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4), which were 0.07 dv to 0.79 dv per area and 3.97 dv cumulative.40 While these benefits are significant, we believe it was reasonable for ADEQ to determine that the benefits were not warranted in light of the high costs of SCR and the fact that benefits of this magnitude would only last for approximately eight years, after which the benefits of SCR would be far less (roughly 0.15 dv at the most-improved Class I area and 0.77 dv cumulatively over all affected Class I areas).

    40 As described in the previous section, if ADEQ had calculated the incremental benefits of SCR in accordance with the BART Guidelines, the per area incremental benefits would have ranged from 0.01 dv to 0.51 dv, and the cumulative incremental benefit would have been 2.65 dv.

    With regard to SNCR, we find that it was reasonable for ADEQ to conclude that the costs of SNCR were not warranted by the visibility benefits. In particular, with regard to costs, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has determined SNCR to be BART where the average cost-effectiveness of SNCR was greater than $3,000/ton and the incremental cost-effectiveness was roughly $7,000/ton, as is the case with Cholla Units 3 and 4. Similarly, we are not aware of any instance in which the EPA has disapproved a state's BART determination that rejected SNCR as BART based on similar cost-effectiveness values. Furthermore, while the total visibility benefits of the SNCR-based control scenario (“BART Option 2”) are large (1.78 dv at the most improved area and 15.24 dv cumulative across all affected areas), as noted above, these benefits include not only the effect of SNCR installation on Units 3 and 4, but also the retirement of Unit 2. Thus, we believe it was appropriate for ADEQ to focus primarily on incremental visibility benefits, i.e., the relative degree of visibility improvement expected under Option 2 (Unit 2 retired and SNCR with LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4) compared with Option 1 (Unit 2 retired and LNB+SOFA on Units 3 and 4), which were 0.01 dv to 0.28 dv per area and 1.32 dv cumulative. While these benefits are not insignificant, we believe it was reasonable for ADEQ to determine that the benefits were not warranted in light of the relatively high costs of SNCR and the fact that benefits of this magnitude would only last for approximately eight years, after which the benefits of SNCR would be far less (roughly 0.07 dv at the most-improved Class I area and 0.31 dv cumulatively over all affected Class I areas).

    Therefore, we propose to approve ADEQ's determination that BART for NOX at Cholla Units 3 and 4 consists of LNB+SOFA with associated emission limits of 0.22 lb/MMbtu (rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average) for each unit. As explained above, these emission limits will remain in effect until April 30, 2025, at which point both units will be permanently retired or converted to natural gas with NOX emission limits of 0.08 lb/MMBtu (rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average).

    D. The EPA's Evaluation Under CAA Section 110(l)

    CAA section 110(l) requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the EPA Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act.41 In evaluating whether the Cholla SIP Revision would interfere with any CAA requirements, we note that overall, the Cholla SIP Revision will result in reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared to the existing SIP and FIP requirements beginning in 2016 (see Tables 6 and 7 above) due to the retirement of Unit 2. While the Cholla SIP Revision will require fewer NOX reductions than the FIP between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions remain at or below current levels (i.e., levels consistent with non-operation of Unit 2 42 and operation of LNB and SOFA on Units 1, 3 and 4) until 2025, after which it will require a substantial reduction in NOX emissions compared to both current levels and the FIP (see Table 8 above).

    41 CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).

    42 As shown in Table 8, ADEQ projected that total NOX emissions at Cholla Unit 2 would be 900 tpy in 2016, based on a Unit 2 shutdown date of April 1, 2016. Because Unit 2 was retired in October 2015, 2016 emissions from Unit 2 will actually be zero, so we anticipate the total NOX emissions from the facility will be roughly 7,445 tpy for all years between 2016 and 2025.

    With regard to applicable requirements concerning attainment and RFP, as explained by ADEQ, Cholla is located in north central Navajo County, Arizona, which is designated as unclassifiable/attainment for all of the NAAQS for which the EPA has issued designations.43 ADEQ also indicated that it has recommended an attainment/unclassifiable designation for this area for the 2012 PM2.5 and 2010 SO2 standards. With regard to the 2012 PM2.5 standard, the EPA has finalized a designation of unclassifiable/attainment for Navajo County.44 With regard to the 2010 SO2 standard, we note that, under the EPA's Data Requirements Rule,45 ADEQ is required to develop and submit air quality data characterizing ambient concentrations of SO2 in the area around Cholla.46 The EPA will take these data into consideration in finalizing a designation for the area. Finally, we note that, on October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated revised primary and secondary ozone NAAQS.47 State designation recommendations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS are due to the EPA by October 1, 2016.48

    43 Cholla SIP Revision, pages 12-13, Table 7.

    44See 40 CFR 81.303.

    45 40 CFR part 51, subpart BB.

    46See Letter from Eric Massey, ADEQ, to Doris Lo, EPA (January 13, 2016).

    47 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).

    48Id. at 65438.

    In summary, Cholla is located in area that is designated unclassifiable/attainment or has not yet been designated for each of the current NAAQS. Thus, the Arizona SIP does not currently rely on emission limitations at Cholla to satisfy any attainment or RFP requirements. Given that the Cholla SIP Revision will result in equivalent or lower emissions of NOX, PM10 and SO2 for all future years, compared to current emission levels, in an area that is designated unclassifiable/attainment or has not yet been designated for all NAAQS, we propose to find that the Cholla SIP Revision would not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP.

    The other requirements of the CAA that apply to Cholla are:

    • Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources (NSPS), 40 CFR part 60, subpart D;

    • National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 40 CFR part 63, subpart UUUUU (also known as MATS);

    • Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM), 40 CFR part 64; and

    • BART and other visibility protection requirements under CAA section 169A and the RHR.

    The Cholla SIP Revision would not affect the applicable NESHAP, NSPS and CAM requirements. Therefore, we propose to find that the Cholla SIP Revision would not interfere with the applicable NESHAP, NSPS and CAM requirements.

    We also propose to find that Cholla SIP Revision would not interfere with the visibility protection requirements of the CAA and the RHR. Our proposed approval of the BART Reassessment is based on our determination that, taking into consideration the differences in the facts underlying the EPA's prior BART analysis for NOX in Arizona Regional Haze FIP and the Cholla BART Reassessment, ADEQ's revised BART analysis and determination for Cholla meet the BART requirements of the CAA and RHR. Furthermore, the Cholla SIP Revision would result in greater visibility improvement than the existing SIP and FIP requirements beginning in 2026, which is consistent with the long-term national goal of restoring natural visibility conditions at Class I areas. Thus, we propose to find that the Cholla SIP Revision would not interfere with the visibility protection requirements of the CAA.

    E. The EPA's Evaluation of Enforceable Emission Limits

    CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations as necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of the Act. In addition, SIPs must contain regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for applicable emission limitations.49 The Cholla Permit Revision includes such enforceable emission limits, as well as associated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, for all units and pollutants. These requirements will become effective and federally enforceable when the Cholla SIP Revision is approved into the SIP and the FIP provisions applicable to Cholla are withdrawn.50 Therefore, we propose to find that the Cholla SIP Revision meets the requirements of the CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations for enforceable emission limitations.

    49See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c).

    50 Cholla Permit Revision section I.A.

    V. Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, the EPA proposes to approve the Cholla SIP Revision. Because this approval would fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior partial disapproval with respect to Cholla, we propose to withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Cholla. We also propose to find that withdrawal of the FIP would constitute our action on APS's and PacifiCorp's petitions for reconsideration of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.

    VI. Environmental Justice Considerations

    As shown in Tables 6 and 7, the Cholla SIP Revision will result in reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared to the existing SIP and FIP requirements beginning in 2016. As shown in Table 8, while the Cholla SIP Revision will result in fewer NOX reductions than the FIP between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions remain at or below current levels until 2025, after which it will require a substantial reduction in NOX emissions compared to both current levels and to the existing Arizona Regional Haze FIP. Therefore, the EPA believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations.

    VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference “Significant Permit Revision No. 61713 to Operating Permit No. 53399” issued by ADEQ on October 16, 2015. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, this document available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA, 94105-3901.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not a rule of general applicability.

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule applies to only one facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million megawatt hours. Both owners of Cholla, APS and PacifiCorp, exceed this threshold.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on any 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical standards in this action.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous populations. The results of this evaluation are contained in section VI above.

    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA proposes to determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to Cholla is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Furthermore, CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to “such other actions as the Administrator may determine.” The EPA proposes that the provisions of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the Cholla SIP revision.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 30, 2016. Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX. PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart D—Arizona 2. In § 52.145, revise paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and (10) to read as follows:
    § 52.145 Visibility protection.

    (f) * * *

    (1) Applicability. This paragraph (f) applies to each owner/operator of the following coal-fired electricity generating units (EGUs) in the state of Arizona: Coronado Generating Station, Units 1 and 2. The provisions of this paragraph (f) are severable, and if any provision of this paragraph (f), or the application of any provision of this paragraph (f) to any owner/operator or circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other owner/operators and other circumstances, and the remainder of this paragraph (f), shall not be affected thereby.

    (2) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the Clean Air Act. For purposes of this paragraph (f):

    ADEQ means the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality.

    Boiler-operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in the unit.

    Coal-fired unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the equipment required by 40 CFR part 75 and this paragraph (f).

    Emissions limitation or emissions limit means any of the Federal Emission Limitations required by this paragraph (f) or any of the applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits for Coronado Generating Station submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012.

    Flue Gas Desulfurization System or FGD means a pollution control device that employs flue gas desulfurization technology, including an absorber utilizing lime, fly ash, or limestone slurry, for the reduction of sulfur dioxide emissions.

    lb means pound(s).

    NO X means nitrogen oxides expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2).

    Owner(s)/operator(s) means any person(s) who own(s) or who operate(s), control(s), or supervise(s) one or more of the units identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    MMBtu means million British thermal unit(s).

    Operating hour means any hour that fossil fuel is fired in the unit.

    PM 10 means filterable total particulate matter less than 10 microns and the condensable material in the impingers as measured by Methods 201A and 202 in 40 CFR part 51, appendix M.

    Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX or his/her authorized representative.

    SO 2 means sulfur dioxide.

    SO 2 removal efficiency means the quantity of SO2 removed as calculated by the procedure in paragraph (f)(5)(iii)(B) of this section.

    Unit means any of the EGUs identified in paragraph (f)(1) of this section.

    Valid data means data recorded when the CEMS is not out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75.

    (3) Federal emission limitations—(i) NO X emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any coal-fired unit or group of coal-fired units. Each emission limit shall be based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific paragraphs.

    Coal fired unit or group of coal-fired units Federal
  • emission
  • limitation
  • Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 0.065 Coronado Generating Station Unit 2 0.080

    (ii) [Reserved]

    (4) Compliance dates. (i) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall comply with the NOX emissions limitations and other NO X-related requirements of this paragraph (f) no later than December 5, 2017.

    (ii) The owners/operators of each unit subject to this paragraph (f) shall comply with the applicable PM10 and SO2 emissions limits submitted to EPA as part of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP in a letter dated February 28, 2011, and approved into the Arizona State Implementation Plan on December 5, 2012, as well as the related compliance, recordkeeping and reporting of this paragraph (f) no later than June 3, 2013.

    (5) Compliance determinations for NO X and SO 2—(i) Continuous emission monitoring system.

    (A) At all times after the compliance date specified in paragraph (f)(4) of this section, the owner/operator of each coal-fired unit shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure SO2, NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit. In addition, the owner/operator of Cholla Units 2, 3, and 4 shall calibrate, maintain, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure SO2 emissions and diluent at the inlet of the sulfur dioxide control device. All valid CEMS hourly data shall be used to determine compliance with the emission limitations for NOX and SO2 in paragraph (f)(3) of this section for each unit. When the CEMS is out-of-control as defined by 40 CFR part 75, that CEMs data shall be treated as missing data, and not used to calculate the emission average. Each required CEMS must obtain valid data for at least 90 percent of the unit operating hours, on an annual basis.

    (B) The owner/operator of each unit shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75. In addition to these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits shall be calculated for both the NOX and SO2 pounds per hour measurement and the heat input measurement. The CEMs monitoring data shall not be bias adjusted. The inlet SO2 and diluent monitors required by this rule shall also meet the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements of 40 CFR part 75. The testing and evaluation of the inlet monitors and the calculations of relative accuracy for lb/hr of NOX, SO2 and heat input shall be performed each time the 40 CFR part 75 CEMS undergo relative accuracy testing.

    (ii) Compliance determinations for NO X.

    (A) [Reserved]

    (B) Coronado Generating Station. Compliance with the NOX emission limits for Coronado Unit 1 and Coronado Unit 2 in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined on a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day basis. The 30-boiler-operating-day rolling NOX emission rate for each unit shall be calculated in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from the unit during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days; Step two, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days; Step three, divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted from that unit during the thirty (30) boiler operating days by the total heat input to the unit during the thirty (30) boiler operating days. A new 30-boiler-operating-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall be calculated for each new boiler operating day. Each 30-boiler-operating-day average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions that occur during all periods within any boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (C) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and NOX pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the 30-day rolling average.

    (iii) Compliance determinations for SO 2. (A) The 30-day rolling average SO2 emission rate for each coal-fired unit shall be calculated in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the total pounds of SO2 emitted from the unit during the current boiler-operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days; step two, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current boiler-operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating day; and step three, divide the total number of pounds of SO2 emitted during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days by the total heat input during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days. A new 30-day rolling average SO2 emission rate shall be calculated for each new boiler-operating day. Each 30-day rolling average SO2 emission rate shall include all emissions and all heat input that occur during all periods within any boiler-operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction.

    (B) [Reserved]

    (C) If a valid SO2 pounds per hour at the outlet of the FGD system or heat input is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and SO2 pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the 30-day rolling average.

    (D) If both a valid inlet and outlet SO2 lb/MMBtu and an outlet value of lb/hr of SO2 are not available for any hour, that hour shall not be included in the efficiency calculation.

    (10) Equipment operations.

    (i) [Reserved]

    (ii) Coronado Generating Station. At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator of Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and operate each unit in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. The owner or operator shall continuously operate pollution control equipment at all times the unit it serves is in operation, and operate pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with technological limitations, manufacturer's specifications, and good engineering and good air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of each unit.

    [FR Doc. 2016-16959 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0221; FRL-9948-88-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions to Permits, Rules and Approval Orders; Utah AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on February 10, 2012 and August 29, 2014. These submittals request SIP revisions to remove changes to the major source baseline date that were disapproved by the EPA on July 15, 2011. The submittals also address the EPA's February 6, 2014 disapproval of several permit rules related to the public availability of good engineering practice stack height demonstrations in the public comment process for an approval order, and the process for making emission reductions enforceable in an approval order. The EPA is taking this action in accordance with section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2016-0221, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.,) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-7814, [email protected]

    Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the Utah rules described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the agency views this as a noncontroversial SIP revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If the EPA receives no adverse comments, the EPA will not take further action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives adverse comments, the EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take effect. The EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information, please see the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Please note that if the EPA receives adverse comment on a distinct provision of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, the EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. See the information provided in the Direct Final action of the same title which is located in the Rules and Regulations Section of this Federal Register.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 22, 2016. Shaun L. McGrath, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16960 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909; FRL-9949-15-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; New Hampshire; Regional Haze 5-Year Report ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Hampshire on December 16, 2014. New Hampshire's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing Regional Haze SIP. In addition, the December 16, 2014 submittal includes a revised regulation that reduces the total suspended particulate (TSP) emission limit for the State's sole Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R01-OAR-2014-0909 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA 02109—3912, telephone number (617) 918-1697, fax number (617) 918-0697, email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to aid in locating information in this preamble.

    I. Background II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy Determinations III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision A. Regional Haze Progress Report B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers IV. Proposed Action V. Incorporation by Reference VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision every five years that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 1 (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing Regional Haze SIP. The first progress report SIP is due five years after submittal of the initial Regional Haze SIP. On January 29, 2010, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DES) submitted the State's first Regional Haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.2

    1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).

    2 On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New Hampshire's Regional Haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. See 77 FR 50602.

    On December 16, 2014, NH DES submitted a revision to the New Hampshire SIP detailing the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at the State's Class I areas, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing Regional Haze SIP. EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's December 16, 2014 SIP revision on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).

    II. Requirements for Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy Determinations

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), States must submit a regional haze progress report as a SIP revision every five years and must address the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in further detail in section III of this proposed rulemaking, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires: (1) A description of the status of measures in the approved Regional Haze SIP; (2) a summary of emissions reductions achieved; (3) an assessment of visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; (4) an analysis of changes in emissions from sources and activities within the state; (5) an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have limited or impeded progress in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; (6) an assessment of the sufficiency of the approved Regional Haze SIP; and (7) a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy.

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of their existing Regional Haze SIP and to take one of the following four possible actions based on information in the progress report: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further substantive revision to the state's existing Regional Haze SIP is needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines that the existing Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional haze planning process, and collaborated with these other state(s) to develop additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its existing Regional Haze SIP is, or may be, inadequate to ensure reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in another county; or (4) revise its Regional Haze SIP to address deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its existing Regional Haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one or more Class I areas due to emission from sources within the state.

    III. EPA's Evaluation of New Hampshire's SIP Revision

    On December 14, 2014, New Hampshire submitted the “Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report” (Progress Report) to EPA as a SIP revision.

    New Hampshire has two Class I areas within its borders: Great Gulf Wilderness Area (Great Gulf) and Presidential Range-Dry River Wilderness Area (Dry River), both located within the White Mountains National Forest. Emissions from New Hampshire's sources were also found to impact visibility at one nearby Class I area, Acadia National Park in Maine (Acadia). See 77 FR 11809 (February 28, 2012).

    Through the consultation process, New Hampshire agreed to pursue the coordinated course of action agreed to by the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast Visibility Union (MANE-VU) 3 to assure reasonable progress toward preventing any future, and remedying any existing, impairment of visibility in the mandatory Class I areas within the MANE-VU region. These measures are: Implementation of best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements; a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy; a targeted electricity generating unit (EGU) strategy; and continued evaluation of other control measures.4 While New Hampshire did not adopt a low-sulfur fuel oil strategy for implementation during the first regional haze planning period, the State showed in its 2010 Regional Haze SIP that equivalent emission reductions were achieved through alternate measures such as recent fuel switching at a coal-fired power plant in the state (i.e., Schiller Station) and facility shutdowns.

    3 MANE-VU is a collaborative effort of State governments, Tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the Northeastern United States. Member State and Tribal governments include: Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Penobscot Indian Nation, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

    4 The MANE-VU “Ask” was structured around the finding that SO2 emissions were the dominate visibility impairing pollutant at the Northeastern Class I areas and electrical generating units comprised the largest SO2 emission sector. See “Regional Haze and Visibility in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States,” January 31, 2001.

    A. Regional Haze Progress Report

    This section summarizes each of the seven elements that must be addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g), and describes how New Hampshire's progress report SIP addresses each element. This section also includes EPA's analysis of New Hampshire's SIP, and our proposed determination as to whether the State satisfied each element.

    The provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) require a description of the status of implementation of all measures included in the Regional Haze SIP for achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state. New Hampshire's 2010 Regional Haze SIP RPGs are based on: Control measures for the State's two subject-to-BART sources; control measures for one additional EGU stack; and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission reductions from States found to be contributing to the visibility impairment at the New Hampshire Class I areas. New Hampshire's two subject-to-BART sources are Eversource Energy (formally Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH)) Merrimack Station Unit MK2 and Eversource Energy (formally PSNH) Newington Unit NT1. Along with the two subject-to-BART units, Eversource Energy Merrimack Station Unit MK1 was identified as among the top 167 EGUs contributing to visibility impairment. New Hampshire's 2010 Regional Haze SIP included control measures for these three units. The 2014 Progress Report confirms the installation and use of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) for Merrimack Station Units MK1 and MK2; the implementation of a more stringent SO2 emission limit for Newington Station; and the implementation of more stringent emission limits for the existing oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate emission control technologies in use at Merrimack and Newington Stations.

    In addition, the New Hampshire 2014 Progress Report also includes the status of SO2 emission reductions from the identified top 167 EGUs outside of New Hampshire.5 The MANE-VU targeted EGU strategy called for a 90% SO2 reduction from the top contributing stacks by 2018. New Hampshire reports SO2 scrubbers have already been placed on many of the 167 targeted EGUs, while other units have seen lower utilization or have been shut down entirely.

    5 Memorandum from NESCAUM to MANE-VU “Overview of State and Federal Actions Relative to MANE-VU Asks” dated March 28, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/summary-memo-mane-vu-asks-20130328-final.pdf/.

    EPA proposes that New Hampshire's analysis adequately addresses the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State demonstrates the implementation of measures within the State, including BART and targeted SO2 reductions from New Hampshire's three in-state units that were part of the contributing 167 stacks. In addition, the Progress Report documents the status of requested SO2 reductions from the remaining top 167 stacks outside of New Hampshire.

    The provision under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emission reductions achieved in the state through the measures subject to the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). During the development of the Regional Haze SIP for the first planning period, MANE-VU and New Hampshire determined that SO2 was the greatest contributor to anthropogenic visibility impairment at the State's Class I areas. Therefore, the bulk of visibility improvement achieved in the first planning period was expected to result from reductions in SO2 emissions from sources inside and outside of the State. Table 6-1 of the 2014 Progress Report details the SO2 emission reduction from the 2002 New Hampshire Regional Haze SIP baseline to 2013 for not only the targeted Merrimack Station Units MK1 and MK2 and Newington Unit NT1, but all New Hampshire EGUs.6 The targeted EGU units subject to control through the installation of BART and New Hampshire's LTS show an emission reduction from 35,882 tons SO2 in 2002 to 1,729 tons SO2 in 2013, a reduction of 95%. NOX emissions from these same sources were reduced from 4,776 tons in 2002 to 2,230 tons in 2013, a reduction of 57%. All New Hampshire EGUs combined showed a 92.8% reduction in SO2 emissions and a 61.3% reduction in NOXemissions for the same time period.

    6 New Hampshire's progress report SIP includes annual unit-level emissions data for SO2 and NOX from EGUs from EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) for the years 2002 and 2013.

    EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provision under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). New Hampshire has detailed the SO2 and NOX reduction from the 2002 Regional Haze baseline to the most recently available year of data at the time of the development of New Hampshire's Progress Report, 2013. In addition, NH DES highlighted SO2 and NOX emissions reductions from all New Hampshire EGUs during this same time period.

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) require that states with Class I areas within their borders provide the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days 7 for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of these annual values: (1) Current visibility conditions; (2) the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions; and (3) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.

    7 The “most impaired days” and “least impaired days” in the regional haze rule refer to the average visibility impairment (measured in deciviews (dv)) for the twenty percent monitored days in the calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. See 40 CFR 51.301. The lower the dv, the better the visibility in an area.

    New Hampshire is home to two Class I areas, Great Gulf and Dry River. The Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments program (IMPROVE) monitor within Great Gulf is representative of both New Hampshire Class I areas. In the Progress Report, NH DES provides the data for the baseline 2000-2004 5-Year Average visibility, the most recent 2009-2013 5-Year Average visibility, the 2018 RPG from the 2010 Regional Haze SIP, and the calculated visibility improvement. See Table 1.

    Table 1—Observed Visibility vs. Established Visibility Goals (Deciviews) for Great Gulf Wilderness Area Baseline
  • 2000-2004
  • 5-year
  • average
  • visibility
  • Most recent
  • 2009-2013
  • 5-year
  • average
  • visibility
  • Visibility
  • mprovement
  • 2018
  • Reasonable
  • progress
  • goal
  • 2064 Goal
  • (natural
  • visibility)
  • 20% Most Impaired Days 22.8 dv 16.7 dv 6.1 dv 19.1 dv 12.0 dv 20% Least Impaired Days 7.7 dv 5.9 dv 1.8 dv 7.2 dv 3.7 dv

    The baseline visibility for Great Gulf was 22.8 dv on the 20% most impaired days and 7.7 dv on the least impaired days. The most recent five-year average visibility data shows an improvement of 6.1 dv on the 20% most impaired days and 1.8 dv improvement on the 20% least impaired days. The 2014 Progress Report also demonstrates that the State has already achieved and surpassed the 2018 RPG for the 20% most impaired days and ensured no visibility degradation for the 20% least impaired days for the first planning period.

    EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire provided the required information regarding visibility conditions to meet the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3), specifically providing baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available IMPROVE monitoring data (2009-2013), and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions.

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) require an analysis tracking emissions changes of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or category over the past five years based on the most recent updated emissions inventory. In its progress report SIP to address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), New Hampshire presents data from statewide emissions inventories developed for the years 2002, 2007, 2013 (EGUs only), and projected inventories for 2018 for SO2, NOX, PM2.5 and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC).8 9 New Hampshire's emissions inventories include the following source classifications: Point EGUs, Point Non-EGUs, Area, On-road Mobile, and Non-road Mobile. From 2002 through 2013, New Hampshire's overall EGU (the largest SO2 sector) emissions were reduced from 43,962 tons per year (tpy) SO2 to 3,167 tpy, surpassing the 2018 projected goal of 10,766 tpy SO2. For NOX, from 2002 to 2007, the State achieved an overall 13% reduction from 64,625 tpy to 56,110 tpy. NH DES is projecting an additional 25,000 tpy reduction in NOX by 2018, mostly from the on-road mobile sector, which would result in approximately 31,110 tpy NOX in 2018. This estimate compares well with the 2018 projected goal of 30,369 tpy. Finally, NH DES indicates that based on the 2007 emission data, the State has already exceeded the 2018 emission reduction goals for direct PM2.5 (55% reduction) and VOCs (53% reduction).

    8 The 2002 inventory is the MANE-VU V3.3 which is projected to 2018. The 2007 inventory is the MARAMA V3 inventory based on the 2007 National Emission Inventory (NEI). The 2013 inventory was the most recent year of Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) inventory data as reported to EPA.

    9 Mid-Atlantic Air Management Association (MARAMA) “Regional Emissions Trends Analysis for the MANE-VU States Technical Support Document Revision 3” dated March 22, 2013. Attachment D of the New Hampshire 2014 Progress Report.

    EPA is proposing that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). NH DES compared the most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of the development of the Progress Report with the baseline emissions for the Regional Haze SIP. The progress report appropriately details the 2007 SO2, NOX, PM2.5 and VOC reductions achieved, by sector, thus far in the regional haze planning period. In addition, the State provided the most recent annual EGU SO2 emission data, the sector determined to be the greatest contributor to visibility impairment at the Class I areas in New Hampshire and Maine.

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) require an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the state's sources. In its progress report SIP, New Hampshire states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Great Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia. While New Hampshire mainly focused its analysis on addressing large SO2 emissions from point sources, the State did not find any significant changes in NOX and PM2.5 which might impede or limit progress during the first planning period. In addition, NH DES cited the 2013 Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) report, discussed below, which indicates that all of the MANE-VU Class I areas are on track to meet the 2018 visibility goals established by the states in their Regional Haze SIPs.10

    10 NESCAUM for MANE-VU, “Tracking Visibility Progress 2004-2011,” revised May 24, 2013. http://www.nescaum.org/documents/manevu-trends-2004-2011-report-final-20130430.pdf/view.

    EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State adequately demonstrated that there are no significant changes in emissions of SO2, PM2.5, or NOX within the state which have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in the Class I areas impacted by New Hampshire sources.

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) require an assessment of whether the current Regional Haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states, to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the state. In its progress report SIP, NH DES states that it believes that the elements and strategies relied on in its original Regional Haze SIP are sufficient to enable New Hampshire and neighboring states to meet all established RPGs. To support this conclusion, NH DES notes that 2013 EGU SO2 emissions for the entire MANE-VU area are already less than the 2018 projection (315,675 tpy versus 365,024 tpy). In addition, New Hampshire discusses visibility data from Tracking Visibility Progress, 2004-2011, prepared by NESCAUM, which updated the progress at MANE-VU Class I areas during the five-year period ending in 2011, including information for the New Hampshire Class I areas, between 2000 and 2011 in the context of short- and long-term visibility goals. The report indicates that visibility impairment on the best and worst days from 2000 through 2011 have dropped at Great Gulf. New Hampshire notes the NESCAUM report indicates that all the MANE-VU Class I states continue to be on track to meet their 2018 RPGs for improved visibility and that further progress may occur through recently adopted or proposed regulatory programs. Based upon the NESCAUM report and visibility data, New Hampshire states in its Progress Report that visibility improvement at Great Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia has occurred for the most impaired days and no degradation of visibility has occurred for the least impaired days. Therefore, New Hampshire finds that Great Gulf, Dry River, and Acadia are on track to meet the RPGs for 2018 based on the observed visibility improvement.

    EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as an assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility trends and other readily available information. In its Progress Report, New Hampshire described the improving visibility trends detailed in the NESCAUM report and the downward emissions trends in key pollutants in the State and the MANE-VU region. With a focus on SO2 emissions from New Hampshire EGUs, New Hampshire determined that the State's Regional Haze SIP is sufficient for the two Class I areas within the state and the Class I area outside the state impacted by the state's emissions (Acadia) to meet their RPGs.

    The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) require a review of the state's visibility monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary. New Hampshire's visibility monitoring strategy relies upon participation in the IMPROVE network. The IMPROVE monitor at the Great Gulf area is located approximately 1 mile east of the wilderness boundary and also serves as the monitor for the Dry River area whose northern most limit lies only 5 miles southwest of the monitor location. NH DES finds that there is no indication of a need for additional monitoring sites or equipment.

    EPA proposes to find that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) by reviewing the state's visibility monitoring strategy and assessing whether any modifications to the monitoring strategy are necessary.

    B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made in the progress report SIP. In its progress report SIP, New Hampshire took the action provided for by the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allow a state to submit a negative declaration to EPA.

    In the 2014 SIP submittal, New Hampshire determined that the existing Regional Haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The basis for the State's negative declaration is the finding that visibility has improved at all Class I areas in the MANE-VU region. In addition, SO2 emissions from the State's EGUs have decreased beyond the original 2018 projections. While NOX reductions have yet to fully meet the 2018 projections, additional substantial NOX emission reductions are expected from the mobile sector over the next several years. Finally, New Hampshire expects the downward trend in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the other MANE-VU states to continue through 2018.

    EPA proposes to conclude that New Hampshire has adequately addressed the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility and emission trends indicate that the Great Gulf and Dry River Areas, in addition to Acadia which is the Class I area impacted by New Hampshire sources, will be able to meet or exceed the RPGs for 2018.

    C. Revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers

    On August 22, 2012, EPA approved New Hampshire's Env-A 2300 Mitigation of Regional Haze into New Hampshire's SIP. See 77 FR 50602. Env-A 2300 is the New Hampshire regulation which establishes the emission limits associated with control measures adopted through the Regional Haze process. In the New Hampshire 2010 Regional Haze SIP, the current use of an Electrostatic Precipitator on Newington Station Unit NT1 11 represented BART for particulate control. At the time of EPA's approval, a single available stack test yielded a controlled TSP rate in the vicinity of 0.06 pounds TSP per million British thermal units (lb TSP/MMBtu) and was used to establish the TSP limit for NT1. However, the facility's Title V operating permit required that a compliance stack test for particulate matter be performed and the permit limit be amended, as appropriate, based on the results of the test. Subsequent stack testing demonstrated that 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu is a more appropriate emission limit. Revised Env-A 2302.02, which was included in New Hampshire's December 16, 2014 SIP submittal, reduces the TSP emission limit for Newington NT1 from 0.06 lb TSP/MMbtu to 0.04 lb TSP/MMbtu.

    11 PSNH Newington Station Unit NT1 is the only Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boiler in New Hampshire.

    EPA is proposing to find that New Hampshire's revised Env-A 2302.02 strengthens the existing SIP and is therefore proposing to approve, and incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP, revised Env-A 2302.02.

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve New Hampshire's December 16, 2014 Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). In addition, EPA is proposing to approve, and incorporate into the New Hampshire SIP, New Hampshire's revised section Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry Bottom Boilers.

    V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rulemaking, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference New Hampshire's revised Env-A 2302.02 Emission Standards Applicable to Tangential-Firing, Dry-Bottom Boilers, effective November 22, 2014. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

    • Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

    • Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

    • Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

    • Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

    • Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

    • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

    • Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional Haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 6, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17063 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 0, 1, and 63 [IB Docket No. 16-155, FCC 16-79] Process Reform for Executive Branch Review of Certain FCC Applications and Petitions Involving Foreign Ownership AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes changes to our rules and procedures related to certain applications and petitions for declaratory ruling involving foreign ownership (together, “applications”). The Commission refers certain applications to the relevant Executive Branch agencies for their input on any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns that may arise from the foreign ownership interests held in the applicants and petitioners (together, “applicants”). As part of our effort to reform the Commission's processes, we seek to improve the timeliness and transparency of this referral process. More specifically, our goals here are to identify ways in which both the Commission and the agencies might streamline and facilitate the process for obtaining information necessary for Executive Branch review and identify expected time frames, while ensuring that we continue to take Executive Branch concerns into consideration as part of our public interest review.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 18, 2016, and replies on or before September 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 16-155, by any of the following methods:

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

    Federal Communications Commission's ECFS Web site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email to [email protected], phone: 202-418-0530 (voice), tty: 202-418-0432.

    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Krech or Veronica Garcia-Ulloa, Telecommunications and Analysis Division, International Bureau, FCC, (202) 418-1480 or via email to [email protected], mail to: [email protected] On PRA matters, contact Cathy Williams, Office of the Managing Director, FCC, (202) 418-2918 or via email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in IB Docket No. 16-155, adopted on June 24, 2016 and released on June 24, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The document also is available for download over the Internet at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0624/FCC-16-79A1.pdf.

    Comment Filing Procedures

    Pursuant to §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

    Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's ECFS Web site at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

    Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

    • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

    • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

    Synopsis of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose changes to our rules and procedures related to certain applications and petitions for declaratory ruling involving foreign ownership. On May 10, 2016, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) filed a letter on behalf of the Executive Branch requesting that the Commission make changes to its processes that would help facilitate a more streamlined Executive Branch review process. The Executive Branch asks the Commission to require applicants seeking international section 214 authorizations or transfer of such authorizations, submarine cable landing licenses, satellite earth station authorizations, and section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings to provide certain information as part of their applications. The Executive Branch specifically asks that applicants with reportable foreign ownership provide certain information regarding ownership, network operations, and related matters, and that all applicants, regardless of whether they have reportable foreign ownership, certify that they will comply with applicable law enforcement assistance requirements and respond truthfully and accurately to lawful requests for information and/or legal process. The NTIA Letter states that such requirements will improve the ability of the Executive Branch to expeditiously and efficiently review referred applications, particularly in regard to identifying and assessing applications that raise national security or law enforcement concerns. The letter further states that the proposed certifications, in many cases, may eliminate the need for national security or law enforcement conditions, and thus facilitate expeditious responses to the Commission on specific applications.

    2. Based on the NTIA Letter and the comments received, we propose specific changes in our rules, designed to address the Executive Branch's request in a manner that furthers our mandate to serve the public interest. We also propose to adopt time frames for Executive Branch review of applications and other changes to our processing rules. We seek comment on those proposed changes. We believe that implementation of these rule changes would speed the action on applications while continuing to take into consideration relevant national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns.

    3. The Commission refers certain applications to the Executive Branch when there is reportable foreign ownership in the applicant. Specifically, where an applicant has a ten percent or greater direct or indirect owner that is not a U.S. citizen, Commission practice has been to refer an application for: (1) International section 214 authority; (2) assignment or transfer of control of domestic or international section 214 authority; (3) a submarine cable landing license; and (4) assignment or transfer of control of a submarine cable landing license. The Commission also refers petitions seeking authority to exceed the section 310(b) foreign ownership limits for broadcast and common carrier wireless licensees, including common carrier satellite earth stations.

    4. Our understanding is that the national security and law enforcement agencies generally initiate review of an application by sending the applicant a set of questions seeking information on the five percent or greater owners of the applicant, the names and identifying information of officers and directors of companies, the business plans of the applicant, and details about the network to be used to provide services. The applicant provides answers to these threshold and any follow-up questions directly to the agencies, without involvement of Commission staff. The agencies use the information gathered through the questions to conduct their review and determine whether they need to negotiate a mitigation agreement with the applicant to address potential national security or law enforcement issues. Mitigation agreements can take the form of a letter of assurance (LOA) or a national security agreement (NSA). An LOA is a letter from the applicant to the agencies in which it agrees to undertake certain actions and that is signed only by the applicant. An NSA is a formal agreement between the applicant and the agencies and is signed by all parties.

    5. Upon completion of review, the Executive Branch notifies the Commission of its recommendation in typically one of two forms. The national security and law enforcement agencies may have no comment, in which case they file a letter to this effect, and the Commission moves forward with its action on the application. Alternatively, the agencies may advise the Commission that they have no objection to the grant of an application so long as the applicant complies with the terms of the relevant LOA or NSA. In such case, a grant of the application will typically be subject to the express condition that the applicant abide by the commitments and undertakings contained in the LOA and or NSA. More specifically, a typical authorization states that a failure to comply and/or remain in compliance with any of the commitments and undertakings in the LOA or NSA shall constitute a failure to meet a condition of such authorization, and thus grounds for declaring that the authorization has been terminated under the terms of the condition without further action on the part of the Commission. See IB Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd at 11018; see, e.g., Wypoint Telecom, Inc., Termination of International Section 214 Authorization, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 13431, 13431-32, para. 2 (IB 2015). Failure to meet a condition of the authorization may also result in monetary sanctions or other enforcement action by the Commission. 47 U.S.C. 312; 47 U.S.C. 503. A third type of notification might involve a request to deny an application on national security or law enforcement grounds. To date, the agencies have not requested that the Commission deny an application. Regardless of the type of response from the Executive Branch, the Commission acts quickly to dispose of an application after the agencies complete their review.

    6. On May 12, 2016, the International Bureau released a public notice seeking comment on the May 10, 2016 NTIA Letter. Based on the NTIA Letter and the comments we have received, we identify below several proposals to make the Executive Branch review process more efficient and transparent. These include proposals that address the following requests set out in the NTIA Letter: (1) Requiring certain applicants with reportable foreign ownership to file information regarding ownership, network operations, and related matters; and (2) requiring applicants, regardless of whether they have reportable foreign ownership, to certify they will comply with certain law enforcement assistance requirements and respond truthfully and accurately to lawful requests for information and/or legal process. They also include additional proposals to establish time frames for Executive Branch review of applications and modify our processing rules. We seek comment on these and other ways to expedite the review process and increase transparency while ensuring that relevant Executive Branch concerns receive consideration as part of the Commission's public interest review.

    7. TYPES OF APPLICATIONS. We propose that only certain types of applications may be required to provide the information and certifications requested by the Executive Branch in the NTIA Letter. In the NTIA Letter, the Executive Branch requests that applicants seeking international section 214 authorizations or transfer of such authorizations, submarine cable landing licenses, satellite earth station authorizations, and section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings, provide certain information and certifications as part of their applications. We currently refer to the Executive Branch applications with reportable foreign ownership for international section 214 authorizations, applications to assign or transfer control of domestic or international section 214 authority, submarine cable landing licenses and applications to assign or transfer control of such licenses, and petitions for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings (broadcast, common carrier wireless, and common carrier satellite earth stations). We do not propose to expand the types of applications that we refer to the Executive Branch.

    8. Currently, we refer applications for transfer of control of domestic section 214 authority that have reportable foreign ownership and that do not have a corresponding international section 214 transfer of control application. The NTIA Letter does not seek to review these types of applications, nor do we propose to include these applications among those we will refer to the Executive Branch or to require the requested information and certifications. We seek comment on this and whether there are situations where we should refer a domestic-only section 214 authority transfer of control application to the Executive Branch.

    9. EchoStar/Hughes and SIA raise concerns that the NTIA Letter seeks to require non-common carrier earth station licenses to be subject to the information and certification requests by the Executive Branch. We have not been referring earth station applications to the Executive Branch because most earth stations are authorized on a non-common carrier basis, and we do not collect ownership information in the applications. An earth station application, however, may be included as part of a referral of associated applications, such as an international section 214 application or an assignment or transfer of control application. We propose to maintain our current practice and only refer common carrier earth station applications if the applicant requires a section 310(b) foreign ownership ruling. Consequently, an applicant for an earth station license would not be required to provide the information and certifications sought by the Executive Branch as part of its application, but would only need to provide such information as part of its section 310(b) petition if it required a foreign ownership ruling. Similarly, we propose that an applicant for a broadcast or common carrier wireless license not be required to provide the information as part of its application, but only need to provide such information as part of its section 310(b) petition if it required a foreign ownership ruling. We seek comment on whether these are the appropriate types of applications to be required to provide the information and certifications requested by the Executive Branch and be considered for referral to the Executive Branch for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns.

    10. OWNERSHIP, NETWORK OPERATIONS, AND OTHER INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS. We propose to require applicants with reportable foreign ownership to provide information on ownership, network operations, and related matters when filing their applications. For international section 214 authorizations and submarine cable landing licenses, the applicant must report all individuals or entities with a ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant. 47 CFR 1.767(a)(8), 63.18(h). For assignment or transfer of control applications, the applicant must report all individuals or entities with a ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant. 47 CFR 1.767(a)(11), 63.24. Common carrier wireless licensees, common carrier satellite earth station licensees, and broadcast licensees must seek a foreign ownership ruling if their foreign ownership would exceed the relevant benchmark set out in section 310(b) of the Act. 47 U.S.C. 310(b). The NTIA Letter states that receiving the requested information as part of an application will allow the Executive Branch to start its review of the application sooner than is possible under the current review process. We agree. We propose to require that the information be filed at the time an applicant submits its application to the Commission. We seek comment on this proposal and any alternative or additional methods to streamline the application process and increase transparency, while providing the Executive Branch with the information needed to conduct its national security and law enforcement review.

    11. Categories of Information. Under the current process, the questions asked of applicants by the Executive Branch require information that is not included in the applications submitted to the Commission. The NTIA Letter states that the relevant agencies need answers to these questions to evaluate whether an application may raise national security or law enforcement concerns. The questions may vary depending on the specifics of the application. The applicant generally cannot prepare answers in advance of receiving the questions. Because tailoring the questions sent to each applicant takes time, there often is some delay between when the Commission refers the application and when the agencies send questions to the applicant. The NTIA Letter notes that there is currently no required timeline on the applicant's response to the questions. Thus, it may take the Executive Branch additional time to obtain complete answers from applicants, which adds delay. The agencies also may have follow-up questions for the applicant upon review of the initial set of answers. This, among other factors, can lead to longer time periods for review.

    12. To help ensure that the relevant departments and agencies have the information needed to review an application promptly, the Executive Branch requests that we require applicants with reportable foreign ownership seeking international section 214 authorizations or transfer of such authorization, submarine cable landing licenses, and satellite earth station authorizations, as well as petitioners for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings, to provide as part of their applications detailed and comprehensive information in the following areas:

    (1) Corporate structure and shareholder information;

    (2) Relationships with foreign entities;

    (3) Financial condition and circumstances;

    (4) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and

    (5) Business and operational information, including services to be provided and network infrastructure.

    13. The Executive Branch asks the Commission “to adopt requirements that focus on the above categories of information to be collected, while also providing sufficient flexibility for the Commission to prescribe and, as necessary, modify the specific questions posed to applicants.” The Executive Branch recommends that the Commission propose and seek comment on specific questions through an information collection process consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) process. For illustrative purposes, the Executive Branch also filed sample questions that show the types and extent of the information it seeks to obtain. The introductory language for the sample questions states that the questions seek “information regarding the business organization and services, network infrastructure, relationships with foreign entities or persons, historical regulatory and penal actions, and capabilities to comply with applicable legal requirements, and would be shared with relevant Executive Branch departments and agencies to assist in the review of public interest factors.”

    14. The NTIA Letter states that this information is necessary for the agencies to assess whether an application with reportable foreign ownership raises national security or law enforcement concerns, including preventing abuses of U.S. communications systems, protecting the confidentiality, integrity and availability of U.S communications, protecting the national infrastructure, preventing fraudulent or other criminal activity, and preserving the ability to effectuate legal process for communications data. It states that receiving the information at the time of referral, rather than having to request it after referral, will help the Executive Branch begin review of the application promptly after referral. Commenters state that requiring these categories of information may help expedite the process, but may go beyond the information the Executive Branch currently requests. For example, one commenter asserts that seeking information on financial condition and circumstances and compliance with applicable laws and regulations “seems far outside the scope of [the Executive Branch's] review of applications for `national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns.'” Others argue that the requested information is duplicative of information provided as part of the Commission's application. We seek comment on this request and on the proposed categories of information. Are there more narrowly tailored questions that can adequately serve the goals sought in the NTIA Letter? Are there additional questions that should be included, and, if so, what are those questions?

    15. Information Filing. We propose to require applicants with reportable foreign ownership seeking an international section 214 authorization or a submarine cable landing license or to assign or transfer control of such authorizations, and petitioners for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings (common carrier wireless, common carrier satellite earth stations, or broadcast) to provide the information requested by the NTIA Letter at the time they file their applications or petitions. We seek comment on whether there are situations where an applicant should not be required to file the information. For example, should the Commission require an applicant to provide such information when the applicant has an existing LOA or NSA and there has been no material change in the foreign ownership since it negotiated the LOA or NSA? Should non-facilities-based carriers be subject to the information request?

    16. Publicly Available Questions. We propose that the Commission retain flexibility regarding the specific questions to be answered and thus propose to include in the rules the categories of questions to be answered but not to place the specific questions in the rules. The NTIA Letter urges the Commission to adopt requirements that focus on the categories of information to be collected so as to afford the Commission flexibility to vary the specific questions as appropriate to the circumstances at the time. The NTIA Letter notes that the specific questions would be subject to the PRA as an information collection. We propose to adopt the approach described in the Executive Branch request, and after the new rules are adopted, we would start a PRA process with the specific questions, and then make the questions publicly available on a Web site as a downloadable document so it is readily available to applicants. This approach would be similar to our practice of outlining the requirements for an application in our rules and then including specific questions that elicit the required information during the PRA process to adopt the forms for filing the application. If we adopt this proposal, applicants and other interested parties will have the opportunity to comment on the specific questions during the PRA review process. We seek comment on this proposal.

    17. We also seek comment on whether the use of a publicly available set of standardized questions for which the answers must be provided at the time of filing an application will help to streamline the Executive Branch review process. For instance, will the inclusion of responses to the standardized questions at the time the application is filed result in more timely review than the use of individualized questions that are sent to the applicant after the application has been filed? Many of the commenters support having the questions publicly available and the answers provided at the time the application is filed, stating that this should expedite Executive Branch review. CTIA, while supporting publicly-available standardized questions, recommends that the answers not be provided when the application is filed because the answers would likely delay and complicate applications. CTIA instead suggests that applicants “certify in their application that they will provide complete responses to the questionnaire within a particular time frame after filing the application.” We seek comment on whether the answers should be provided when the application is filed with the Commission, and if not, how a later filing would serve the goal of expediting Executive Branch review of the applications.

    18. We propose that, although the questions would be standardized, they vary by category of application. For example, an applicant for an international section 214 authorization would not be required to provide information about cable landing location sites. We also seek comment on whether there is information that the Executive Branch may require that cannot be provided when an application is filed, but which could be made available later in the review process. For example, Level 3 notes that submarine cable landing applicants usually cannot provide answers to all the questions at the time the application is filed. Should an application be considered complete and acceptable for filing if there is information that an applicant cannot provide at the time of filing? Are there specific questions for submarine cable applicants or other applicants that should not be required at the time the applicant files?

    19. FCC Review of Responses. We propose that, as part of our review of an application for acceptability for filing, the Commission staff review the responses to the threshold questions for completeness, but leave the substantive review to the Executive Branch. CTIA and Level 3 question the usefulness of submitting the answers to the Commission and suggest that they be sent directly to the Executive Branch. We seek comment on whether the Commission should receive and/or review the answers in the first instance. We seek comment on what Commission staff should look for to determine if the responses are sufficient to find the application acceptable for filing. We also seek comment on alternatives if Commission staff does not review the responses to the questions. For example, should we require a certification that the applicant has provided the responses to the Executive Branch at the time of filing or will do so within a specified period of time? If so, what would be an appropriate period? If the Commission staff does not review the responses, how would that affect the proposed time frames for Executive Branch review? When would the 90-day period for the review start if the Executive Branch has to go back and forth with the applicant to get complete responses to the questions?

    20. We recognize that the responses to some of these threshold questions may contain confidential commercial information. Some of the threshold questions would seek personally identifiable information (PII). Any questions that seek PII would require the Commission to assess whether by obtaining and using such PII it would be creating a system of records under the Privacy Act. 5 U.S.C. 552a. With respect to any information we may receive that includes PII, we intend to comply fully with the requirements of that statute and related statutes that protect PII. The Commission's rules provide a mechanism for requesting confidential treatment of such information. Under these rules, such information will be accorded confidential treatment until the Commission acts on the confidentiality request and all subsequent agency review and judicial stay proceedings have been exhausted. To the extent the information qualifies as trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information that is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, our rules require a “persuasive showing” for public release of the information, showing among other factors that the information is relevant to a public interest issue before the Commission. In application proceedings, the Commission may rely upon protective orders to limit disclosure and use of competitively sensitive and other confidential information. We seek comment on whether these established procedures serve to provide appropriate protections in such situations. Given the scope of this information, the likelihood that some of it may already be public, and the relevance of context in evaluating competitive concerns, we do not propose to designate such information in our rules as the kind that is presumed confidential and therefore does not require the filing of a request for confidentiality. We seek comment on this view. We seek comment on whether some of this information can be presumed to be confidential and request that commenters specify which types of information should be presumed confidential.

    21. If we require the responses to the questions to be filed with the Commission, we seek comment on whether the Commission should take special steps to ensure that the responses to threshold questions submitted by applicants are secure, such as having applicants submit their responses through a secure portal. We note that the Commission has experience in receiving confidential information and sharing that information with other agencies. Currently, the Commission has in place secure portals, such as the Network Outage Reporting System (NORS). We would anticipate developing a similar system to facilitate the receiving, reviewing, sharing, and generally storing any confidential or sensitive information in the applicants' submissions in response to the threshold questions. We also invite suggestions about other heightened security measures that the Commission can undertake to ensure the protection of the information submitted by applicants.

    22. In this case, our proposals contemplate sharing of confidential information submitted as part of the application with Executive Branch agencies, who would continue to review it in the first instance for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns. Under our rules, such sharing is subject to the requirement that the Executive Branch agencies must comply with the protections applicable both to the Commission and to themselves relating to the unlawful disclosure of information. Because current practice already involves submission of similar information for review by these agencies, and in light of their legitimate need for the information, we propose to amend section 0.442 of the Commission's rules to make clear that sharing with Executive Branch agencies under these restrictions is permissible without the pre-notification procedures of that rule. We seek comment on this proposal. Are the obligations of the various Executive Branch agencies different than the Commission's obligation to protect the information? If so, what are the differences and what is the possible impact of those differences?

    23. We seek comment on whether there are reasons why the Commission should or should not undertake the initial review of the answers for completeness. We seek comment on whether there are concerns with Commission staff receiving, reviewing, storing, and forwarding to the Executive Branch such personally identifiable and business sensitive information. What are the benefits and burdens of the Commission receiving and reviewing the threshold questions? We invite suggestions on heightened confidentiality protections for sensitive and proprietary financial, operational, and privacy related information that applicants would provide as part of the Commission's application process.

    24. CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS. We propose to add a certification requirement to our rules, and seek comment on the scope of this proposal. The Executive Branch requests that the Commission require all applicants to certify that they agree to comply with several mitigation measures, as discussed below. The NTIA Letter states that requiring an applicant to certify to compliance with these measures as part of its application should reduce the need for routine mitigation, which should facilitate a faster response to the Commission by the Executive Branch on its review and advance the shared goal of making the Executive Branch review process as expeditious and efficient as possible.

    25. The NTIA Letter observes that national security and law enforcement review frequently requires time both to negotiate assurances from an applicant that it will comply with applicable law enforcement assistance requirements and to draft an individualized LOA upon which the Executive Branch will rely to address national security and law enforcement concerns. It states that the proposed certification would simplify and expedite the review process. The Executive Branch therefore requests that an applicant certify that, with respect to the communications services to be provided under the requested license or authorization, it will:

    (1) Comply with applicable provisions of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA);

    (2) make communications to, from, or within the United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to lawful request or valid legal process under U.S. law, for services covered under the requested Commission license or authorization; and

    (3) agree to designate a point of contact located in the United States who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident for the execution of lawful requests and/or legal process.

    For certification number (2), the proposed certifications cite to the following U.S. laws and other legal processes: (1) The Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. 2501 et seq.; (2) the Stored Communication Act, 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.; (3) the Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute, 18 U.S.C. 3121; and (4) other court orders, subpoenas or other legal process. The Executive Branch suggests that by requiring applicants to certify compliance with these law enforcement requirements as part of the application process, the applicant would consider and address these requirements prior to submitting the application. The NTIA Letter states that the requested certifications “would continue to require applicants to declare that all information submitted is complete, up-to-date, and truthful, and that the applicant understands that failure to fulfill the obligations contained in the certifications could result in revocation or termination of the requested license or authorization, as well as criminal and civil penalties.” It asserts that these certifications would strengthen compliance because an applicant would understand that failure to comply with the certifications could be a basis for the Commission to terminate or revoke the authorization or license. We invite comment on the certifications above and seek specific comments as to whether any changes should be made and why. We also seek comment on whether the Executive Branch's suggestions will be burdensome, and if so, the nature and extent, of any burden.

    26. Eliminating the Need to Negotiate LOAs. We believe that eliminating the need to negotiate LOAs for routine mitigation measures should help to streamline the Executive Branch review process and provide the opportunity to allocate resources to resolution of more complicated applications. Our experience shows that in 2014 almost half (13 of 29) of all mitigation agreements filed with the Commission concerned only issues that would have been adequately addressed by the certification requirement; in 2015, the figure was over half (17 of 29). We encourage those who have had experience in negotiating routine LOAs that cover compliance with CALEA and other law enforcement assistance requirements to address whether and in what ways and by how much time the proposed certifications might have expedited Executive Branch review of their applications.

    27. Applicants. We seek comment on the Executive Branch request that all applicants seeking an international section 214 authorization or a submarine cable landing license, or applications to assign or transfer control of such authorizations, and petitioners for section 310(b) foreign ownership rulings (common carrier wireless, common carrier satellite earth stations or broadcast) be required to make the foregoing certifications, not just those applicants with reportable foreign ownership. Specifically, we seek comment on the premise that the certification requirement would address legitimate law enforcement concerns that should apply regardless of foreign ownership. We note that extension of this requirement to all applicants would encompass the vast majority of such applications, including many that do not require Executive Branch review. Several commenters oppose requiring applicants that do not have reportable foreign ownership to make the requested certification. For example, CTIA argues that the NTIA letter “does not explain why [the proposed] certifications should be extended to all applicants” when the Executive Branch review process is currently limited to applicants with reportable foreign ownership. In addition, T-Mobile claims that “[t]here is no basis to require applicants without cognizable foreign ownership to submit to these new requirements.” Moreover, USTelecom contends that applicants should not have to “submit up front information or certifications if their applications have no meaningful nexus to national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade concerns,” which are the main reasons behind the Executive Branch review. We seek comment on their concerns. Are there reasons why the certification should apply only to applicants with reportable foreign ownership? How would requiring certifications from all applicants expedite the review of applications with reportable foreign ownership? Would distinguishing between applicants with reportable foreign ownership and those without foreign ownership raise concerns with any U.S. treaty obligations, such as the non-discrimination/national treatment obligations common to U.S. free trade agreements? We invite comments on whether the benefits of the certifications outweigh the burdens related to compliance with the requirement.

    28. Extent of Current Laws and Obligations. We seek comment on whether, and in what ways, the proposed certifications might add any new requirements beyond those set out in the applicable statutes and rules. The NTIA Letter states that the requested certification essentially reflects current laws and obligations. Several commenters disagree, arguing that the certifications go beyond the existing obligations of carriers under current statute and rules. For example, CTIA contends that the second proposed certification could be interpreted as requiring carriers to “take steps beyond what is currently required to assist with breaking security measures on customers' accounts and devices.” In particular, T-Mobile and Wiley Rein are concerned that the certification is broad enough to be read as prohibiting encryption, establishing duties to decrypt, and requiring disclosure to government agencies that is not legally compelled. T-Mobile further contends that the “certification language also appears to be trying to improperly enforce localization and repatriation in the United States,” running contrary to the Commerce Department's policy of favoring the “free flow of information.” USTelecom ultimately finds that some certifications such as the second certification are “subject to differing legal interpretation and potential legal challenge,” making their “validity and wisdom . . . unclear.” We seek comment on these concerns as well as alternatives to the second certification offered by these parties, such as T-Mobile's proposal that it should be limited to compliance with obligations otherwise established in statute or regulation. We also seek comment on whether there are conflicts between U.S. law and other laws applicable to communications made to or from other countries or records associated therewith, and if so how should applicants resolve any such conflicts? Would the proposed certifications raise foreign policy or other concerns regarding potential reciprocal demands by foreign regulatory authorities on U.S. entities? Would this burden vary by the type of license or authorization to which the certification applies? What experience have prior applicants had with any similar provisions under existing LOAs or NSAs?

    29. We also seek comment on whether the certifications regarding compliance with CALEA and making communications within the United States as well as records thereof available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to lawful request or valid legal process under U.S. law, should be applied to all applicants or only applied to certain applicants. We also seek comment on whether the certifications regarding compliance with CALEA and making communications within the United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to lawful request or valid legal process under U.S. law should be applied more narrowly than proposed in the NTIA Letter. Should they only apply to common carrier licensees? For example, the Broadcaster Representatives argue that the CALEA compliance and intercept capabilities have nothing to do with broadcasting, or with broadcast licensees or applicants that file a petition for a foreign ownership ruling under section 310(b). The Broadcaster Representatives state that broadcasters “do not have compliance obligations” under CALEA and recommend the Commission consider differentiating the requirements in the broadcast context. We seek comment on considerations of the scope and implications of the certifications proposal.

    30. TIME FRAMES FOR EXECUTIVE BRANCH REVIEW. We propose to adopt a 90-day period for the Executive Branch to complete its review of referred applications and petitions. In rare instances, we propose to allow a one-time additional 90-day extension provided the Executive Branch demonstrates that issues of complexity warrant such an extension and provides to the Commission the status of its review every 30 days thereafter. We also propose that the time period would start from the date the application is placed on the Commission's acceptable for filing public notice. We believe that time frames will bring additional clarity and certainty to the review process. Such transparency would benefit the Commission and applicants alike, by keeping all parties better informed of the application's status and facilitating expectations for resolution of pending cases. Several commenters agree, stating that time frames (including a 90-day period) should be established for Executive Branch review in order to promote transparency and certainty of action. Because these time frames will affect multiple types of applications with requirements that are set out in different parts of the Commission's rules, we propose to establish a new subpart U in Part 1 of the rules for referral of applications to the Executive Branch.

    31. Acceptability for Filing. Under our proposal, Commission staff will review the application to ensure it is acceptable for filing. If the threshold questions have been answered, the certification is complete, and the application otherwise complies with our rules, the Commission proposes to place the application on public notice, with appropriate protections, and forward the application, including the answers to the threshold questions, to the Executive Branch. In instances where the Commission finds that any of the threshold questions have not been answered or the certification is incomplete, we propose that the Commission notify the applicants and give them a reasonable time to respond. We seek comment on what a reasonable time frame should be (such as, for example, seven days). Failure to respond within the time frame will be grounds for dismissal of the application without prejudice to refiling. We seek comment on this proposal and any other recommendations on the process to ensure transparency to the public and applicants and to promote an efficient review process. One commenter suggested that to enhance transparency, applicants should have names and contact information of the individuals in the Executive Branch who are reviewing their applications. We seek comment regarding whether the Executive Branch agencies should identify a single point of content or point agency for referral of applications and any inquiries the Commission or applicants have during the course of the Executive Branch review process for any given application. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether each participating agency should identify its own point of contact. If obtained, we propose to provide Executive Branch contact information on our Web site along with the standardized national security and law enforcement questions. We seek comment on this proposal.

    32. Non-Streamlined Processing. We propose to process on a non-streamlined basis international section 214 and submarine cables applications with foreign ownership that are referred to the Executive Branch for review. Streamlined processing of an international section 214 application means that the application is granted on the 14th day after the application is placed on public notice. Based on our experience, the Executive Branch needs time to review an application and streamlined processing, particularly a 14-day process, does not provide sufficient time for such a review. The Commission previously has made such a determination in the context of submarine cable landing licenses, where it found that a 14-day review period was insufficient due to the need to coordinate such licenses with the State Department. Moreover, the Executive Branch regularly requests that we remove applications from streamlined processing as it cannot complete its review in that short of a time period. We believe it would be beneficial to the applicant, the Commission, and the Executive Branch agencies to process the applications as non-streamlined from the beginning rather than to initially process the application on a streamlined basis and then remove it from streamlining. This should provide more transparency as to the process for those applications referred to the Executive Branch for review. We seek comment on this proposal and seek suggestions on alternative changes to our processing of applications. We propose to remove from streamlining any transactions involving joint domestic and international section 214 authority where foreign ownership of the international 214 authorization alone would be cause for non-streamlined processing. In such cases, we see no reason to streamline one part of the transaction (domestic 214 authority) while another part (international 214 authority) is not streamlined. We seek comment on these proposals and seek suggestions on alternative changes to our processing of applications.

    33. 90-Day and 180-Day Time Frames for Executive Branch Review. We propose a 90-day review period for applications referred to the Executive Branch, with a one-time additional 90-day extension for circumstances where the Executive Branch requires additional review time beyond the initial period. Many of the commenters support a 90-day review period. We expect that many of the referred applications will be processed within the initial comment period because the certification requirement should obviate the need for negotiating LOAs related to compliance with routine law enforcement requirements. We will refer applications with reportable foreign ownership to the Executive Branch upon release of the public notice, and we propose that, at that time, the 90-day clock would begin. Currently, only applications concerning international section 214 authorizations—either initial applications for authority or applications for assignment or transfer of authority—that qualify for streamlined processing pursuant section 63.12 are referred to the Executive Branch prior to the application being placed on public notice. 47 CFR 63.12. In those cases, the applications have been referred to the Executive Branch generally a week prior to release of the public notice, and the Executive Branch is requested to notify the Commission prior to the automatic grant of the application if it wishes to review the application. Commenters support starting the clock when the application either is referred to the Executive Branch or placed on an accepted for filing public notice.

    34. In keeping with current practice, we propose to continue to request that the Executive Branch notify us within the comment period established by the public notice if it will require additional time to review the application (i.e., beyond the comment period established by the public notice). Any request to defer Commission action beyond the public notice period pending national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy review would be filed in the public record for the application. If the Executive Branch asks us to defer action on an application beyond the public comment period for the application, we propose a timetable for completing its review within 90 days of the release of the accepted-for-filing public notice. Should the Executive Branch complete review prior to the end of the 90-day period, we propose that it should notify the Commission at the time the review is complete. If the Executive Branch does not notify the Commission within the 90-day period that it is requesting additional time to review the application, we propose to deem that it has not found any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy issues present, and we will move ahead with Commission action on the application. Commenters agree with this approach. We seek comment on this proposal and on any alternative proposals for processing such applications.

    35. A 90-day period is consistent with the existing timelines for action on non-streamlined international 214 and cable landing license applications. Moreover, a 90-day review period is consistent with review periods used by other agencies as well. For example, CFIUS conducts national security reviews of mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers by, or with, any foreign person that could result in foreign control of a U.S. business (a “covered transaction”) under a similar time frame. After an organization submits notice of a transaction to the Committee, CFIUS has up to 90 days to complete its review of the transaction.

    36. We recognize that, in some unusual cases, the Executive Branch may need more than 90 days to investigate and/or resolve any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy issues. Allowing the Executive Branch up to an additional 90 days (i.e., 180 days total from the date of public notice and referral) for review would be consistent with our rules regarding international section 214 and cable landing license applications that provide the Commission an additional 90 days' review in cases of extraordinary complexity.

    37. Under our proposal, the Executive Branch would complete its review within the 90-day period or notify the Commission no later than the initial 90-day date that it requires additional time for review and, every 30 days thereafter, would notify the Commission on the status of review. We propose that the notification would explain why the Executive Branch requires additional time to complete review, along with an estimate of the additional time required. We invite comment on factors that would provide a basis for an extension. If the explanation includes classified or other information that should not be made public, the agencies would have the ability to file a short statement in the public record, and provide a more thorough explanation to Commission staff in a non-public record.

    38. We seek comment on the proposed 90-day and 180-day time periods. Are these appropriate? Should they apply to all the applications that are referred to the Executive Branch or should there be different time periods for different types of applications? If different periods should be adopted, what would be the rationale for such a distinction and what would be an appropriate period?

    39. Follow-Up Questions. As discussed above, the period for Executive Branch review would begin when the application goes on public notice and is referred to the Executive Branch. After receiving an applicant's answers to the threshold questions, there may be situations, as there are under the current process, when the agencies will need to seek additional information or clarification from the applicant to conduct their national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy review. As is the current practice, we propose that the agencies engage directly with the applicant regarding any follow-up information requests, and that the applicant send its answers to the follow-up requests directly and solely to the agencies, but that the Commission could request copies of such answers in its discretion. To ensure that the time frames for Executive Branch review can be maintained, we propose that the applicant be required to respond to the agencies' requests for information within seven days. If the applicant does not provide the requested information on time, we propose that the Commission have the discretion to dismiss the application without prejudice. We propose that the Executive Branch would need to notify the Commission when an applicant fails to provide supplemental information within seven days. The applicant would have the option of asking for additional time to respond, but that would stop the 90-day review clock until the applicant provides the requested information. We propose that a request for additional time to provide supplemental information be submitted by the applicant directly to the Executive Branch with a copy submitted to the Commission.

    40. We also propose to place similar requirements on the applicant to be responsive to requests by the agencies to negotiate mitigation, a process which we expect to occur within the 90-day review period following referral of an application, as discussed in the paragraphs above. Thus, under this proposed approach, an applicant would have seven days after receiving a draft mitigation agreement to respond to it (either by signing it or offering a counter-proposal). If an applicant desires more than seven days to respond to the draft mitigation agreement, it must submit an extension request directly to the Executive Branch. The 90-day clock would stop for the duration of the extension, just as it would stop for extensions to respond to follow-up questions. Negotiation of the mitigation agreement could involve several rounds of seven-day review periods (or longer if extensions are sought) if multiple drafts and counter-proposals are exchanged. Failure of an applicant to respond within the seven days or any approved extension period would result in dismissal of the application, without prejudice. We seek comment on these proposals. In particular, we request comment on whether seven days is sufficient time to respond to follow-up questions, and what impact allowing a longer period would have on the 90-day period for Executive Branch review.

    41. CATEGORIES OF REFERRALS. Although we propose to continue to refer certain applications to the Executive Branch agencies, we seek comment on whether there are categories of applications with foreign ownership that the Commission should generally not refer to the Executive Branch. For example, currently the Commission does not refer a pro forma notification because by definition there is no change in the ultimate control of the licensee. Under section 63.24(f), carriers may submit post-transaction notifications for non-substantial, or pro forma, transfers and assignments in which no change in the actual controlling party occurs. 47 CFR 63.24(f). Thus, for example, where the owner maintains de facto control of the carrier, less than 50 percent of the carrier's voting interests changes hands, and no new party gains negative or de jure control as a result of the transaction or series of transactions, the transaction would constitute a pro forma transfer of control. See Amendment of Parts 1 and 63 of the Commission's Rules, IB Docket No. 04-47, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 11398, 11411, para. 36 (2007). Under section 63.24(f), the carrier can notify the Commission of the transaction after the transfer is completed. Several commenters support exclusion of pro forma notifications from the referral process. TelePacific asserts that applications for transactions that involve resellers with no facilities should not be referred to the Executive Branch. If the Commission adopted this position, how would the Commission know that no facilities are being assigned/transferred in the proposed transaction? Are there other categories of applications that the Commission should generally not refer to the Executive Branch, such as when the applicant has an existing LOA or NSA and there has been no change in the foreign ownership since the Executive Branch and applicant negotiated the relevant LOA or NSA? We also seek comment on whether the Commission might review and not refer to the Executive Branch certain categories of applications. How would this process work and which categories of applications might be included? Would internal Commission review for national security and law enforcement concerns serve to expedite the processing of applications?

    42. OTHER CHANGES TO THE APPLICATION PROCESS. We also propose other revisions to the application process to streamline the review process. First, we propose to amend our rules to clarify that applicants for international section 214 authorizations, assignments or transfers of control of domestic or international section 214 authority, and applications for submarine cable landing licenses or to assign or transfer control of such licenses must include in their applications the voting interests, in addition to the equity interests, of individuals or entities with ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership in the applicant. Second, we propose to require these applicants to include in their applications a diagram of the applicant's ownership, showing the ten percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interests in the applicant. We believe that these two rule revisions will facilitate faster review of applications by Commission staff.

    43. The current rules require applicants to provide the name, address, citizenship, and principal businesses of any individual or entity that owns directly or indirectly at least ten percent of the equity of the applicant. These rules originated when equity and voting ownership were usually the same. Today, applicants often have multiple classes of ownership and equity interests that differ from the voting interests. It is important for the Commission to know for potential control purposes who has voting interests in the applicant. The Commission has recognized this in other rules, where it requires an applicant to provide both equity and voting interests in an applicant. Although most applicants provide the voting information in their international section 214 and submarine cable license applications, others do not. If the filing does not provide information about the voting interests, either by providing separate equity and voting share information or noting that the voting interests track the equity interests, it is the practice of Commission staff to contact applicants and request the information. Having to request this information delays review of the application. We seek comment on this proposal to include applicant's applicable voting interests.

    44. We also believe that inclusion of a diagram showing the ten-percent-or-greater interests in the applicant can help speed the processing of an application. Many applicants have complex ownership structures, particularly those with private equity ownership. A diagram can help distill a lengthy description of an ownership structure and make it more easily understood. The Commission has found this especially helpful in the context of foreign ownership petitions and recently included such a requirement in the rules regarding the contents of a request for declaratory ruling under section 310(b) of the Act. While many applicants already provide ownership diagrams in their applications, Commission staff often request such a diagram from an applicant after the application has been filed. We believe that requiring the application to include the diagram would impose a minimal burden on applicants which would be offset by the Commission staff's ability to process applications more expeditiously. We seek comment on this proposal.

    45. Finally, we propose a clean-up edit to the cable landing license rules. In 2014, the Commission removed the effective competitive opportunities test for cable landing licenses. The Commission at that time failed to amend the reporting requirement for licensees affiliated with a carrier with market power in a cable's destination market to remove the limitation that it apply only to destination markets in World Trade Organization (WTO) Member countries. We propose to remove that limitation and apply the reporting requirements to licensees affiliated with a carrier with market power in a cable's destination market for all countries, whether or not they are a WTO Member. We seek comment on this proposal.

    46. CONCLUSION. The Commission seeks to streamline and to bring more transparency to the Executive Branch referral process while continuing to give consideration to relevant national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns. We seek comment on the proposals we make to implement the suggestions submitted by the Executive Branch. We also seek comment on establishing appropriate time frames for Executive Branch review of an application with reportable foreign ownership and other changes to our processing rules. We tentatively conclude that implementation of these proposals would provide for more timely and transparent review while ensuring that relevant national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns receive consideration.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    47. This document contains new and modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due September 19, 2016. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the comments by the deadlines provided in the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

    49. This NPRM seeks comment on the proposed changes to our rules and procedures related to the review of certain applications and petitions for declaratory ruling involving foreign ownership by the Executive Branch agencies. The Commission's objective is to improve the timeliness and transparency of the Executive Branch review process. Industry has expressed concern about the uncertainty and lengthy review times that make it difficult to put a business plan in place. In response, the Executive Branch agencies filed a letter requesting the Commission make changes to its processes that would help facilitate a more streamlined review. The proposed rules seek to remedy the uncertainty and time frame for review.

    50. The NPRM proposes several changes to our rules. Specifically, it proposes to:

    1. Standardize the threshold questions that the national security and law enforcement agencies routinely ask applicants with foreign ownership and require applicants to provide the information as part of the application process. The NPRM proposes to collect information on: Corporate structure and shareholder information; relationship with foreign entities; financial condition and circumstances; compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and business and operational information, including services to be provided and network infrastructure. The specific questions would be adopted through the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) process and would be publicly available on a Web site, as a downloadable document, so it is readily available to applicants prior to filing its application. This proposal would help provide transparency and expedite the review process.

    2. Include in the rules a requirement that applicants certify that they will comply with routine mitigation measures. The Executive Branch agencies state that the proposed certification requirement reflects current laws and obligations applicable to applicants, but ensures that the applicants focus on those laws and obligations at the beginning of the application process. This would also help reduce the number of individualized Letters of Assurances that the Executive Branch agencies would need to negotiate, thus expediting response to the Commission.

    3. Include applicable time frames for the Executive Branch agencies to complete its review of FCC applications. A 90-day clock is proposed upon referral of an application to the agencies, with an additional one-time 90 day extension in rare circumstances. Under the proposed rules, the Executive Branch would complete its review within the 90-day period or notify the Commission no later than the initial 90-day date that it requires additional time for review and, every 30 days thereafter, would notify the Commission on the status of review. The notification would explain why the Executive Branch requires additional time to complete review, along with an estimate of the additional time required. This proposal will help improve the timeliness of review and allow agencies time to review for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, or trade policy concerns.

    51. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 4(j), 214, 303, 309, 310 and 413 of the Communications Act as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 214, 303, 309, 310 and 413, and the Cable Landing License Act of 1921, 47 U.S.C. 34 through 39, and Executive Order No. 10530, section 5(a) reprinted as amended in 3 U.S.C. 301.

    52. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. Below, we describe and estimate the number of small entity applicants that may be affected by the adopted rules.

    1. Wired Telecommunications Carriers.

    2. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.

    3. Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).

    4. Prepaid Calling Card Providers.

    5. Local Resellers.

    6. Toll Resellers.

    7. Other Toll Carriers.

    8. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).

    9. All Other Telecommunications.

    10. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.

    11. Radio Broadcasting.

    53. The NPRM proposes a number of rule changes that would affect reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for applicants who file international section 214 authorizations, submarine cable landing licenses or applications to assign or transfer control of such authorizations, and section 310 rulings (common carrier wireless, common carrier satellite earth stations or broadcast) (applicants). The proposed threshold questions request information already routinely asked by the Executive Branch agencies after filing the application but the proposed rules will require applicants with reportable foreign ownership to submit answers to the threshold questions at the time of filing their FCC application. Information requested will be on: Corporate structure and shareholder information; relationship with foreign entities; financial condition and circumstances; compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and business and operational information, including services to be provided and network infrastructure. Applicants would have a time frame by when they need to respond to any follow-up questions relevant to the application. Applicants would also be required to certify that they will comply with the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement (CALEA); will make communications to, from, or within United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to a valid and lawful request or legal process in accordance with U.S. law; certify that applicants would designate a point of contact in the U.S. that is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident; certify that all information at time of submission is accurate and notify when information submitted is no longer accurate; and if an applicant fails to fulfill obligations contained in certifications they will be subject to all remedies available to the United States Government.

    54. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): “(1) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

    55. In this NPRM, the proposed changes for Executive Branch's review of FCC applications involving foreign ownership would help improve the timeliness and transparency of the review process, thus lessening the burden of the licensing process on all applicants, including small entities. The threshold questions would be publicly available, thus providing transparency and helping expedite Executive Branch's review. The proposed certifications will help reduce the need for routine mitigation, which should facilitate a faster response by the Executive Branch on its review and advance the shared goal of making the Executive Branch review process as efficient as possible. Time frames for review of FCC applications referred to the Executive Branch have also been proposed, which will help prevent unnecessary delays and make the process more efficient and transparent, which ultimately benefits all applicants, including small entities.

    56. The NPRM seeks comment from all interested parties. The Commission is aware that some of the proposals under consideration may impact small entities. Small entities are encouraged to bring to the Commission's attention any specific concerns they may have with the proposals outlined in the NPRM.

    57. The Commission expects to consider the economic impact on small entities, as identified in comments filed in response to the NPRM, in reaching its final conclusions and taking action in this proceeding.

    58. Our proposed rules require applicants to certify that they will comply with federal rules related to assistance to law enforcement. Some of the federal rules that may duplicate with our proposed rules are:

    1. Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act. 47 U.S.C. 1001 through 10.

    2. Wiretap Act. 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq.

    3. Stored Communications Act. 18 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.

    4. Pen Register and Trap and Trace Statute. 18 U.S.C. 3121 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0

    Classified information, Privacy.

    47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure, Communications common carriers, Telecommunications.

    47 CFR Part 63

    Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary. Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 0, 1, and 63 as follows:

    PART 0—COMMISSION ORGANIZATION 1. The authority citation for part 0 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 5, 48 Stat. 1068, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 155, 225, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 0.442 by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows:
    § 0.442 Disclosure to other Federal government agencies of information submitted to the Commission in confidence.

    (d) * * *

    (3) A party who furnished records to the Commission in confidence will not be afforded prior notice when the disclosure is made to the Comptroller General of the United States, in the Government Accountability Office. Such a party will instead be notified of disclosure of the records to the Comptroller General either individually or by public notice. No prior notice will be afforded where records have been furnished to the Commission in confidence and shared with the Executive Branch pursuant to § 1.6001 of this chapter.

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

    The authority citation for part 1 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 34 through 39, 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455.

    3. Amend § 1.767 by revising paragraphs (a)(8)(i), (a)(11)(i), and (j), and by adding paragraph (k)(5) and revising paragraph (l) introductory text to read as follows:
    § 1.767 Cable landing licenses.

    (a) * * *

    (8) * * *

    (i) The place of organization and the information and certifications required in § 63.18 paragraphs (h), (o), (p) and (q) of this chapter.

    (11)(i) If applying for authority to assign or transfer control of an interest in a cable system, the applicant shall complete paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. Only the transferee/assignee needs to complete paragraphs (a)(8) through (a)(9) of this section. The applicant shall provide the ownership diagram required under paragraph (a)(8)(i) of this section and include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the licensee. At the beginning of the application, the applicant should also include a narrative of the means by which the transfer or assignment will take place. The application shall also specify, on a segment specific basis, the percentage of voting and ownership interests being transferred or assigned in the cable system, including in a U.S. cable landing station. The Commission reserves the right to request additional information as to the particulars of the transaction to aid it in making its public interest determination.

    (j) On the date of filing with the Commission, the applicant shall also send a complete copy of the application, or any major amendments or other material filings regarding the application, to: U.S. Coordinator, EB/CIP, U.S. Department of State, 2201 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20520-5818; Office of Chief Counsel/NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th St. and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230; and Defense Information Systems Agency, ATTN: GC/DO1, 6910 Cooper Avenue, Fort Meade, MD 20755-7088, and shall certify such service on a service list attached to the application or other filing.

    (k) * * *

    (5) Certifying that all ten percent or greater direct or indirect equity and/or voting interests in the applicant are U.S. citizens or entities organized in the United States.

    (l) Reporting Requirements Applicable to Licensees Affiliated with a Carrier with Market Power in a Cable's Destination Market. Any licensee that is, or is affiliated with, a carrier with market power in any of the cable's destination countries must comply with the following requirements:

    4. Amend § 1.991 by adding paragraphs (l) and (m) to read as follows:
    § 1.991 Contents of petitions for declaratory ruling under the Communications Act of 1934.

    (l) Each petitioner subject to a referral to the Executive Branch pursuant to § 1.6001 must file the national security and law enforcement information. The information will include:

    (1) Corporate structure and shareholder information;

    (2) Relationships with foreign entities;

    (3) Financial condition and circumstances;

    (4) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and

    (5) Business and operational information, including services to be provided and network infrastructure. The instructions for submitting the information to be filed are available on the FCC Web site. The required information shall be submitted separately from the petition and shall be filed via an FCC Web site.

    (m) Each petitioner shall make the following certifications:

    (1) To comply with all applicable Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements and related rules and regulations, including any and all FCC orders and opinions governing the application of CALEA and assistance to law enforcement (see, e.g., the Commission's orders in conjunction with ET Docket No. 04-295, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services and the Commission's rules and regulations in part 1, subpart Z—Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act);

    (2) To make communications to, from, or within the United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to a valid and lawful request or legal process in accordance with U.S. law;

    (3) To designate a point of contact located in the United States and who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, for the service of the requests and/or valid legal process described in paragraph (m)(2) of this section and the receipt of other communications from the U.S. government;

    (4) That all information submitted, whether at the time of submission of the petition or subsequently in response to either Commission or Executive Branch agency request, is substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects to the best of petitioner's knowledge at the time of the submission. While the petition is pending, as defined in § 1.65(a), the petitioner agrees to promptly inform the Commission and, if the petitioner originally submitted the information in response to the request of another Executive Branch agency, that agency, if the information in the application is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects; and

    (5) That the petitioner understands that if the applicant fails to fulfill any of the conditions to the grant of its petition and/or the information provided to the United States Government is materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent, the petitioner may be subject to all remedies available to the United States Government, including but not limited to revocation or termination of the applicant's Commission authorization, and criminal and civil penalties, including penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

    5. Add Subpart U to part 1 to read as follows: Subpart U—Review of Applications, Petitions, and Other Filings With Foreign Ownership by Executive Branch Agencies on National Security, Law Enforcement, Foreign Policy, and Trade Policy Concerns Sec. 1.6001 Executive Branch review of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership. 1.6002 Referral of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership to the Executive Branch agencies for review. 1.6003 Time frames for Executive Branch review of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership.
    § 1.6001 Executive Branch review of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership.

    (a) The Commission, in its discretion, may refer applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership to the Executive Branch for review for national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns.

    (b) The Commission will consider any recommendations from the Executive Branch regarding whether a pending matter affects national security, law enforcement, foreign policy and/or trade policy as part of its public interest analysis. The Commission will make an independent decision and will evaluate concerns raised by the Executive Branch in light of all the issues raised in the context of a particular application, petition, or other filing.

    § 1.6002 Referral of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership to the Executive Branch agencies for review.

    (a) The Commission shall refer any applications, petitions, or other filings for which it determines to seek Executive Branch review at the time such application, petition, or other filing is placed on an accepted for filing public notice.

    (b) If the Executive Branch does not otherwise notify the Commission by filing in the record for the application, petition, or other filing within the comment period established by the public notice, the Commission will deem that the Executive Branch does not have any national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns with the application, petition, or other filing and will act on the application, petition, or other filing as appropriate based on its determination of the public interest.

    § 1.6003 Time frames for Executive Branch review of applications, petitions, and other filings with foreign ownership.

    If the Executive Branch notifies the Commission that it needs additional time for its review of the application, petition, or other filing referred in accordance with § 1.6002(b):

    (a) The Executive Branch shall notify the Commission by filing in the record for the application, petition, or other filing no later than 90 days from the date of public notice for the application, petition, or other filing whether it:

    (1) Has national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns with the application, petition or other filing;

    (2) Has no concerns;

    (3) Has no concerns provided that the grant of the application, petition or other filing is conditioned; or

    (4) Needs additional time to review the application, petition, or other filing.

    (b) In cases of extraordinary complexity, when the Executive Branch notifies the Commission that it needs more than the 90-day period for review of the application, petition, or other filing under paragraph (a) of this section, the Executive Branch may request a one-time 90-day extension to review the application, petition, or other filing, provided that it:

    (1) Explains why it was unable to complete its review within the initial 90-day review period and;

    (2) Provides the Commission with updates on the status of its review every 30 days (at the 120-day and 150-day dates after release of the public notice). The Executive Branch must notify the Commission by filing in the record for the application, petition, or other filing no later than 180 days from the date of public notice for the application, petition or other filing whether it:

    (i) Has national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade policy concerns with the application, petition, or other filing;

    (ii) Has no concerns; or

    (iii) Has no concerns if the grant of the application, petition, or other filing is conditioned.

    (c)(1) The Executive Branch shall file its notifications as to the status of its review in the public record for the application, petition, or other filing.

    (2) In circumstances where the notification of the Executive Branch contains nonpublic information, the Executive Branch shall file a public version of the notification in the public record for the application, petition, or other filing and shall file the nonpublic information with the Commission pursuant to § 0.457 of this chapter.

    PART 63—EXTENSION OF LINES, NEW LINES, AND DISCONTINUANCE, REDUCTION, OUTAGE AND IMPAIRMENT OF SERVICE BY COMMON CARRIERS; AND GRANTS OF RECOGNIZED PRIVATE OPERATING AGENCY STATUS 6. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 10, 11, 201-205, 214, 218, 403 and 651 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 160, 201 through 205, 214, 218, 403, and 571, unless otherwise noted.

    7. Amend § 63.04 by revising paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:
    § 63.04 Filing procedures for domestic transfer of control applications.

    (a) * * *

    (4)(i) The name, address, citizenship and principal business of any person or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity and/or voting interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest one percent). Where no individual or entity directly or indirectly owns ten percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant, a statement to that effect.

    (ii) An ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership (equity and voting) interests held by the individuals and entities named in response to paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section. Each such individual or entity shall be depicted in the ownership diagram and all controlling interests labeled as such.

    8. Amend § 63.12 by redesignating paragraph (c)(3) as paragraph (c)(4) and add a new paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
    § 63.12 Processing of international Section 214 applications.

    (c) * * *

    (3) An individual or entity that is not a U.S. citizen holds a ten percent or greater direct or indirect equity or voting interest in any applicant; or

    9. Amend § 63.18 by revising paragraph (h) and redesignating paragraphs (p), (q) and (r) as paragraphs (r), (s), and (t), and adding new paragraphs (p) and (q) to read as follows:
    § 63.18 Contents of applications for international common carriers.

    (h)(1) The name, address, citizenship and principal businesses of any individual or entity that directly or indirectly owns ten percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant, and the percentage of equity and/or voting interest owned by each of those entities (to the nearest one percent). Where no individual or entity directly or indirectly owns ten percent or more of the equity interests and/or voting interests, or a controlling interest, of the applicant, a statement to that effect.

    (2) An ownership diagram that illustrates the applicant's vertical ownership structure, including the direct and indirect ownership (equity and voting) interests held by the individuals and entities named in response to paragraph (h)(1) of this section. Each such individual or entity shall be depicted in the ownership diagram and all controlling interests labeled as such.

    (3) The applicant shall also identify any interlocking directorates with a foreign carrier.

    Note to paragraph (h): Ownership and other interests in U.S. and foreign carriers will be attributed to their holders and deemed cognizable pursuant to the following criteria: Attribution of ownership interests in a carrier that are held indirectly by any party through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that wherever the ownership percentage for any link in the chain that is equal to or exceeds 50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100 percent interest. For example, if A owns 30 percent of company X, which owns 60 percent of company Y, which owns 26 percent of “carrier,” then X's interest in “carrier” would be 26 percent (the same as Y's interest because X's interest in Y exceeds 50 percent), and A's interest in “carrier” would be 7.8 percent (0.30 × 0.26 because A's interest in X is less than 50 percent). Under the 25 percent attribution benchmark, X's interest in “carrier” would be cognizable, while A's interest would not be cognizable.

    (p) With respect to each applicant for which an individual or entity that is not a U.S. citizen holds a ten percent or greater direct or indirect equity or voting interest in the applicant, file national security and law enforcement information regarding the applicant. The information may include:

    (1) Corporate structure and shareholder information;

    (2) Relationships with foreign entities;

    (3) Financial condition and circumstances;

    (4) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations; and

    (5) Business and operational information, including services to be provided and network infrastructure. The instructions for submitting the information to be filed are available on the FCC Web site. The required information shall be submitted separately from the application and shall be filed via an FCC Web site.

    (q) Each applicant shall make the following certifications:

    (1) To comply with all applicable Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) requirements and related rules and regulations, including any and all FCC orders and opinions governing the application of CALEA and assistance to law enforcement (see, e.g., the Commission's orders in conjunction with ET Docket No. 04-295, Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act and Broadband Access and Services, and the Commission's rules and regulations in part 1, subpart Z of this chapter—Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act);

    (2) To make communications to, from, or within the United States, as well as records thereof, available in a form and location that permits them to be subject to a valid and lawful request or legal process in accordance with U.S. law;

    (3) To designate a point of contact located in the United States and who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, for the service of the requests and/or valid legal process described in paragraph (q)(2) of this section and the receipt of other communications from the U.S. government;

    (4) That all information submitted, whether at the time of submission of the application or subsequently in response to either Commission or Executive Branch agency request, is substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects to the best of applicant's knowledge at the time of the submission. While the application is pending, as defined in § 1.65(a) of this chapter, the applicant agrees to promptly inform the Commission and, if the applicant originally submitted the information in response to the request of another Executive Branch agency, that agency, if the information in the application is no longer substantially accurate and complete in all significant respects; and

    (5) That the applicant understands that if the applicant fails to fulfill any of the conditions to the grant of its application and/or the information provided to the United States Government is materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent, the applicant may be subject to all remedies available to the United States Government, including but not limited to revocation or termination of the applicant's Commission authorization, and criminal and civil penalties, including penalties under 18 U.S.C. 1001.

    10. Amend § 63.24 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (f)(2)(i) to read as follows:
    § 63.24 Assignments and transfers of control.

    (e) * * *

    (2) The application shall include the information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) of § 63.18 for both the transferor/assignor and the transferee/assignee. The information requested in paragraphs (h) through (p) of § 63.18 is required only for the transferee/assignee. The ownership diagram required under § 63.18(h)(2) shall include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the authorization holder. At the beginning of the application, the applicant shall include a narrative of the means by which the proposed transfer or assignment will take place.

    (f) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) The information requested in paragraphs (a) through (d) and (h) of § 63.18 for the transferee/assignee. The ownership diagram required under § 63.18(h)(2) shall include both the pre-transaction and post-transaction ownership of the authorization holder;

    [FR Doc. 2016-16780 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 RIN 0648-BF54 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area; Amendment 113 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of amendment to fishery management plan; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 113 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) to the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) for review. If approved, Amendment 113 to the FMP would modify the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands (BSAI) Pacific cod fishery to set aside a portion of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod total allowable catch (TAC) for harvest by vessels directed fishing for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and delivering their catch for processing to shoreside processors located on land west of 170 W. longitude in the Aleutian Islands (Aleutian Islands shoreplants). The harvest set-aside would apply only if specific notification and performance requirements are met, and only during the first few months of the fishing year. This harvest set-aside would provide the opportunity for catcher vessels operating in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery, Aleutian Islands shoreplants, and the communities where Aleutian Islands shoreplants are located to receive benefits from the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery, while the notification and performance requirements would preserve an opportunity for the complete harvest of the BSAI Pacific cod resource. Amendment 113 is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0155, by any one of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0155, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Address written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on http://www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information voluntarily submitted by the commenter will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter N/A in the required fields, if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of Amendment 113 to the FMP and the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review/Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (collectively, the “Analysis”) prepared for this action may be obtained from http://www.regulations.gov or from the Alaska Region Web site at http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie Scheurer, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) requires that each regional fishery management council submit any fishery management plan amendment it prepares to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval by the Secretary. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a fishery management plan amendment, immediately publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the amendment is available for public review and comment. The Council has submitted Amendment 113 to the Secretary for review. This notice announces that proposed Amendment 113 to the FMP is available for public review and comment.

    Amendment 113 to the FMP was adopted by the Council in October 2015. The objective of Amendment 113 is to modify the BSAI Pacific cod fishery to prioritize the harvest of a portion of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod TAC by catcher vessels directed fishing for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and delivering their catch for processing to Aleutian Islands shoreplants, thereby supporting social and economic development in the western Aleutian Islands fishing communities in which those vessels operate and shoreplants are located. The harvest set-aside would provide the opportunity for Aleutian Islands catcher vessels, shoreplants, and the communities where Aleutian Islands shoreplants are located to receive benefits from a portion of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery, while the notification and performance requirements would preserve an opportunity for the complete harvest of the BSAI Pacific cod resource.

    A combination of physical, biological, economic, and management factors, such as the relatively low Pacific cod stock abundance in the Aleutian Islands and the potential influx of excess at-sea processing capacity from rationalized fisheries, have affected harvesting and processing opportunities for Pacific cod for some participants in the Aleutian Islands and created the risk that Aleutian Islands fishing communities may not be able to sustain their participation in the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery. The Council determined that Amendment 113 is necessary to provide benefits and stability to fishery-dependent fishing communities in the Aleutian Islands. Amendment 113 is consistent with long-standing policies recommended by the Council and regulations established by NMFS to provide harvesting and processing protections for non-rationalized fisheries and opportunities for fishing communities engaged in fisheries in the Aleutian Islands.

    If approved, Amendment 113 would amend four sections of the FMP as described below. First, a new row entitled “Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside” would be added to Table ES-2 in the Executive Summary, below the row entitled “Retention and Utilization Requirements”, to read, “Under certain conditions, up to five thousand metric tons of the AI Pacific cod TAC (excluding CDQ) is reserved exclusively for harvest by vessels directed fishing for AI Pacific cod and delivering their catch for processing to Aleutian Islands shoreplants west of 170 degrees W. long. from January 1 through March 15.” This harvest set-aside would be referred to as the “Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside” in regulations.

    Second, Amendment 113 would make two modifications in Section 3.2.3.4.3, “Apportionment of Total Allowable Catch”. Under subheading “3) Pacific cod”, the subheading “C) Seasonal Allocations” would be changed to read “B) Seasonal Allocations”. This change would be an editorial correction only. The second change in Section 3.2.3.4.3 would add a new subsection entitled “C) Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation” under subheading “3) Pacific cod”. This new subsection would state that if the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside is in effect, the trawl CV sector may not catch more than an amount that is equal to the trawl CV sector's A-season Pacific cod allocation minus the lesser of either the Aleutian Islands non-CDQ Pacific cod directed fishing allowance or 5,000 mt in the Bering Sea subarea before March 21.

    Third, a new subsection 3.6.5, entitled “Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside”, would be added at the end of Section 3.6, “Catch Restrictions”. This new subsection would include the five main components of the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside:

    • First, “Aleutian Islands shoreplant,” for purposes of the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside, would be defined to mean a processing facility physically located on land west of 170 degrees W. long.

    • In the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery, up to 5,000 mt of the non-CDQ directed fishing allowance would be reserved exclusively for harvest by vessels directed fishing for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod and delivering their catch for processing to Aleutian Islands shoreplants from January 1 until March 15. This exclusive harvest reservation is the “Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside.” Any amount of the Aleutian Islands Pacific cod non-CDQ directed fishing allowance in excess of the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside would be available for harvest by all non-CDQ sectors with available A-season allocations of Pacific cod and could be processed by any eligible processor.

    • If less than 1,000 mt of the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside has been landed at Aleutian Islands shoreplants by February 28, the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation and the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside would be suspended for the remainder of the year.

    • Either the City of Adak or the City of Atka would be required to notify NMFS each year of its intent to process Aleutian Islands Pacific cod in the upcoming year for the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside to go into effect. Regulations implementing Amendment 113 will specify the date and the method by which the City of Adak or the City of Atka must notify NMFS. If neither the City of Adak nor the City of Atka notifies NMFS by the annual deadline of its intent to process Aleutian Islands Pacific cod, the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation and the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside for Pacific cod would not apply for the upcoming year.

    • If the entire Aleutian Islands non-CDQ Pacific cod directed fishing allowance is harvested prior to March 15, the Bering Sea Trawl CV A-Season Sector Limitation and the Aleutian Islands Catcher Vessel Harvest Set-Aside for Pacific cod would not apply for the remainder of the year.

    Finally, a section would be added to Appendix A, summarizing the main provisions of Amendment 113.

    The Council considered a range of dates, set-aside amounts, and performance requirements before adopting its preferred alternative for Amendment 113. The Council determined and NMFS agrees that the combination of measures within Amendment 113 would give Aleutian Islands Pacific cod fishery participants and Aleutian Islands shoreplants sufficient opportunity to harvest and process the set-aside for Aleutian Islands Pacific cod. The Council also determined and NMFS agrees that the notification and performance requirements would prevent stranding BSAI Pacific cod TAC and preserve opportunities for the complete harvest of the BSAI Pacific cod resource.

    NMFS is soliciting public comments on proposed Amendment 113 through the end of the comment period (see DATES). NMFS intends to publish in the Federal Register and seek public comment on a proposed rule that would implement Amendment 113, following NMFS' evaluation of the proposed rule under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All comments received by the end of the comment period on Amendment 113, whether specifically directed to the FMP amendment or the proposed rule, will be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 113. Comments received after that date may not be considered in the decision on Amendment 113. To be certain of consideration, comments must be received by NMFS, not just postmarked or otherwise transmitted, by the last day of the comment period.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17051 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 138 Tuesday, July 19, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0032] Notice of Availability of a Pest Risk Analysis for the Importation of Fresh Star Apple Fruit From Vietnam Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public that we have prepared a pest risk analysis that evaluates the risks associated with importation of fresh star apple fruit from Vietnam into the continental United States. Based on the analysis, we have determined that the application of one or more designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests or noxious weeds via the importation of fresh star apple fruit from Vietnam. We are making the pest risk analysis available to the public for review and comment.

    DATES:

    We will consider all comments that we receive on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0032.

    Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to Docket No. APHIS-2016-0032, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0032 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Tony Román, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2242.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the regulations in “Subpart-Fruits and Vegetables” (7 CFR 319.56-1 through 319.56-75, referred to below as the regulations), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) prohibits or restricts the importation of fruits and vegetables into the United States from certain parts of the world to prevent plant pests from being introduced into or disseminated within the United States.

    Section 319.56-4 contains a performance-based process for approving the importation of certain fruits and vegetables that, based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, can be safely imported subject to one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in paragraph (b) of that section.

    APHIS received a request from the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Vietnam to allow the importation of fresh star apple fruit (Chrysophyllum cainito) into the continental United States. As part of our evaluation of Vietnam's request, we have prepared a pest risk assessment (PRA) to identify pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of fresh star apple fruit into the continental United States from Vietnam. Based on the PRA, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the fresh star apple fruit to mitigate the pest risk. We have concluded that fresh star apple fruit can be safely imported from Vietnam into the continental United States using one or more of the five designated phytosanitary measures listed in § 319.56-4(b). These measures are:

    • The fresh star apple fruit must be imported as commercial consignments only;

    • Each consignment of fresh star apple fruit must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Vietnam;

    • Each consignment of fresh star apple fruit must be treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

    • Each consignment of fresh star apple fruit is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c), we are announcing the availability of our PRA and RMD for public review and comment. The documents may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room (see ADDRESSES above for a link to Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room). You may request paper copies of the PRA and RMD by calling or writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to the subject of the analysis you wish to review when requesting copies.

    After reviewing any comments we receive, we will announce our decision regarding the import status of fresh star apple fruit from Vietnam in a subsequent notice. If the overall conclusions of our analysis and the Administrator's determination of risk remain unchanged following our consideration of the comments, then we will authorize the importation of fresh star apple fruit from Vietnam into the continental United States subject to the requirements specified in the RMD.

    Authority:

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of July 2016. Jere L. Dick, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16981 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal Organizations AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This collection is a new information collection for the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations.

    DATES:

    Written comments on this notice must be received on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Akua White, Nutritionist, Nutrition Services and Access Branch USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 508, Alexandria, VA 22302-1500. Comments may also be sent via fax to the attention of Akua White at 703-305-2964 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval. All comments will be a matter of public record.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans, contact Akua White, Nutritionist, Nutrition Services and Access Branch, USDA, Food and Nutrition Service, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 508, Alexandria, VA 22301-1500. Fax: 703-305-2964; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal Organizations.

    Form Number: N/A.

    OMB Number: 0584—NEW.

    Expiration Date of Approval: Not yet determined.

    Type of Information Collection Request: New information collection.

    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) administers the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) as an alternative to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), providing USDA-purchased foods (i.e., USDA Foods) to income eligible households on Indian reservations and to Native American families residing in designated areas near reservations and in the State of Oklahoma. As of April 2016, 102 Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) and three State Agencies (SAs) administer FDPIR, providing foods to approximately 276 tribes and including just under 93,000 participants. The Food Distribution Division at FNS is considering developing and delivering a nutrition paraprofessional training program for Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservation staff within Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs). The objective of the FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal Organizations is to provide FNS with information of the best way to deliver the training to staff. Specifically, the FDPIR Nutrition Paraprofessional Training Assessment for Indian Tribal Organizations will help FNS to:

    • Assess interest in a paraprofessional training project • Determine the nutrition training topics that are most valued by ITOs and FDPIR staff • Determine the most effective and culturally relevant format for training • Determine the motivational factors for staff that might influence their participation in nutrition training

    The activities to be undertaken subject to this notice include:

    • Conducting open-ended interviews with FDPIR directors from 23 ITOs • Conducting open-ended interviews with key FDPIR staff from these same 23 ITOs • Conducting open-ended interviews with 15 key stakeholders considered expert representatives of FDPIR, ITOs, and/or experts in nutrition training

    Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments (23 selected ITOs).

    Type of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 95. This figure includes 61 respondents and 34 non-respondents. Also included are ITOs on “standby” for the selected ITOs who do not respond or who elect not to participate. Standby ITOs will be contacted in the event that selected ITOs do not respond or choose not to participate.

    The initial sample will consist of 36 ITO Directors. Assuming that 80 percent respond to the invitation email, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 29 ITO Directors. Of the ITO Directors accepting the invitation to participate in telephone interviews, 80 percent (approximately 23) are expected to participate. In-depth interviews will be conducted with the 23 ITO Directors (with an expected 100 percent response rate).

    Interviews with ITO Directors will yield a sample of 36 FDPIR Staff. Assuming that 80 percent respond to the invitation email, the resulting respondent sample will include approximately 29 FDPIR Staff. Of the FDPIR Staff accepting the invitation to participate in telephone interviews, 80 percent (approximately 23) are expected to participate. In-depth interviews will be conducted with the 23 FDPIR Staff (with an expected 100 percent response rate).

    The initial sample of Key Stakeholders will consist of 23 individuals. Assuming that 65 percent respond to the invitation email, the resulting sample will include approximately 19 individuals. In-depth interviews will be conducted with the 15 Key Stakeholders (with an expected response rate of 80 percent). The 34 non-respondents include 13 ITO Directors, 13 FDPIR Staff, and 8 Key Stakeholders.

    Estimated Number Total Annual Respondents and Non-Respondents: 95.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 251 (183 responses and 68 non-responses).

    Estimated Average Annual Frequency of Response (including non-response): 1.92 (183 responses/95 respondents).

    Estimate of Time per Response: Burden per response (including responses from respondents participating in part and in full and the non-respondents) in this data collection is an estimated grand average of 0.51 (93.9 total burden hours/183 total responses). For the respondents, the average time per response is 0.52 (95 burden hours/183 responses) This estimates ninety (90) minutes per interview including fifteen (15) minutes for notification, scheduling, and interview instrument review; sixty (60) minutes for interviews per FDPIR director, staff member, and key stakeholder; and fifteen (15) minutes for follow-up and thank you emails. For the non-respondents, the average time per non-response is 0.05 (3.1 burden hours/68 non-responses). This estimates three (3) minutes per non-response for each data collection activity including pre-interview notification, interview and post-interview thank you emails for each category of non-respondents.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden (including respondents and non-respondents): 93.90 hours.

    EN19JY16.000 Dated: July 6, 2016. Telora T. Dean, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17066 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service [0596-AD16] Final Directive for National Saw Program AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final directive.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service is publishing a final directive revising Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2350 to establish training, evaluation, and certification requirements for the use of chain saws and crosscut saws on National Forest System (NFS) lands. In addition, the Agency is revising Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 6709.11, section 22.48 (Safety Handbook), to remove duplicate text. The final directive applies to the use of chain saws and crosscut saws by Forest Service and other governmental employees, volunteers, training consultants, and cooperators on NFS lands.

    DATES:

    The final directive is effective July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The record for this final directive is available for inspection and copying at the office of the Director, Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources Staff, USDA, Forest Service, 5th Floor, Sidney R. Yates Federal Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) Monday through Friday, except holidays. Those wishing to inspect these documents are encouraged to call ahead at (202) 205-1227 to facilitate access to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Stephens, National Trails Program Manager, (202) 205-1701 or [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    1. Background and Need for the Final Directive

    Beginning in the 1970s, the Forest Service's nine regions developed regional policies related to sawyer training and saw use. Sawyers covered by those policies often maintained trails on national forests and grasslands, helped fight wildfires, and worked in wilderness where crosscut saws are required. Forest Service and other governmental employees, cooperators, training consultants, and volunteers who worked in more than one region had to comply with multiple regional policies, and certifications obtained in one region were not always honored in another.

    A national saw directive is needed to standardize training, evaluation, certification, and safety procedures for sawyers operating on NFS lands. The final directive will allow the Forest Service to facilitate the safe use of chain saws and crosscut saws while optimizing the critical skills and cooperative opportunities for trail maintenance and other projects on NFS lands. The final directive will be codified in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2358 and will supersede duplicative text in the Health and Safety Code Handbook, Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 6709.11, chapter 20, and all Forest Service Regional Supplements to that Handbook.

    2. Overview of the Final Directive

    The following provides an overview of the final directive for the Forest Service's National Saw Program.

    Training, Evaluation, and Certification. Under the final directive, the Forest Service will allow the use of chain saws and crosscut saws on NFS lands by Agency and other governmental employees, volunteers, training consultants, and cooperators upon the successful completion of sawyer training and field evaluation, the prerequisites to obtain a National Sawyer Certification Card, and any other specified qualifications to perform assigned saw work safely, including current training on first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Sawyers will receive one or more of six skill level certifications upon successful completion of required sawyer training and a field proficiency evaluation. The issuance of a National Sawyer Certification Card documents the sawyer's skill level certification and qualifies the sawyer to work on NFS lands within the qualifications indicated on the card. A Crosscut Sawyer Trainee may occasionally use a crosscut saw, but for bucking only (bucking is sawing logs and limbs into shorter lengths) and only under the immediate supervision of a certified higher qualified sawyer.

    Forest Service Cooperators. Forest Service agreements with cooperators (other than those working under interagency fire management cooperative agreements) will include a clause requiring cooperators' employees, participants, and volunteers who will use chain saws or crosscut saws on NFS lands under their agreement to be trained, evaluated, and certified in accordance with this final directive. The clause will also provide that cooperators will be responsible for providing the training, evaluation, and certification, unless the Forest Service and the cooperator determine it is not in the best interest of the partnership. In these circumstances, the Forest Service, upon request and based on availability of Agency funding and personnel, may assist with developing and conducting the training, evaluation, and certification. Cooperators may take Nationally Recognized Sawyer Training Courses (NRSTCs) offered by the Forest Service or may train, evaluate, and certify their volunteers, participants, and employees through NRSTCs offered by Forest Service-recommended cooperator sawyer evaluators and sawyer instructors. This clause will be included in new cooperator agreements involving the use of chain saws or crosscut saws upon publication of the final directive. The clause will be included in existing cooperator agreements involving the use of chain saws or crosscut saws when modifications to the agreements are necessary, e.g., for additional funding or extensions. Cooperators will not have to comply with the clause for 1 year following publication of the final directive to give them time to meet the new requirements.

    Scope of Certification. Sawyers will be precluded from performing saw activities outside the limits of their certification or qualifications, except during formal evaluation proceedings or under the immediate supervision of a higher qualified sawyer.

    No Guarantee of Certification. Completion of classroom, field proficiency, and evaluation requirements does not guarantee a certification.

    Minimum Eligible Sawyer Age. Sawyers must comply with United States Department of Labor minimum age requirements. Those standards, as applied to sawyers performing trail maintenance, require that sawyers using chain saws be at least 18 years of age and that crosscut sawyers be at least 16 years of age.

    National Sawyer Database. The Forest Service is developing a web-based database to track Forest Service sawyer certifications nationwide. The name of the sawyer, contact information, and certification level will be entered into the database and will be accessible by authorized Forest Service employees, training consultants, volunteers, and cooperators. The system will allow the Forest Service and cooperators to verify that employees, volunteers, training consultants, and cooperators intending to operate chain saws and crosscut saws on NFS lands have met the requirements of the final directive to achieve their specific sawyer certification skill level. The database will provide a centralized record of sawyers and their qualifications, thereby facilitating consistent and efficient management of the Forest Service's National Saw Program.

    Information Collection Requirements. The Forest Service has developed two forms for evaluating sawyers, one for chain saw sawyers and one for crosscut saw sawyers. In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(1), these forms do not entail an information collection. They merely require sawyers who are being evaluated to affirm that they have completed and will maintain first aid and CPR training, and to indicate whether they give the Forest Service permission to share their sawyer qualifications and add their email address to a mailing list shared with other Federal agencies and non-Federal organizations so that they can be contacted about saw project opportunities in their area. Furthermore, in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(7), the evaluation forms do not entail an information collection to the extent they document examinations designed to test the aptitude, abilities, or knowledge of the persons tested and involve the collection of information for identification or classification in connection with those examinations. The National Sawyer Certification Card does not entail an information collection, as it is completed by the Forest Service without any additional information from the public beyond what is collected on the sawyer evaluation forms.

    3. Response to Comments on the Proposed Directive

    On June 17, 2015, the Forest Service published notice of a proposed directive in the Federal Register (80 FR 34610) establishing guidance for the Forest Service's National Saw Program (RIN 0596-AC82). Comments were solicited for 60 days, and the comment period ended on August 17, 2015. The Agency received 59 letters or emails commenting on the proposed directive from the following: Trail partner organizations (11); equestrian groups (5); motorized trail organizations (5); Youth Conservation Corps (5); environmental groups (2); State agency (1); and individuals (30). The Agency conducted outreach to tribal interests. The Agency did not receive any comments from tribal interests.

    General Comments

    Comment: Three respondents expressed opposition to establishment of a national Forest Service saw program.

    Response: Beginning in the 1970s, the Forest Service's nine regions developed regional policies related to sawyer training and saw use. Sawyers covered by those policies often maintained trails on national forests and grasslands, helped fight wildfires, and worked in wilderness where crosscut saws are required. Forest Service and other governmental employees, cooperators, training consultants, and volunteers who worked in more than one region had to comply with multiple regional policies, and certifications obtained in one region were not always honored in another. A national saw directive is needed to standardize training, evaluation, certification, and safety procedures for sawyers operating on NFS lands. The final directive will allow the Forest Service to facilitate the safe use of chain saws and crosscut saws while optimizing the critical skills and cooperative opportunities for trail maintenance and other projects on NFS lands.

    Comment: Coordination among Federal land managers was a concern for several commenters.

    Response: The Forest Service is one of the few federal land managers to require training, evaluation, and certification of sawyers. Most commenters who addressed interagency coordination were concerned about forthcoming National Park Service policy on use of saws and how that policy and the proposed directive would affect maintenance of national trails traversing lands under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and the Forest Service. Both Federal agencies are aware of this concern, and interagency coordination is ongoing. The Forest Service will continue working with other Federal land management agencies to maximize consistency in use of chain saws and crosscut saws on Federal lands.

    FSM 2300, Chapter 2350—Trail, River, and Similar Recreation Opportunities

    Comment: Several organizations have requested that this final directive be issued under FSM 6700, Safety and Health Program.

    Response: In November 2008, then Forest Service Chief Abigail Kimball realigned several activities from the Office of Safety and Occupational Health (OSOH) to other program areas. Each of these activities involves program areas other than safety and occupational health. The realigned activities and associated program areas include:

    • Explosives and Blasting Materials-Engineering • Use of Chain Saws and Crosscut Saws-Recreation, Heritage, and Volunteer Resources • Scientific Diving-Research and Development • Tree Climbing-Forest Management

    The final directive will be incorporated into FSM 2358. FSM 2358 will contain cross-references to FSM 6700, where appropriate. The National Saw Program Manager will work with Safety and Occupational Health staff as well as other Agency staff to administer the final directive effectively in the context of other Agency programs.

    Section 2358.02—Objective

    Comment: Some cooperators expressed concerned that the proposed directive did not place enough emphasis on supporting the development of volunteer sawyer instructors and sawyer evaluators.

    Response: In the final directive, the Agency revised the objective section, FSM 2358.02, to support “the development of stand-alone cooperator and volunteer training and certification programs for sawyer instructors and sawyer evaluators.”

    Section 2358.03—Policy

    Comment: One respondent requested clarification regarding applicability of the proposed directive to Job Corps Center employees and students.

    Response: All Job Corps Centers run by the Forest Service (known as Job Corps Civilian Conservation Centers) are subject to Forest Service directives, including the final directive. Other Job Corps Centers are considered cooperators with the Forest Service and will be required to follow this final directive when using chain saws or crosscut saws on NFS lands under an agreement with the Forest Service. Students at both Forest Service-run and non-Forest Service-run Job Corps Centers using chain saws or crosscut saws on NFS lands would be considered Public Lands Corps (PLC) participants per the PLC Act of 1993, 16 U.S.C. 1721 et seq., and would be required to follow this directive. The responsible official for implementing the final directive at Job Corps Centers is the Job Corps Center Director. The responsible official for implementing the final directive in a Forest Service administrative unit would be the forest or grassland supervisor for that unit.

    Comment: Several cooperators expressed concern about how their existing agreements with the Forest Service and sawyer training programs would be affected by the proposed directive. Cooperators were also concerned about having six categories of certification and asked whether they would have to have these categories if they already had other certification standards in place.

    Response: Forest Service agreements with cooperators (other than those working under interagency fire management cooperative agreements) will include a clause requiring cooperators' employees, participants, and volunteers who will use chain saws or crosscut saws on NFS lands under their agreement to be trained, evaluated, and certified in accordance with this final directive. The clause will also provide that cooperators will be responsible for providing the training, evaluation, and certification, unless the Forest Service and the cooperator determine it is not in the best interest of the partnership. In these circumstances, the Forest Service, upon request and based on availability of Agency funding and personnel, may assist with developing and conducting the training, evaluation, and certification. Cooperators may take NRSTCs offered by the Forest Service or may train, evaluate, and certify their volunteers, participants, and employees through NRSTCs offered by Forest Service-recommended cooperator sawyer evaluators and sawyer instructors. This clause will be included in new cooperator agreements involving the use of chain saws or crosscut saws upon publication of the final directive. The clause will be included in existing cooperator agreements involving the use of chain saws or crosscut saws when modifications to the agreements are necessary, e.g., for additional funding or extensions. Cooperators will not have to comply with the clause for 1 year following publication of the final directive to give them time to meet the new requirements.

    The Forest Service will review cooperators' existing and new sawyer training, evaluation, and certification programs to determine if they comply with the final directive. The process for review is enumerated in the Forest Service Saw Operations Guide (FSSOG), which will be issued at the same time as the final directive and which will be available at http://www.fs.fed.us/about-agency/regulations-policies/saw-policy. Requests to review existing training, evaluation, and certification programs will receive priority over requests to review new programs.

    Comment: Several respondents recommended that the Agency decrease the minimum age for crosscut sawyers from 16 years of age to 14 years of age.

    Response: The Agency recognizes the opportunity to foster a new generation of trail stewards, and crosscut saw use is essential to trail maintenance. Sawyers must comply with United States Department of Labor minimum age requirements. Those standards, as applied to sawyers performing trail maintenance, require that sawyers using chain saws be at least 18 years of age and that crosscut sawyers be at least 16 years of age.

    Section 2358.04—Responsibility

    Comment: Several commenters requested that cooperators be considered federal contractors apparently so that they could be exempt from the requirements of the proposed directive.

    Response: Like Forest Service and other governmental employees, cooperators, volunteers, and training consultants, Forest Service contractors are subject to applicable Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements governing the use of saws. However, Forest Service contractors are not subject to the national saw directive because the Agency does not believe it is necessary or appropriate to track their training and certification as sawyers given their role and responsibilities as Federal contractors. Forest Service cooperators and volunteers have different roles and responsibilities from Federal contractors and are not considered Federal contractors.

    Section 2358.04b—National Saw Program Manager

    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about whether the National Saw Program Manager's position would be retained by the Forest Service.

    Response: The Forest Service is committed to supporting this position, which is critical to the success of National Saw Program. One of the National Saw Program Manager's most important initial responsibilities will be assisting Forest Service administrative units, volunteers, and cooperators with consistent and effective implementation of the final directive.

    FSM 2358.04c—Technical Advisory Group (TAG)

    Comment: Several organizations expressed interest in being a member of the TAG.

    Response: The TAG consists of the National Saw Program Manager, Regional Saw Program Managers, a representative from the Forest Service Technology and Development Centers, and other Federal agency saw and safety-related subject matter experts. The purpose of the TAG is to develop, coordinate, and provide advice and guidance to the National Saw Program Manager in connection with training, skills, and safety for all aspects of chain saw and crosscut saw operations on NFS lands. Individuals and individual partner organizations may meet with the TAG to provide input on sawyer training, skills, and safety.

    Section 2358.1—Exhibit 02, Sawyer Responsibilities and Limitations and Training, Knowledge, and Skill Requirements

    Comment: Several respondents expressed concern about limiting sawyers to bucking only (sawing logs and limbs into shorter lengths). Some respondents believed that C Sawyers—Bucking Only should be able to certify other sawyers.

    Response: C Sawyers—Bucking Only may conduct formal instruction within their skill level for A and B Sawyers. C Sawyers—Bucking Only may also conduct field proficiency evaluations within their skill level for A Sawyers and B Sawyers—Bucking Only. See FSM 2358.1, ex. 02, B Sawyers—Bucking Only, Responsibilities and Limitations.

    Comment: Several respondents expressed concern about the need for two C Sawyer Evaluators to determine proficiency of C Sawyers—Bucking Only and identified an inconsistency in the number of C Sawyer Evaluators necessary for certification of C Sawyers—Bucking Only between FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02, and FSM 2358.1, exhibit 06.

    Response: In the final directive, only one C Sawyer Evaluator is necessary for certification of C Sawyers—Bucking Only, and both FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02, and FSM 2358.3, exhibit 06, so provide.

    Comment: Several commenters expressed concerned about eliminating diameter at breast height (DBH) limitations and the subjectivity involved in assessing the complexity of sawing tasks in sawyer evaluations.

    Response: Based on input from experienced Forest Service sawyers, the Agency has determined that DBH restrictions are not an adequate way to judge how much risk sawyers will encounter. Moreover, the Agency does not agree that larger trees are more risky or complex. Many recent accidents involving sawyers striking others or being struck themselves have occurred with smaller-diameter trees. At this time, the Forest Service believes it has addressed the complexity of sawing tasks as precisely as possible and will rely on its most qualified staff to refine the many elements of complexity through implementation of the National Saw Program. The Agency is considering establishing indicators for levels of complexity, but field-testing of this approach is required to determine its efficacy. Definitions of terms associated with complexity of sawing tasks will be provided through FSSOG updates.

    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that the reevaluation standards for sawyer instructors and sawyer evaluators were either ambiguous or too subjective.

    Response: Reevaluation standards for sawyer instructors and sawyer evaluators are enumerated in FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02. The final directive includes additional requirements for sawyer instructors and sawyer evaluators in FSM 2358.21, paragraphs 3 and 4.

    Section 2358.04l—Sawyer Evaluators

    Comment: Many cooperators were concerned about access to the National Sawyer Database.

    Response: The Forest Service recognizes that direct access to this database by cooperators is paramount to the success of the National Saw Program. Therefore, implementation of the database will be delayed until that access can be secured. The Forest Service is developing a web-based database to track Forest Service sawyer certifications nationwide. The database will provide a centralized record of sawyers and their qualifications, thereby facilitating consistent and efficient management of the National Saw Program. The name of the sawyer, contact information, and certification level will be entered into the database and will be accessible by authorized Forest Service and cooperator employees. The system will allow the Forest Service and cooperators to verify that employees, volunteers, training consultants, and cooperators intending to operate chain saws and crosscut saws on NFS lands have met the requirements of the final directive to achieve the requisite certification level.

    Section 2358.05—Definitions

    Comment: Several respondents were unsure of the difference between the terms “brush” and “tree.”

    Response: The final directive includes definitions that iterate the difference between these terms.

    Section 2358.1—Training, Knowledge, and Skill Requirements

    Comment: Several respondents commented about training, including access to training for volunteers and the elimination of total estimated hours of training needed for each certification level in FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02.

    Response: The Forest Service recognizes the benefit of volunteers and will provide training support to the extent feasible. One of the objectives of this final directive is to enable larger volunteer organizations and other partners to develop their own sawyer training, evaluation, and certification programs, which should enable more people to use chain saws and crosscut saws on NFS lands. Inclusion of the total estimated hours of training needed for each certification level is necessary to help participants understand the time commitment needed and provide consistency for program implementation.

    Comment: A respondent suggested removing the requirement for first aid and CPR certification for crosscut sawyer trainees. Several respondents objected to the restriction to double bucking for crosscut sawyer trainees and requested that single bucking under the supervision of another qualified sawyer be allowed for crosscut sawyer trainees.

    Response: Based upon further review, the Forest Service agrees that it makes sense to waive the requirement for first aid and CPR certification for crosscut sawyer trainees and has removed the requirement from FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02, in the final directive. In addition, the Forest Service agrees that single bucking under the supervision of another qualified sawyer should be allowed for crosscut sawyer trainees and has revised FSM 2358.1, exhibit 02, in the final directive accordingly.

    Section 2358.2—Sawyer Training and Field Proficiency Reevaluation

    Comment: Several commenters were concerned that a 3-year sawyer reevaluation cycle would not be followed by forests or regions.

    Response: This national saw directive will supersede all previous regional saw policies. The 3-year reevaluation requirement will ensure that sawyers are evaluated consistently throughout the NFS. If a sawyer evaluator is concerned about a particular sawyer's performance, the sawyer evaluator can require a more frequent evaluation of that sawyer, per FSM 2358.21 in the final directive.

    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that implementation of a national saw directive would adversely affect sawyer training at local levels and would increase saw incidents and injuries.

    Response: Beginning in the 1970s, the Forest Service's nine regions developed regional policies related to sawyer training and saw use. Sawyers covered by those policies often maintained trails on national forests and grasslands, helped fight wildfires, and worked in wilderness where crosscut saws are required. Forest Service and other governmental employees, cooperators, training consultants, and volunteers who worked in more than one region had to comply with multiple regional policies, and certifications obtained in one region were not always honored in another. A national saw directive is needed to standardize training, evaluation, certification, and safety procedures for sawyers operating on NFS lands. The final directive will allow the Forest Service to facilitate the safe use of chain saws and crosscut saws while optimizing the critical skills and cooperative opportunities for trail maintenance and other projects on NFS lands.

    Section 2358.3—Exhibits 03 and 04, Sawyer Training and Field Evaluation for Chain Saws and Crosscut Saws

    Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns about the design of the sawyer training and field evaluation forms and confusion over how to use them.

    Response: These forms will be used to document sawyer training and field evaluation and are designed to capture the sawyer's performance while undertaking any sawing task. If sawyers only intend to brush, limb, and buck, then only these sections of the form should be completed during the evaluation. The felling section should not be completed if the sawyer will not be felling.

    Section 2358.3—Exhibit 05, National Sawyer Certification Card

    Comment: Commenters were unclear regarding the notations that will be made on the National Sawyer Certification Card.

    Response: This credential will be issued through the National Sawyer Database. The sawyer's name and address will be the only information that can be entered on the card. The type of sawyer and certification level will be selected from drop-down boxes or buttons. The card format is under development, but will be designed to fit in a wallet.

    4. Regulatory Certifications Environmental Impact

    This final directive revises the administrative policies and procedures for using crosscut saws and chain saws on NFS lands. Agency regulations at 36 CFR 220.6(d)(2) exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment or impact statement “rules, regulations, or policies to establish Service-wide administrative procedures, program processes, or instructions.” The Agency has concluded that this final directive falls within this category of actions and that no extraordinary circumstances exist which would require preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Regulatory Impact

    Per Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that the final directive is not significant. This final directive, which establishes the Forest Service's National Saw Program, will not have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy, nor will it adversely affect productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health and safety, or State or local governments. This final directive will not interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency, nor will it raise new legal or policy issues. The final directive also will not alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grant, user fee, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of beneficiaries of those programs.

    E.O. 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The E.O. directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Agency has developed the final directive consistent with these requirements.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act and E.O. 13272

    The Agency has considered this final directive in light of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), and E.O. 13272 regarding consideration of small entities. The Agency certifies that the final directive will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under these authorities. The final directive will not impose record-keeping requirements on small entities; it will not affect their competitive position in relation to large entities; and it will not affect their cash flow, liquidity, or ability to remain in the market. The final directive focuses on NFS saw program activities and will impose no requirements on small or large entities.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538), the Agency has assessed the effects of this final directive on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. The final directive will not compel the expenditure of $100 million or more by any State, local, or Tribal government or anyone in the private sector. Therefore, a statement under section 202 of the act is not required.

    No Takings Implications (E.O. 12630)

    The Agency has analyzed the final directive in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 12630. The Agency has determined that the final directive will not pose the risk of a taking of private property. A takings implication assessment is therefore not required.

    Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    The Agency has considered this final directive under the requirements of E.O. 13132 and has determined that the final directive conforms with the federalism principles set out in this E.O.; will not impose any compliance costs on the States; and will not have substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, the Agency has determined that no further assessment of federalism implications is necessary.

    Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    The final directive has been reviewed under E.O. 12988, entitled “Civil Justice Reform.” Upon adoption of the final directive, (1) all State and local laws and regulations that conflict with the final directive or that impede its full implementation will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to the final directive; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court to challenge its provisions.

    Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments (E.O. 13175)

    In accordance with E.O. 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”; USDA Departmental Regulation 1350-02 (Tribal Consultation, Coordination and Collaboration); and Forest Service Handbook 1509.13, Chapter 10 (Consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations), the Agency conducted outreach to Tribes to determine their interest in consulting on the proposed directive during the public comment period. The opportunity for tribal consultation was available for 90 additional days after the close of the public comment period, giving Tribes 150 days to review the proposed directive and request consultation. No interest in consultation was expressed by Tribes or tribal organizations during the outreach period. Opportunities to engage Tribes regarding implementation of the final directive will be explored, including information-sharing via Web sites and notices to major tribal organizations with an interest in the use of chain saws and crosscut saws on NFS lands. Tribes interested in requesting information about the final directive may contact Jonathan Stephens by email at [email protected] or by telephone at (202) 205-1701. In addition, Forest Service regional offices have information on the final directive to guide information-sharing with Tribes in their regions.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    The final directive does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements or other information collection requirements as defined in 5 CFR part 1320 that are not already required by law or not already approved for use. Accordingly, the review provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 do not apply.

    Effects on the Energy Supply (E.O. 13211)

    The Agency has reviewed the final directive under E.O. 13211 and has determined that the final directive is not a significant energy action as defined in the E.O. Therefore, a statement of energy effects is not required.

    Dated: July 6, 2016. Thomas L. Tidwell, Chief, U.S. Forest Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16977 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Designation for the West Sacramento, CA; and Richmond, VA Areas AGENCY:

    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    GIPSA is announcing the designation of California Agri Inspection Co., Ltd. (California Agri); and Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Virginia) to provide official services under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: January 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Sharon Lathrop, Compliance Officer, USDA, GIPSA, FGIS, QACD, 10383 North Ambassador Drive, Kansas City, MO 64153.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Lathrop, 816-891-0415, [email protected] or [email protected]

    Read Applications: All applications and comments are available for public inspection at the office above during regular business hours (7 CFR 1.27(c)).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the July 1, 2015, Federal Register (80 FR 37580), GIPSA requested applications for designation to provide official services in the geographic areas presently serviced by California Agri and Virginia. Applications were due by July 31, 2015.

    The current official agencies, California Agri and Virginia, were the only applicants for designation to provide official services in these areas. As a result, GIPSA did not ask for additional comments.

    GIPSA evaluated the designation criteria in section 79(f) of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(f)) and determined that California Agri and Virginia are qualified to provide official services in the geographic areas specified in the Federal Register on July 1, 2015. This designation to provide official services in the specified areas of California and Virginia is effective January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018.

    Interested persons may obtain official services by contacting these agencies at the following telephone numbers:

    Official agency Headquarters location and telephone Designation start Designation end California Agri West Sacramento, CA 916-374-9700 1/1/2016 12/31/2018 Virginia Richmond, VA 804-786-3501 1/1/2016 12/31/2018

    Section 79(f) of the USGSA authorizes the Secretary to designate a qualified applicant to provide official services in a specified area after determining that the applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide such official services (7 U.S.C. 79 (f)).

    Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16982 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Census Bureau Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test AGENCY:

    U.S. Census Bureau, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    To ensure consideration, written comments must be submitted on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument(s) and instructions should be directed to Robin A. Pennington, Census Bureau, HQ-2K281N, Washington, DC 20233; (301) 763-8132 (or via email at [email protected]).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Abstract

    The Census Bureau will conduct a 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test, with components designed to test new approaches or validate existing approaches and systems integration related to (1) Address Canvassing, including In-Office and In-Field components; (2) Optimizing Self-Response, including contact strategies, language support, and questionnaire content; (3) Update Enumerate, including technical and operational testing; and (4) Nonresponse Followup, including technological and operational improvements. The Address Canvassing component of the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test is included in the Address Canvassing Testing package because the background, description, and systems to be used are the same in both the stateside and Puerto Rico operations.

    Optimizing Self-Response, one of four key innovation areas for the 2020 Census, is focused on improving our methods for increasing the number of people who take advantage of self-response options and refining the questionnaire content to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of census operations, and at the same time reducing costs.

    Another key innovation area for the 2020 Census is Reengineering Field Operations. Making our methods for enumerating the households that do not initially respond more efficient can contribute to a less costly census while maintaining high-quality results. Our redesigned methods need to be tested in Puerto Rico because of a number of differences from stateside operations.

    A test in Puerto Rico includes a review of other innovations that are unique to this U.S. territory. Because of the unique structure of addresses in Puerto Rico, newly defined algorithms were necessary to update and maintain the address frame. These algorithms make it now possible to refresh the address frame with U.S. Postal Service data. Another innovation is the introduction of the self-response methodology that in the past has been the standard methodology used in urban and suburban areas of the States. In the 2000 and 2010 censuses, data collection throughout Puerto Rico used only the Update/Leave methodology that is usually reserved for more rural areas stateside (in particular, in areas where mail is not delivered to houses, or where street name/house number addresses are not common). With a more accurate address frame of Puerto Rico's addresses, this test will indicate how effectively and where the innovations of the reengineering of address canvassing and the optimizing of self-response can be applied.

    Optimizing Self-Response

    The 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test is designed to evaluate several strategies to optimize the rate at which the public self-responds to the census. A higher rate of self-response will mean fewer cases for the Nonresponse Follow-up operation, saving taxpayer money by reducing costs. For the first time in Puerto Rico, the Census Bureau is introducing both a mail contact strategy and an Internet response strategy. The Census Bureau began testing both strategies in Puerto Rico for the 2015 National Content Test and will continue to test these strategies in the municipios selected for the 2017 Census Tests.

    Internet Push is the primary mail contact strategy proposed for the stateside 2020 Census and has been used in Census Bureau research and testing efforts since 2012. Internet Choice includes a paper questionnaire in the first mailing, along with an invitation to complete the questionnaire online, providing a choice of Internet or paper from the beginning of the contact strategy.

    We plan to study the following in the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test:

    • Comparing the self-response rates for the “Choice” panel and the Internet instrument uptake rates, where we invite the respondent to use the Internet in the initial letter mailing (“Internet Push”).

    • Measuring the effects of incorporating household contact strategies, as tested to date, to encourage self-response, including letter and postcard reminders.

    The Bureau will continue its testing and further evaluation of questionnaire content that we studied stateside:

    • Testing of a combined race and Hispanic-origin question that is similar to one the Census Bureau used in the 2015 National Content Test. Based on results from the 2010 Race and Hispanic Origin Alternative Questionnaire Experiment (Compton, et. al. 2012), the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test provides an opportunity to further test a combined race and Hispanic-origin question.

    • Testing new response categories for opposite sex and same sex husband/wife/spouse and unmarried partner for the relationship question.

    Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU)

    The 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test will allow the Census Bureau to continue to refine, optimize, and assess the operational procedures and technical design of the Nonresponse Follow-up operation. This will build upon the results of previous stateside field tests where the NRFU operation had been conducted. Specifically:

    • Operational procedures

    ○ Testing continued refinements to the field data collection instrument for enumeration, including where potential problems exist in our questionnaire pathing and interview software user interface issues.

    ○ Continuing refinement of our re-designed method of enumerating multi-unit structures, designed to identify vacant households with a minimal number of contact attempts, and minimization of respondent burden.

    ○ Continuing refinement of our Quality Control Reinterview process, to detect and deter falsification by field enumerators. This may include, for instance, new methodologies for sampling reinterview cases, and further use of administrative records and paradata to identify/rule out potential falsification.

    ○ Continuing evaluation of our enumerator training procedures and content, including both online training modules and in-classroom training.

    ○ Continuing our refinement and operational testing of field supervisor to enumerator ratio, based on the results of previous tests to ensure that staffing ratios of enumerators to supervisors are validated as feasible during field operations.

    ○ Adding special collection of certain rural Puerto Rico addresses in the enumeration instrument.

    ○ Integrating a Non-ID Field Verification assignment into the NRFU workload. The Non-ID Field Verification cases are intended to verify whether the living quarters associated with Non-ID self-responses that cannot be matched to the Census Bureau address frame actually do exist and were assigned to the correct census block.

    • Technical Design

    ○ Continuing refinement of the alerts generated by the operational control system to identify potentially problematic field behavior in real time.

    ○ Continuing refinement of the optimization and routing algorithms used to make field assignments.

    ○ Continuing work to integrate into the Census Bureau's enterprise data collection systems.

    Update Enumerate (UE)

    The 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test will allow the Census Bureau to test the Update Enumerate operation, which combines listing methodologies of Address Canvassing with the enumeration methodologies from Nonresponse Follow-up. This operation was used in the 2010 Census for about 1 percent of all addresses, mostly in geographic areas that:

    • Do not have city-style addresses;

    • Do not receive mail through city-style addresses;

    • Receive mail at post office boxes;

    • Have unique challenges associated with accessibility;

    • Have been affected by natural disasters; or

    • Have high concentrations of seasonally vacant housing.

    The following objectives are being tested for Update Enumerate:

    • Integrating listing and enumeration operations and systems;

    • Building on previous stateside test experiences to evaluate the impact on cost and quality of the contact strategy on enumerator productivity and efficiency;

    • Testing refinements to the field data collection instrument for enumeration, including such things as allowing collection of data from “other” address for in-movers and whole household “usual home elsewhere” cases;

    • Testing field supervisor to enumerator ratios to ensure that staffing ratios of enumerators to supervisors are validated as feasible during field operations.

    II. Method of Collection Test Sites

    The Census Bureau will conduct the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test concurrently in Carolina, Loíza, and Trujillo Alto municipios. These locations offer particular characteristics that support the Census Bureau's research goals. Conducting the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test in rural and urban areas will allow us to test our assignment routing strategies in lightly and densely populated areas and understand the unique challenges to field enumeration in Puerto Rico.

    Self-Response

    The housing units in the selected areas included in the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test will be contacted by mail and invited to complete their questionnaire via the Internet. Internet self-response contact methods include either a letter or a postcard. We will also test optimal strategies for delivering mail materials, including paper questionnaires, to households that do not or cannot respond online. We will continue to test our Non-ID Processing methodology as another strategy for optimizing self-response. Non-ID Processing refers to address matching and geocoding for census responses that lack a preassigned census identification code. In the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test, we will continue to develop our capability to conduct real-time non-ID processing.

    This test will allow us to interactively prompt a respondent (while they are still online filling out the form) for additional address and location information if the respondent's address cannot be matched to an address with a Census ID or geocoded. A non-ID respondent whose address cannot be matched to our address database will be prompted during his or her Internet self-response session to confirm the address information they provided while filling out the form or to indicate the location of their address on an on-screen map. This test will allow us to better understand requirements related to scalability of planned systems and determine metrics for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If the address match is not resolved during automated processing, Census Bureau staff will attempt to manually match or geocode addresses. We estimate that about one percent of the overall non-ID respondents will be contacted as part of the manual matching process. Additionally, we plan to test a mechanism for validating all non-ID responses by matching the response data to a composite file consisting of federal administrative records and third-party data.

    Nonresponse Follow-up (NRFU)

    If a household does not ultimately respond to the self-response portion of the test by a specified date, it is included in the universe for the NRFU portion of the test, during which enumerators will attempt to follow up with the nonresponding households to collect data. In advance of the full deployment of enumerators following up with nonresponding households, a small number of the nonresponding cases may be subject to early follow-up to allow for the live testing of systems, data collection applications, and field procedures and to provide the field data collection supervisors to gain experience with the enumeration application.

    The Census Bureau will conduct NRFU with mobile smartphone devices provided via a contract with the Census Bureau to provide devices, peripherals, and service plans. The devices will utilize a Census Bureau provided enumeration application solution for conducting the NRFU field data collection.

    Nonresponse Follow-up Quality Control Reinterview (NRFU-RI)

    A sample of cases that have been enumerated via Nonresponse Follow-up will be selected for reinterview. This operation is intended to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification. Like the NRFU operation before it, NRFU-RI will use the Census Bureau provided enumeration software on mobile devices. We will also test centralized phone contacts of the reinterview cases before sending them to an enumerator in the field, providing potential cost avoidance opportunities.

    Non-ID Field Verification (FV)

    Households that self-respond to the Census without an ID and cannot be matched to our address frame (either via automated methods or clerical review) may be sent to the field for NRFU enumerators to conduct a field verification operation. This sub-operation is intended to verify that the housing unit exists, and if possible, to collect coordinate data to enable accurate attribution to a census block.

    Update Enumerate (UE)

    Update Enumerate for the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test will test three of the components of the operation: Update Enumerate Production, Update Enumerate Follow-up, and Update Enumerate Reinterview. In addition to the field operation, the Census Bureau is testing mailing out an invitation package to housing units with a mailable address to generate self-response before the operation begins. If a household self-responds, the UE fieldworker (enumerator) will not enumerate that house while listing the geographic area. This is a cost savings to Update Enumerate since the enumerator will not have to spend time collecting the enumeration of self-responding households.

    Update Enumerate Production

    Enumerators visit specific geographic areas to identify every place where people could live or stay comparing what they see on the ground to the existing census address list and either verify or correct the address and location information. Much like Address Canvassing, enumerators classify each living quarter (LQ) as a housing unit or group quarter (GQ). If the LQ is classified as a GQ, no attempt is made to enumerate since the plan for the 2020 Census is to have a separate operation enumerate GQs.

    The enumerators will attempt to conduct an interview for each housing unit. If someone answers, the enumerators will provide a Confidentiality Notice and ask about the address in order to verify or update the information, as appropriate. The enumerators will then ask if there are any additional LQs in the structure or on the property. If there are additional LQs, the enumerators will collect/update that information, as appropriate. The enumerator will then interview the respondent using the questionnaire on the mobile device.

    If no one is home at a non responding housing unit, the enumerator will leave a Notice of Visit inviting a respondent for each household to go online with an ID to complete the 2017 Puerto Rico Census Test questionnaire. The Notice of Visit will also include the phone number for Census Questionnaire Assistance (CQA) if the respondent has any questions or would prefer to respond to the questionnaire on the phone.

    Update Enumerate Follow-up

    The UE operation will have a UE Follow-up component for those households that were not enumerated on the first visit and have not responded via the Internet or CQA. The UE Follow-up will use the same contact strategies and business rules as Nonresponse Follow-up. UE enumerators will conduct the operation using Census Bureau provided listing and enumeration application on a Census Bureau provided mobile device, which securely collects and transmits respondent data.

    Update Enumerate Reinterview

    A sample of cases enumerated via Update Enumerate or Update Enumerate Follow-up will be selected for reinterview. The intention of this operation is to help us pinpoint possible cases of enumerator falsification. Update Enumerate Reinterview will use the Census Bureau's enumeration software on mobile devices. We will also test centralized phone contacts of the reinterview cases before sending them to an enumerator in the field, providing potential cost savings.

    Language Services

    Telephone questionnaire assistance will be available in Spanish as well as English.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0607-XXXX.

    Form Number(s): Paper and electronic questionnaires; numbers to be determined.

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Households/Individuals.

    Estimated Number of Respondents:

    Operation or category Estimated number of
  • respondents
  • Estimated time per response
  • (minutes)
  • Total burden hours
  • (hours)
  • Geographic Area Focused on Self-Response Internet/Telephone/Paper 95,000 10 15,834 Nonresponse Follow-up 70,000 10 11,667 Nonresponse Follow-up Quality Control RI 7,000 10 1,167 Self-Response Subtotal 172,000 28,668 Geographic Area Focused on Update Enumerate Update Enumerate Response 14,000 12 2,800 Update Enumerate Follow-up Response 14,000 10 2,334 Update Enumerate Reinterview 2,800 10 467 Update Enumerate Subtotal 30,800 5,601 Non-ID Processing Phone Follow-up 200 5 17 Totals 203,000 34,286
    Area Focused on Self-Response

    Estimate for Self-Response [Internet/Telephone/Paper]: 95,000 respondents.

    Corresponding Nonresponse Follow-up Cases: 70,000 respondents.

    Corresponding Nonresponse Follow-up Quality Control Re-Interview Cases: 7,000 respondents.

    Area focused on Update Enumerate: 28,000 respondents..

    Corresponding Update Enumerate Cases: 14,000.

    Corresponding Update Enumerate Followup Cases: 14,000.

    Corresponding Update Enumerate Reinterview Cases: 2,800.

    Non-ID Processing Cases requiring a phone call to the respondent to derive a match to a census address or to assign to a census block: 200.

    Total: 203,000 Contacts

    Estimated Time per Response:

    Paper/Internet Responders: 10 minutes per response.

    Nonresponse Follow-up Cases: 10 minutes per response.

    Nonresponse Follow-up Quality Control Reinterview Cases: 10 minutes per response.

    Update Enumerate Cases: 12 minutes per response.

    Update Enumerate Follow-up Cases: 10 minutes per response.

    Update Enumerate Reinterview Cases: 10 minutes per response.

    Non-ID Processing Cases requiring a telephone follow-up to match/geocode: 5 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 34,286 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate in this data collection.

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.

    Legal Authority: Title 13 U.S.C. Sections 141, 191 and 193.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16966 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Fang Liwu, Nan Hu Xi Yuan 50505, Chai Yang District, Wang Ging, Beijing, China; Order Denying Export Privileges

    On July 20, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Fang Liwu (“Fang”) was convicted of violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701, et seq. (2012)) (“IEEPA”). Specifically, Fang knowingly and willfully violated the IEEPA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and aided and abetted the violation, that is, without obtaining the required Office of Foreign Assets Control approval, Fang engaged in transactions to export, attempted to export, and aided and abetted the export of three CC-10 vacuum gauges to Iran from the United States. Fang was sentenced to 24 months in prison, with credit for time served, three years of supervised release, and a special assessment of $400.00.

    Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations (“EAR” or “Regulations”) 1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[t]he Director of the Office of Exporter Services, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Export Enforcement, may deny the export privileges of any person who has been convicted of a violation of the Export Administration Act (“EAA”), the EAR, or any order, license or authorization issued thereunder; any regulation, license, or order issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. § 1701-1706); 18 U.S.C. §§ 793, 794 or 798; section 4(b) of the Internal Security Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C. § 783(b)), or section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778).” 15 CFR 766.25(a); see also Section 11(h) of the EAA, 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). The denial of export privileges under this provision may be for a period of up to 10 years from the date of the conviction. 15 CFR 766.25(d); see also 50 U.S.C. 4610(h). In addition, Section 750.8 of the Regulations states that the Bureau of Industry and Security's Office of Exporter Services may revoke any Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) licenses previously issued in which the person had an interest in at the time of his conviction.

    1 50 U.S.C. §§ 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48,233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    BIS has received notice of Fang's conviction for violating IEEPA, and in accordance with Section 766.25 of the Regulations, BIS has provided notice and an opportunity for Fang to make a written submission to BIS. BIS has not received a submission from Fang.

    Based upon my review and consultations with BIS's Office of Export Enforcement, including its Director, and the facts available to BIS, I have decided to deny Fang's export privileges under the Regulations for a period of 10 years from the date of Fang's conviction. I have also decided to revoke all licenses issued pursuant to the Act or Regulations in which Fang had an interest at the time of his conviction.

    Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

    First, from the date of this Order until July 20, 2025, Fang Liwu, with a last known address of Nan Hu Xi Yuan 50505, Chai Yang District, Wang Ging, Beijing, China, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, agents or representatives (the “Denied Person”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    Second, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of the Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by the Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby the Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from the Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from the Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by the Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    Third, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any other person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to Fang by ownership, control, position of responsibility, affiliation, or other connection in the conduct of trade or business may also be made subject to the provisions of this Order in order to prevent evasion of this Order.

    Fourth, in accordance with Part 756 of the Regulations, Fang may file an appeal of this Order with the Under Secretary of Commerce for Industry and Security. The appeal must be filed within 45 days from the date of this Order and must comply with the provisions of Part 756 of the Regulations.

    Fifth, a copy of this Order shall be delivered to the Fang. This Order shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Sixth, this Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect until July 20, 2025.

    Issued this 12th day of July, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17033 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On January 8, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the third administrative review (“AR”) of the antidumping duty (“AD”) order on multilayered wood flooring (“MLWF”) from the People's Republic of China (“the PRC”), in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).1 The period of review (“POR”) for the AR is December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. The AR covers 107 companies. The mandatory respondents in this review are: (1) Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd. (“Penghong”); and (2) Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited (“Fine Furniture”). We received comments from interested parties on our Preliminary Results. Based on our analysis of the comments received, we made changes to the margin calculations for the final results of this administrative review. The final dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Results” section of this notice.

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2013-2014, 81 FR 903 (January 8, 2016) (“Preliminary Results”) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or William Horn, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412 or (202) 482-2615, respectively.

    Background

    As noted above, on January 8, 2016, the Department published its Preliminary Results. The Department invited parties to submit case briefs and hearing requests related to the Preliminary Results. On February 9, 2016, the Department received case briefs from the Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd. (“Fusong Jinlong Group”) and Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd. (“Baishan Huafeng”). On February 12, 2016, the Department received case briefs on behalf of the primary members of the Alliance for Free Choice and Jobs In Flooring (“the AFCJF”); 2 Fine Furniture; Anhui Longhua Bamboo Product Co., Ltd., Benxi Wood Company, Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd., Dalian Xinjinghua Wood Co., Ltd., Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd., Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics LLC, GTP International Ltd., Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd., Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd., Henan Xingwangjia Technology Co., Ltd., Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd., Jiangsu Yuhui International Trade Co., Ltd., Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd., Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd., Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd., Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., and Puli Trading Limited, Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd., and Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd., Xuzhou Antop International Trade Co., Ltd., Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd., and Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd. (collectively the “HB Respondents”); Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd., Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd., and Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co. Ltd.; and the Coalition for American Hardwood Parity (“CAHP”).3 On February 19, 2016, the Department received rebuttal briefs from Fine Furniture, the HB Respondents, Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC (“Lumber Liquidators”), on behalf of Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dun Hua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd., Karly Wood Product Limited, Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd., Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd., Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd., Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd., Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd. and Penghong (collectively “Penghong and Companies”), and CAHP. On February 12, 2016, the Department received requests for a hearing from Fine Furniture, CAHP, and Penghong and Companies. Various interested parties participated in a public hearing on May 4, 2016. On April 26, 2016, the Department extended the time period for issuing the final results of the AR by 60 days, until July 12, 2016.4

    2 The current primary members of the AFCJF, are importers of the subject merchandise and thus interested parties pursuant to 19 CFR 351.102(29)(ii).. These importers are: Swiff Train Co.; Metropolitan Hardwood Floors, Inc.; Real Wood Floors, LLC.; Galleher Corp; Crescent Hardwood Supply; Custom Wholesale Floors, Inc.; Pinnacle Interior Elements, Ltd.; Timeless Design Import LCC; CDC Distributors, Inc.; CLBY Inc. (dba D&M Flooring); Johnson's Premium Hardwood Flooring, Inc.; The Master's Craft Corp.; BR Custom Surface; Struxtur, Inc.; Doma Source LLC; Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc.; Wego Chemical & Chemical & Mineral Corp. and V.A.L. Floors, Inc. and Floor & Décor.

    3 The member-companies of the CAHP are: Anderson Hardwood Floors, LLC; From the Forest; Howell Hardwood Flooring; Mannington Mills, Inc.; Nydree Flooring; and Shaw Industries Group, Inc.

    4See Memo to the file re: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Extension of Deadline for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review dated April 26, 2016.

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order includes MLWF, subject to certain exceptions.5 Imports of the subject merchandise are provided for under the following subheadings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”): ”): 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.3175; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.5175; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500.

    5See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, regarding “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China,” (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”), issued and dated concurrently with this notice, for a complete description of the Scope of the Order.

    While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive. For the full text of the scope of the order, see Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China,” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), dated concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Final Determination of No Shipments

    In the Preliminary Results, we found that Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd.; Dalian T-Boom Wood Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.; Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd.; Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd.; Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd. had no shipments during the POR.6 We did not receive comments with respect to any of these companies. Thus, for these final results of review, we continue to find that those companies had no shipments during the POR. Consistent with our “automatic assessment” clarification, we will issue appropriate instructions with respect to these companies to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) based on our final results.7

    6See Preliminary Results, 81 FR at 903 foot note 5.

    7See Non-Market Economy Antidumping Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 76 FR 65694 (October 24, 2011) (Assessment of Antidumping Duties); see also the “Assessment” section of this notice, below.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in the AR are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum follows as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Results

    • We revised the calculation of surrogate financial ratios based on the notes in financial statement used in the preliminary results.8

    8See Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian and William Horn, International Trade Compliance Analysts, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Final Surrogate Value Memorandum,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Final Surrogate Value Memorandum”), at page 2 and Exhibit 2.

    • We revised surrogate values for several lumber raw materials in calculation of the normal value for Fine Furniture.9

    9Id., at page 1 and Exhibit 1.

    • We deducted letter of credit expense from the surrogate value for brokerage and handling in the calculation of normal value for Fine Furniture.10

    10Id., at page 2 and Exhibit 3.

    • We corrected the application of certain adjustments by deducting them from international movement in calculation of the U.S. net price for Fine Furniture.11

    11 See Memorandum to the File from Lilit Astvatsatrian, International Trade Compliance Analyst, “Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Analysis of the Final Results Margin Calculation for Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited,” dated concurrently with this determination (“Final Analysis Memorandum”), at page 2 and Attachment 1.

    • We corrected the spelling of Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd.'s name.12

    12See Issues and Decisions Memorandum at comment 11.

    • We defined the members of Fusong Jinlong Group.13

    13Id., at comment 10.

    • We treated certain companies as separate rate respondents.14

    14Id., at comment 9.

    Final Results of the Administrative Review

    We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the POR from December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014:

    15 We note that the record reflects that Penghong and Shumaike were not affiliated until April 2014 (i.e., approximately 4 months into the POR). Because the record does not support treating Penghong as a single entity with Shumaike prior to the date of affiliation (i.e., April 2014), separate assessment rates will apply for the period from 11/30/2013 through 3/31/2014. In particular, the assessment rate for any entries by Shumaike will be 13.34 percent (the rate applicable to unexamined separate rate companies) and the assessment rate for any entries by Penghong will be 0.00.

    16 The following companies are collectively known as The Fusong Jinlong Group (“Fusong Jinlong Group”): Dalian Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.; Fusong Jinlong Wooden Group Co., Ltd.; Fusong Jinqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.; and Fusong Qianqiu Wooden Product Co., Ltd.

    Exporter Weighted-average
  • dumping margin
  • Fine Furniture (Shanghai) Limited 17.37 Dalian Penghong Floor Products Co., Ltd./Dalian Shumaike Floor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.15 0.00 A&W (Shanghai) Woods Co., Ltd 17.37 Anhui Longhua Bamboo Product Co., Ltd 17.37 Armstrong Wood Products (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 17.37 Baishan Huafeng Wooden Product Co., Ltd 17.37 Benxi Wood Company 17.37 Changzhou Hawd Flooring Co., Ltd 17.37 Chinafloors Timber (China) Co., Ltd 17.37 Dalian Dajen Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Dalian Huade Wood Product Co., Ltd 17.37 Dalian Huilong Wooden Products Co., Ltd 17.37 Dalian Kemian Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Dalian Xinjinghua Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Dasso Industrial Group Co., Ltd 17.37 Dongtai Fuan Universal Dynamics, LLC 17.37 Dunhua City Dexin Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Dunhua City Hongyuan Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Dun Hua City Jisen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Dunhua City Wanrong Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Dun Hua Sen Tai Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Dunhua Shengda Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Fusong Jinlong Group16 17.37 GTP International Ltd 17.37 Guangdong Yihua Timber Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Guangzhou Panyu Kangda Board Co., Ltd 17.37 Guangzhou Panyu Southern Star Co., Ltd 17.37 HaiLin LinJing Wooden Products, Ltd 17.37 Hangzhou Hanje Tec Co., Ltd 17.37 Henan Xingwangjia Technology Co., Ltd 17.37 Hunchun Forest Wolf Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Hunchun Xingjia Wooden Flooring Inc 17.37 Huzhou Chenghang Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Huzhou Fulinmen Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 17.37 Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd.17 17.37 Huzhou Jesonwood Co., Ltd 17.37 Huzhou Ruifeng Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd 17.37 Huzhou Sunergy World Trade Co., Ltd 17.37 Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.18 17.37 Jiangsu Senmao Bamboo and Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Jiangsu Simba Flooring Co., Ltd 17.37 Jiangsu Yuhui International Trade Co., Ltd 17.37 Jiashan HuiJiaLe Decoration Material Co., Ltd 17.37 Jiaxing Hengtong Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Jilin Forest Industry Jinqiao Flooring Group Co., Ltd 17.37 Jilin Xinyuan Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Karly Wood Product Limited 17.37 Kemian Wood Industry (Kunshan) Co., Ltd 17.37 Les Planchers Mercier, Inc 17.37 Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 MuDanJiang Bosen Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Nakahiro Jyou Sei Furniture (Dalian) Co., Ltd 17.37 Nanjing Minglin Wooden Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Ningbo Tianyi Bamboo & Wood Products Co., Ltd 17.37 Pinge Timber Manufacturing (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd 17.37 Power Dekor Group Co., Ltd 17.37 Puli Trading Limited 17.37 Shanghai Lairunde Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai 19 17.37 Shanghai New Sihe Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Shanghai Shenlin Corporation 17.37 Shenyang Haobainian Wooden Co., Ltd 17.37 Shenzhenshi Huanwei Woods Co., Ltd 17.37 Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co., Ltd 17.37 Suzhou Dongda Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Xiamen Yung De Ornament Co., Ltd 17.37 Xuzhou Antop International Trade Co., Ltd 17.37 Xuzhou Shenghe Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Yekalon Industry, Inc 17.37 Yingyi-Nature (Kunshan) Wood Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Yixing Lion-King Timber Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Biyork Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Dadongwu Green Home Wood Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Fudeli Timber Industry Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Longsen Lumbering Co., Ltd 17.37 Zhejiang Shuimojiangnan New Material Technology Co., Ltd 17.37
    Assessment Rates

    The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication date of these final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we are calculating importer- (or customer-) specific assessment rates for the merchandise subject to this review. For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.50 percent), the Department will calculate importer- (or customer)-specific assessment rates for merchandise subject to this review. Where appropriate, we calculated an ad valorem rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total entered values associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting ad valorem rate against the entered customs values for the subject merchandise. Where appropriate, we calculated a per-unit rate for each importer (or customer) by dividing the total dumping margins for reviewed sales to that party by the total sales quantity associated with those transactions. For duty-assessment rates calculated on this basis, we will direct CBP to assess the resulting per-unit rate against the entered quantity of the subject merchandise.20 We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties. For Penghong, whose weighted average dumping margin is zero, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.21 We intend to instruct CBP to liquidate entries of subject merchandise exported by the PRC-wide entity at the PRC-wide rate.

    17 On July 13, 2015, the Department determined that Zhejiang Fuma Warm Technology Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 39998 (July 13, 2015). Because Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd. no longer exists as a legal entity, the rate assigned to Huzhou Fuma Wood Co., Ltd. will apply for assessment purposes only.

    18 On November 16, 2015, the Department determined that Sino-Maple (JiangSu) Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 80 FR 70756 (November 16, 2015). Because Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. no longer exists as a legal entity, the rate assigned to Jiafeng Wood (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. will apply for assessment purposes only.

    19 On September 30, 2014, the Department determined that Linyi Youyou Wood Co., Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai. See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review, 79 FR 58740 (September 30, 2014). Because Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai no longer exists as a legal entity, the rate assigned to Shanghai Lizhong Wood Products Co., Ltd./The Lizhong Wood Industry Limited Company of Shanghai will apply for assessment purposes only.

    20See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin and Assessment Rate in Certain Antidumping Proceedings: Final Modification, 77 FR 8101, 8103 (February 14, 2012).

    21See 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1).

    If the Department determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the PRC-wide rate.22

    22 For a full discussion of this practice, see Assessment of Antidumping Duties.

    For the companies not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to apply the rate listed above to the entries of subject merchandise exported by such companies and entered during the period from December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. This rate is the same as the rate for the one mandatory respondent with a weighted-average dumping margin that is above de minimis.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of these reviews for shipments of the subject merchandise from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date in the Federal Register of the final results of review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act. For Penghong, Fine Furniture, and the non-examined, separate rate respondents, the cash deposit rate will be equal to their weighted-average dumping margins established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is zero or de minimis, then no cash deposit will be required. Changbai Mountain Development and Protection Zone Hongtu Wood Industrial Co., Ltd.; Dalian T-Boom Wood Products Co., Ltd.; Hangzhou Zhengtian Industrial Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Guyu International Trading Co., Ltd.; Jiangsu Mingle Flooring Co., Ltd.; Linyi Bonn Flooring Manufacturing Co., Ltd.; Shanghai Eswell Timber Co., Ltd.; Shenyang Senwang Wooden Industry Co., Ltd.; Tongxiang Jisheng Import and Export Co., Ltd.; and Zhejiang Fuerjia Wooden Co., Ltd. which claimed no shipments, the cash deposit rate will remain unchanged from their rate assigned in the most recently completed review of the company. For previously investigated or reviewed PRC and non-PRC exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the most-recently established exporter-specific rate. For all PRC exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the PRC-wide entity established in a redetermination of the final determination of the less than fair value investigation (i.e., 25.62 percent).23 For all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC exporter that supplied that non-PRC exporter. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    23See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With the Final Determination and Amended Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation, 80 FR 44029, 44031 (July 24, 2015).

    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed regarding these AR final results within five days of the date of publication of this notice in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Administrative Protective Order (“APO”)

    This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to 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.

    We are issuing and publishing this Administrative Review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1), 751(a)(2)(B), and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Ronald K Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order List of Abbreviations and Acronyms Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Surrogate Country A. Whether The Department Should Rely Upon CAHP's Rejected Surrogate Country Arguments B. Whether The Romanian Wood Products Industry Is Distorted by Government Involvement C. Whether the Department Improperly Concluded That the Romanian Financial Statement Was Usable D. Whether the Thai Financial Statements Should Have Been Rejected E. Whether Romanian Input Data Are Superior to Thailand in Terms of Specificity Comment 2: Selection of Romanian Surrogate Values of Face Veneers Comment 3: Selection of Romanian Surrogate Values of Lumber Comment 4: Correction of Surrogate Value Selections Comment 5: Calculation of Surrogate Financial Ratios Comment 6: Adjustment of Brokerage and Handling Comment 7: Correction of a Clerical Error Comment 8: Inclusion of Fine Furniture's Affiliate's Name in Customs Instructions Comment 9: Treatment of Three Respondents as Separate Rate Applicants Comment 10: Treatment of Fusong Jinlong Group as a Single Entity Comment 11: Correction of Baishan Huafeng's Name Recommendation Table of Shortened Citations Litigation Cite Table
    [FR Doc. 2016-17049 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Meeting of the United States Manufacturing Council AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The United States Manufacturing Council (Council) will hold an open meeting via livestream on Wednesday, August 3, 2016. The Council was established in April 2004 to advise the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing industry. The purpose of the meeting is for Council members to review and deliberate a letter that summarizes the Council's recommendations and provides advice to the Secretary on the future of the Manufacturing Council. The final agenda will be posted on the Department of Commerce Web site for the Council at http://www.trade.gov/manufacturingcouncil/, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

    DATES:

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The United States Manufacturing Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the Internet at http://whitehouse.gov/live.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Archana Sahgal, U.S. Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: 202-482-4501, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: The Council advises the Secretary of Commerce on matters relating to the U.S. manufacturing industry.

    Public Participation: The public is invited to submit written statements to the United States Investment Advisory Council. Statements must be received by 5:00 p.m. EDT June 14, 2016 by either of the following methods:

    a. Electronic Submissions

    Submit statements electronically to Archana Sahgal, Executive Secretary, United States Manufacturing Council via email: [email protected]

    b. Paper Submissions

    Send paper statements to Archana Sahgal, Executive Secretary, United States Manufacturing Council, Room 4043, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230. Statements will be posted on the United States Manufacturing Council website (http://www.trade.gov/manufacturingcouncil) without change, including any business or personal information provided such as names, addresses, email addresses, or telephone numbers. All statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. You should submit only information that you wish to make publicly available.

    Meeting minutes: Copies of the Council's meeting minutes will be available within ninety (90) days of the meeting.

    Dated: July13, 2016. Archana Sahgal, Executive Secretary, U.S. Manufacturing Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17046 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-980] Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) has completed its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (the PRC) for the period of review (POR) covering January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013. On January 8, 2016, we published the preliminary results of this review.1

    1See Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2013; and Partial Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review, 81 FR 908 (January 8, 2016) (Preliminary Results).

    We provided interested parties with an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results. Our analysis of the comments submitted resulted in a change to the net subsidy rates for respondent JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. and its crossed-owned companies (collectively, JA Solar). The final net subsidy rates are listed below in the section entitled, “Final Results of the Review.”

    Withdrawals of certain requests for review were timely filed and, as a result, we rescinded this administrative review with respect to certain companies, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), and proceeded with the review of JA Solar, Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd. (Trina), and Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd. (Suntech).2

    2 For a list of the rescinded companies, see Preliminary Results at Appendix II.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Lindgren, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3870.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Following the Preliminary Results, the Department conducted verification of the questionnaire responses submitted by the Government of the PRC (the GOC) and JA Solar from March 7 to 18, 2016. The verification reports were released on May 6, 2016.3 We received case briefs from interested parties on May 18, 2016.4 On May 31, 2016, interested parties submitted their rebuttal briefs.5 No hearing was held in this case as the only hearing requests were withdrawn.6

    3See Department Memoranda, “Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by the Government of China,” and “Verification of the Questionnaire Responses Submitted by JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned companies: Countervailing Duty Second Administrative Review of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules from the People's Republic of China,” both dated May 6, 2016.

    4See Letter to the Secretary from the GOC, “GOC Administrative Case Brief: Second Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China (C-570-980),” and Letter to the Secretary from JA Solar, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China: Case Brief,” both dated May 18, 2016; see also Letter to the Secretary from SolarWorld Americas, Inc. (Petitioner), “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Resubmission of SolarWorld Americas, Inc.'s Case Brief,” May 24, 2016.

    5See Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief of SolarWorld Americas, Inc.,” (May 31, 2016); see also Letter from the GOC, “GOC Rebuttal Brief: Second Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or not Assembled into Modules from the People's Republic of China (C-570-980),” (May 31, 2016); Letter from JA Solar, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Rebuttal Brief,” (May 31, 2016).

    6See Letter to the Secretary from JA Solar, “Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Hearing Request,” (June 2, 2016); see also Letter to the Secretary from Petitioner, “Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether Or Not Assembled into Modules, from the People's Republic of China: Withdrawal of Request for Hearing,” (June 7, 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by this order is crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, and modules, laminates, and panels, consisting of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other products, including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels and building integrated materials. The product is currently classified under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8501.61.0000, 8507.20.80, 8541.40.6020, 8541.40.6030, and 8501.31.8000. These HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes; the written description of the scope of this order is dispositive. A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.7

    7See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of the Countervailing Duty Administrative Review of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, from the People's Republic of China; 2013,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues in the case briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Methodology

    The Department conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution from an “authority” that confers a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific.8 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    8See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5)(A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    In making these findings, we relied, in part, on facts available and, because the GOC did not act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.9 For further information, see the section, “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences,” in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    9See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Final Results of the Review

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 19.20 percent ad valorem for JA Solar. Because the only individually calculated rate in the instant review is not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, the Department has assigned this rate, calculated for JA Solar, to Trina and Suntech, companies that are subject to this review but were not selected for individual examination in this review.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd. and its cross-owned affiliates 10 19.20 Changzhou Trina Solar Energy Co., Ltd 19.20 Wuxi Suntech Power Co., Ltd 19.20
    Disclosure

    10 Cross-owned affiliates are: Donghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Hebei Ningjin Songgong Semiconductor Co., Ltd.; Hebei Ningtong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Hebei Yujing Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Hefei JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; JA (Hefei) Renewable Energy Co., Ltd.; JA Solar Technology Yangzhou Co., Ltd.; Jing Hai Yang Semiconductor Material (Donghai) Co., Ltd.; JingAo Solar Co., Ltd.; JingLong Industry and Commerce Group Co., Ltd.; Jingwei Electronic Material Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Changlong Electronic Materials Manufacturing Co.; Ningjin County Jingyuan New Energy Investment Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Guiguang Electronic Investment Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Jingfeng Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Saimei Ganglong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Ningjin Songgong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Ningjing Sunshine New Energy Co., Ltd.; Ninjing Jingxing Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; Shanghai JA Solar Technology Co., Ltd.; Solar Silicon Valley Electronic Science and Technology Co., Ltd.; Xingtai Jinglong Electronic Materials Co., Ltd.; and, Yangguang Guifeng Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b), we will disclose the calculations performed within five days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Assessment Rates

    In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), the Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 15 days after the date of publication of these final results, to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise by JA Solar, Trina and Suntech entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2013, at the percent rates, as listed above for each of the respective companies, of the entered value.

    Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs in the amount shown above for shipments of subject merchandise by JA Solar, Trina and Suntech entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

    For non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated CVDs at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Period of Review III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsidies Valuation Information V. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Final Results of Review IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Usage of Export Buyer's Credit Program Comment 2: Selection of AFA Rate for Export Buyer's Credit Program Comment 3: Specificity of Aluminum Extrusion for LTAR Program Comment 4: Polysilicon Market Distortions Comment 5: Polysilicon Benchmark Comment 6: Solar Glass Benchmark Comment 7: Ocean Freight Benchmark Comment 8: Inclusion of VAT in LTAR Benchmarks Comment 9: Electricity Benchmarks Comment 10: Electricity Benefit Calculation Comment 11: Application of Uncreditworthy Discount Rates to Variable Loans Comment 12: Application of Uncreditworthy Discount Rates to Imported Equipment Purchases Comment 13: Minor Corrections X. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17064 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-970] Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review; 2013-2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its Preliminary Rescission for the new shipper review (“NSR”) of the antidumping duty order on multilayered wood flooring from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”) on June 2, 2016.1 The period of review (“POR”) is December 1, 2013 through November 30, 2014. As discussed below, we preliminarily found that the sale made by Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Barry”) is not bona fide, and announced our preliminary intent to rescind its NSR. For the final results of this review, we continue to find Qingdao Barry's sale to be non-bona fide. Therefore, we are rescinding this NSR.

    1See Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Rescission of 2013-2014 Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review, 81 FR 35306 (June 2, 2016) (“Preliminary Rescission”); see also Memorandum from Maisha Cryor, Office IV AD/CVD Operations, to Abdelali Elouaradia, Director, Enforcement and Compliance, Office IV entitled “Antidumping Duty New Shipper Review of Multilayered Wood Flooring from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Bona Fide Sale Analysis for Qingdao Barry Flooring Co., Ltd.,” dated May 24, 2016 (“Prelim Bona Fide Memo”).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    For a complete description of the events that followed the publication of the Preliminary Rescission, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's AD and Countervailing Duty (“CVD”) Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Antidumping and Countervailing Operations, to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, entitled “Multilayered Wood Flooring From the People's Republic of China: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Rescission of the 2013-2014 New Shipper Review” issued concurrently with and hereby adopted by this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Scope of the Order

    The merchandise covered by the order is multilayered wood flooring, which is composed of an assembly of two or more layers or plies of wood veneers 3 in combination with a core.4 Merchandise covered by this review is classifiable under subheadings 4412.31.0520; 4412.31.0540; 4412.31.0560; 4412.31.2510; 4412.31.2520; 4412.31.4040; 4412.31.4050; 4412.31.4060; 4412.31.4070; 4412.31.4075; 4412.31.4080; 4412.31.5125; 4412.31.5135; 4412.31.5155; 4412.31.5165; 4412.31.6000; 4412.31.9100; 4412.32.0520; 4412.32.0540; 4412.32.0560; 4412.32.0565; 4412.32.0570; 4412.32.2510; 4412.32.2520; 4412.32.2525; 4412.32.2530; 4412.32.3125; 4412.32.3135; 4412.32.3155; 4412.32.3165; 4412.32.3175; 4412.32.3185; 4412.32.5600; 4412.39.1000; 4412.39.3000; 4412.39.4011; 4412.39.4012; 4412.39.4019; 4412.39.4031; 4412.39.4032; 4412.39.4039; 4412.39.4051; 4412.39.4052; 4412.39.4059; 4412.39.4061; 4412.39.4062; 4412.39.4069; 4412.39.5010; 4412.39.5030; 4412.39.5050; 4412.94.1030; 4412.94.1050; 4412.94.3105; 4412.94.3111; 4412.94.3121; 4412.94.3131; 4412.94.3141; 4412.94.3160; 4412.94.3171; 4412.94.4100; 4412.94.5100; 4412.94.6000; 4412.94.7000; 4412.94.8000; 4412.94.9000; 4412.94.9500; 4412.99.0600; 4412.99.1020; 4412.99.1030; 4412.99.1040; 4412.99.3110; 4412.99.3120; 4412.99.3130; 4412.99.3140; 4412.99.3150; 4412.99.3160; 4412.99.3170; 4412.99.4100; 4412.99.5100; 4412.99.5105; 4412.99.5115; 4412.99.5710; 4412.99.6000; 4412.99.7000; 4412.99.8000; 4412.99.9000; 4412.99.9500; 4418.71.2000; 4418.71.9000; 4418.72.2000; 4418.72.9500; and 9801.00.2500 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    3 A “veneer” is a thin slice of wood, rotary cut, sliced or sawed from a log, bolt or flitch. Veneer is referred to as a ply when assembled.

    4 For a complete description of the scope of the order, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case briefs by parties are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.5 A list of the issues which parties raised is attached to this notice as an Appendix.

    5Id.

    Bona Fide Analysis

    For the Preliminary Rescission, the Department analyzed the bona fides of Qingdao Barry's single sale and preliminarily found it was not a bona fide sale.6 Based on the Department's complete analysis of all of the information and comments on the record of this review, the Department continues to find Qingdao Barry's sale is not a bona fide sale, and it thus not reviewable pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”). The Department reached this conclusion based on its consideration of the totality of circumstances, including: (a) The atypical nature of the sale price; (b) Qingdao Barry's failure to demonstrate that its first unaffiliated customer resold the merchandise at a profit; (c) the nature of the relationship between Qingdao Barry and its U.S. customer; and (d) unusual circumstances concerning payment.7 For a complete discussion, see the Prelim Bona Fide Memo and the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    6See Prelim Bona Fide Memo.

    7See Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Rescission of New Shipper Review

    For the foregoing reasons, the Department continues to find that Qingdao Barry's sale is not a bona fide sale and that this sale does not provide a reasonable or reliable basis for calculating a dumping margin. Because this sale was Qingdao Barry's only sale of subject merchandise during the POR, the Department is rescinding this NSR.

    Assessment

    As the Department is rescinding this NSR, we have not calculated a company-specific dumping margin for Qingdao Barry. Qingdao Barry remains part of the PRC-wide entity and, accordingly, its entry will be assessed at the PRC-wide rate.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    Effective upon publication of this notice of final rescission of the NSR of Qingdao Barry, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to discontinue the option of posting a bond or security in lieu of a cash deposit for entries of subject merchandise from Qingdao Barry. Because we did not calculate a dumping margin for Qingdao Barry or otherwise find that Qingdao Barry is eligible for a separate rate in this review, Qingdao Barry continues to be part of the PRC-wide entity. The cash deposit rate for the PRC-wide entity is 25.62 percent. These cash deposit requirements shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Administrative Protective Order

    This notice also serves as a 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 these segments 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.

    We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.214.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Issues and Decision Memorandum Summary Background Scope of the Order Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Whether the Department Used The Correct Time Period for Data Comparison Purposes Comment 2: Whether the Department Properly Evaluated the Price Differential Comment 3: Whether the Department Properly Considered Whether the Sale was Resold at a Profit and the Arms-Length Nature of the Sale Comment 4: Whether the Department Properly Analyzed Other Factors in Its Bona Fide Analysis Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17050 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration [Docket Number: 160706588-6588-01] RIN 0660-XC027 State Alternative Plan Program (SAPP) and the First Responder Network Authority Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) publishes this Notice to provide preliminary guidance concerning how a qualified state may apply to NTIA for authority to enter into a spectrum capacity lease with the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) and receive a grant to construct its radio access network (RAN) should it opt to do so as allowed under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-96, Title VI, 126 Stat. 256 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) (Act). NTIA also seeks public comment on this preliminary guidance through this Notice.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on or before August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public may submit written comments on issues addressed in this Notice. Written comments may be submitted electronically via email to: [email protected] or by mail to: Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230. Comments submitted by email should be machine-readable and should not be copy-protected. Commenters should include the name of the person or organization filing the comment, as well as a page number on each page of their submissions. Paper submissions should also include a CD or DVD with an electronic version of the document, which should be labeled with the name and organization of the filer. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to the NTIA Web site (http://www.ntia.doc.gov) without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Dunn, Office of Public Safety Communications, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Room 4078, Washington, DC 20230; [email protected]; (202) 482-4103. Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; via email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction: Summary

    The Act requires FirstNet to take all actions necessary to ensure the deployment and operation of a nationwide public safety broadband network (NPSBN).1 The NPSBN will, by law, initially consist of a core network and a RAN that links to the core to ensure that a single, national network architecture delivers broadband services to first responders in each state.2 Under the Act, however, a state may assume the cost and responsibility to construct, operate, maintain, and improve the RAN in its state, provided that it successfully undertakes three significant steps.

    1See 47 U.S.C. 1426(b).

    2 47 U.S.C. 1422(b). See also 47 U.S.C. 1401(31), defining the term “State” to include the District of Columbia and the territories and possessions.

    First, a state must submit its alternative plan for the construction, maintenance, operation and improvements of its RAN to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and meet specific interoperability criteria established by the FCC.3 Second, if the FCC approves the state alternative plan, that state must make five separate technical and financial demonstrations to NTIA. The state must demonstrate: (1) That it has the technical capabilities to operate and the funding to support its RAN; (2) that it has the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability with the NPSBN; (3) that it has the ability to complete the project within specified comparable timelines specific to the state; (4) the cost-effectiveness of the state alternative plan submitted to the FCC; and, (5) comparable security, coverage, and quality of service to that of the NPSBN. Third, assuming the state has successfully made such demonstrations to NTIA, the state then must negotiate and enter into a spectrum capacity lease with FirstNet, which will be required for operation of the state RAN.4

    3See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e).

    4See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)-(D).

    These three steps are fundamental to achieving a core goal of the Act, which is ensuring that the NPSBN, regardless whether FirstNet or a state assumes responsibility for the RAN, will interoperate, provide seamless broadband service across the nation, and be financially and technically sustainable. The Act directs NTIA to help determine whether a state, if it decides to pursue deploying and operating the RAN, can do so in a way that delivers these essential functionalities. NTIA's goal in reviewing state requests is to ensure that the nation has access to an interoperable, sustainable, technically sound, and cost-effective NPSBN. Accordingly, each state must ensure that its RAN functions as a fully interoperable, sustainable part of the NPSBN, and that it will do so in a manner that most effectively utilizes the limited federal fiscal resources and the spectrum allocated under the Act. Thus, for example, and as discussed more fully below, a state that proposes to utilize a “greenfield” build for its RAN will be unlikely to successfully demonstrate to NTIA that its alternative plan is cost-effective.

    This Notice provides initial guidance on NTIA's process to review a state's application for authority to enter into a spectrum capacity lease with FirstNet and for optional grant funds to assist in the construction of its RAN. Section II discusses applicable provisions of the Act. Section III makes clear that NTIA will treat all such requests as requests for a grant under federal law. Section III also provides general parameters of each grant request (Lease Authority or a RAN Construction Grant). Finally, Section IV specifies the manner by which each state must demonstrate compliance with the Act's requirements in order to receive either grant. For each of the five demonstrations required of states under the Act, NTIA provides initial guidance on how to present such information and how NTIA will evaluate it.

    NTIA provides this preliminary guidance to better inform states and other stakeholders as several important activities continue with regard to the future NPSBN buildout and operation. We feel that this information will be of use as states continue to consult with FirstNet on the NPSBN buildout in a given state or territory. Additionally, as FirstNet's procurement advances, we feel that other stakeholders will benefit from understanding the initial framework NTIA has developed with regard to the demonstrations a state must make to NTIA should it desire to bear the responsibility to conduct the RAN within that state. Future notices, including but not limited to a forthcoming Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) notice, will provide more details on the application processes.5

    5 NTIA intends to issue such an FFO notice not later than the date on which FirstNet first delivers a proposed plan for the buildout of the NPSBN in a state.

    II. Background: Relevant Statutory Provisions A. FirstNet's Technical Network Components and Policies

    The Act requires the NPSBN to be composed of: (1) A core network consisting of national and regional data centers that connect to a RAN and the Internet/public switched network; and (2) a RAN consisting of cell site equipment, antennas, and backhaul equipment that is built and operated in consideration of state, local, and tribal consultation.6 Further, the Act requires FirstNet to establish policies for these components, which collectively constitute the NPSBN. Under the section of the Act entitled, “Establishment of Network Policies,” FirstNet must develop technical and operational NPSBN requirements, practices, procedures, and standards for NPSBN management and operation, terms of service for the use of the NPSBN, and ongoing compliance reviews and monitoring.7

    6See 47 U.S.C. 1422(b).

    7See 47 U.S.C. 1426(c)(1)(B)-(E).

    B. A State's Options on RAN Construction, Operation, Maintenance, and Improvements

    The Act requires FirstNet to develop and present to each state general details of the proposed buildout of the NPSBN, including its proposed plan for building the RAN in that state.8 Once FirstNet presents its state plan to the governor of a given state, a state must decide whether it authorizes FirstNet to build, operate, maintain, and improve the state RAN or if it wants to take on that responsibility itself.9 The governor has 90 days to make that decision.

    8See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(1). While 47 U.S.C. 1442(e) is not specific to this, for purposes of this Notice, the reference to a “state” incorporates both states and territories.

    9See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(2).

    FirstNet has determined that a state may choose to adopt the FirstNet state plan by either: (1) Providing actual notice in writing to FirstNet within the Act's 90-day decision period; or (2) providing no notice at all within the 90-day period.10 The process for a state to reject FirstNet's state plan and receive authority to proceed with its own RAN plan is as follows: Upon making a decision to assume responsibility for RAN deployment in the state, the governor shall notify FirstNet, NTIA, and the FCC of this decision within the 90-day decision period.11 The governor must then develop and complete requests for proposals for the construction, maintenance, and operation of the RAN within 180 days after deciding to assume responsibility for the RAN.12 Then, in developing its alternative plan for the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement of the RAN that it must submit to the FCC for approval, the state must demonstrate compliance with minimum technical interoperability requirements established pursuant to the Act by a board selected by the FCC.13 Additionally, the alternative state plan must demonstrate interoperability with the NPSBN.14 If the FCC disapproves the alternative state plan, FirstNet shall proceed with the construction, maintenance, operation, and improvements of the NPSBN within the state.15 Alternatively, if the FCC approves the state-developed plan, the state must then apply to NTIA for the authority to enter into a spectrum capacity lease with FirstNet to operate its RAN within the state.16 Additionally, a state receiving FCC approval of its alternative plan may, but is not required to, apply to NTIA for grant funds to assist in the construction of its RAN.17

    10 First Responder Network Authority, Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 80 FR 63504, 63506 (Oct. 20, 2015) (FirstNet Final Interpretations on Second Notice).

    11See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(A).

    12See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(B).

    13See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(i)(I) (requiring a state alternative plan to be in compliance with minimum technical interoperability requirements established by the Technical Advisory Board for First Responder Interoperability pursuant to the Act); see also Interoperability Board, Recommended Minimum Technical Requirements to Ensure Nationwide Interoperability for the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (May 22, 2012), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021919873.

    14 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(i)(II).

    15See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iv).

    16See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II).

    17See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(I).

    C. NTIA Analysis of State Demonstrations Regarding Ongoing RAN Responsibilities

    If a state wishes to assume the responsibility to construct, operate, maintain, and improve its own RAN, NTIA must evaluate a state's demonstrations of specific criteria set forth in the Act, which address its ability to operate the RAN on technical, financial, interoperability, programmatic, and qualitative levels. If successful, NTIA will grant the: (1) Required authorization to enter into a spectrum capacity lease from FirstNet to operate its state RAN; and (2) optional eligibility to receive grant funds from NTIA to construct its state RAN.18 Specifically, the Act requires a state to demonstrate the following:

    18See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D).

    1. The state has the technical capabilities to operate, and the funding to support, the state RAN;

    2. The state has the ability to maintain ongoing RAN interoperability with the NPSBN;

    3. The state has the ability to complete the RAN buildout within specified comparable timelines specific to the state;

    4. The cost-effectiveness of the state alternative plan; and

    5. The ability to provide RAN security, coverage, and quality of service comparable to that of the NPSBN.19

    19Id.

    D. Utilization of FirstNet's Statutory Interpretations

    FirstNet has interpreted some of the statutory provisions described above. These include the consequences of a state's failure to meet NTIA-reviewed criteria at least with respect to a state application for authority to enter into a spectrum capacity lease with FirstNet; the consequences of a state's failure to implement an FCC-approved alternative state plan; and any determination regarding the Act's Section 6302(g)(2) limitation of a state's use of revenues emanating from covered leasing agreements exclusively to RAN construction, maintenance, operations, and improvements.20 These and other interpretations may directly bear upon the issues in this Notice and any additional Notices relating to NTIA's duties described in this Notice and pursuant to the Act. NTIA will utilize FirstNet's relevant interpretations of provisions of the Act in carrying out its responsibilities on these matters.

    20See First Responder Network Authority, Proposed Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 79 FR 57058 (Sept. 24, 2014) (FirstNet First Notice); First Responder Network Authority, Final Interpretations of Parts of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 80 FR 63523 (Oct. 20, 2015) (FirstNet Final Interpretations on First Notice); FirstNet Final Interpretations on Second Notice.

    III. Overview of Applications for Grant of Authority To Enter Into a Spectrum Capacity Lease With FirstNet and RAN Construction Funding

    As noted above, states must submit, and NTIA must review, requests by states whose state alternative plans are approved by the FCC for: (1) Grant of authority to enter into a spectrum capacity lease from FirstNet (Lease Authority); and (2) the optional request for RAN construction grant funding (RAN Construction Grant). The Act makes clear that a qualified state must request Lease Authority from NTIA so that the state may enter into an agreement to use spectrum licensed to FirstNet to operate the state's RAN.21

    21See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II). In contrast, applying to NTIA for construction grant funds by such a State is optional. See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(I).

    As a threshold matter, NTIA has determined that each of these requests are grant requests under federal regulations, and that approval of such requests are grants of something of value provided by NTIA. We make this determination pursuant to the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, which makes clear that “[a]n executive agency shall use a grant agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between the United States Government and a State, a local government, or other recipient when—(1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the State or local government or other recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United States instead of acquiring (by purchase, lease, or barter) property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government. . . .” 22 NTIA will evaluate a state's request for Lease Authority, or its request for Lease Authority plus an optional RAN Construction Grant, as a single grant application.

    22See Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, sec. 5, Public Law 95-224, 92 Stat. 3, 4 (Feb. 3, 1978) (codified at 31 U.S.C. 6304).

    Such applications will be processed pursuant to a forthcoming FFO notice providing specific details on the application and grant program requirements.23 NTIA expects to establish additional application requirements for the RAN Construction Grant that are commensurate with application requirements for other federal construction grant programs.

    23 NTIA has termed the non-monetary grant of authority by NTIA to a state to enter into a spectrum capacity lease pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II) of the Act as a “Lease Authority” to avoid the erroneous interpretation that grant of such authority will involve the grant of funds.

    NTIA must evaluate either grant request on the identical demonstration criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D). Below, we address procedural issues common to both types of requests and those distinct for each type of grant application pursuant to the Act.

    A. Grant Procedures Common to Lease Authority and a RAN Construction Grant

    1. Timing of Applications to NTIA. The Act does not spell out deadlines for the submission of grant applications to NTIA. However, given the need for the NPSBN to be built in a timely manner, the upcoming FFO notice will establish deadlines by which a state must file its application. NTIA tentatively sets this deadline to be no later than 60 days after the FCC has approved a state's alternative plan.

    2. Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants for Lease Authority or a RAN Construction Grant will be those states and territories of the United States whose alternative state plan was approved by the FCC pursuant to the Act.24

    24See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(ii).

    3. Discretionary Grants. Because the Act did not establish mandatory funding levels for each eligible grantee, Lease Authority and RAN Construction Grants are considered discretionary grants. Therefore, NTIA is authorized to grant or reject applications and determine final award amounts, based on an assessment against the statutory demonstration criteria and other factors that will be detailed in the FFO.

    4. Common Demonstration Evaluation. NTIA will apply an identical method of evaluation of the state demonstrations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D) to both types of grant requests. Should a state apply for both Lease Authority and a RAN Construction Grant, NTIA will conduct one review of the state's joint submission.

    5. Rolling Application Evaluation. NTIA will review and make determinations on state applications for Lease Authority or a RAN Construction Grant on a rolling basis following the FCC's approval of a state's alternative plan and submission of a state's required demonstrations to NTIA. We recognize that making timely decisions on a state's application is critical to ensuring the NPSBN is deployed and operational in every state—regardless of the party ultimately responsible for conducting a RAN in a given state. While NTIA has not fully developed specific details on the application and grant program requirements, we will review applications as expeditiously as possible to further the intent of the Act to speed NPSBN deployment.

    6. Evaluation of RAN as Approved by FCC in Alternative State Plan. For purposes of either grant request, NTIA will evaluate the proposed RAN as it has been approved by the FCC. Thus, a state's grant application and corresponding additional demonstrations should address the alternative state plan approved by the FCC. NTIA intends to review all relevant aspects of a state's approved plan, which may include the RAN and deployable components, as well as proposed devices, applications, and services.

    B. General Parameters for Lease Authority

    If the FCC approves a state's alternative plan, the state must request Lease Authority from NTIA to obtain from FirstNet the right to operate its RAN on the Band 14 spectrum licensed to FirstNet.25 NTIA will not award or approve any such spectrum capacity lease itself. NTIA's role is limited to determining whether a state has demonstrated compliance with the required technical, financial, interoperability, programmatic, and qualitative criteria so that it can authorize the state to enter into a spectrum lease with FirstNet.

    25 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(iii)(II).

    C. General Parameters for a RAN Construction Grant

    1. Spectrum Capacity Lease Condition Precedent for RAN Construction Grant Obligation. A state cannot apply for a RAN Construction Grant without also applying for Lease Authority. Accordingly, NTIA will review a single application for both a Lease Authority Grant and a RAN Construction Grant and make determinations about whether the state has sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the required criteria of 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D). If so, NTIA will award that state Lease Authority. However, NTIA will not award RAN Construction Grant funding until that state has fully executed a spectrum capacity lease agreement with FirstNet.

    2. Determining RAN Construction Grant Funding Level. NTIA is developing a process for determining funding levels for each state that may apply for a RAN Construction Grant. In developing this process, NTIA may take into consideration cost increases FirstNet will incur should a state assume the responsibility to conduct its own RAN, and may reduce a final grant award accordingly. For example, FirstNet may incur increased costs to mitigate additional operational risks to the NPSBN, and losses of cost efficiencies, if a state assumes responsibility for the construction and operation of the RAN within its boundaries. Additionally, should a state conduct its own RAN, FirstNet may bear increased expenses related to interconnection of the state RAN to the NPSBN and mitigation of potential interference by the state RAN to the NPSBN operations in a bordering state. Further, the final grant award amount to a state may be impacted by financial factors, such as how efficiently FirstNet and its partner(s) can build the RAN for that state and the projected income from that state's partnership agreement(s) and all other revenue sources. Additionally, NTIA will set forth any cost sharing requirements for the RAN Construction Grant in the forthcoming FFO.

    3. Allowable costs. RAN Construction Grant allowable costs will be limited to categories of costs, such as equipment, construction, installation, contractual, and other associated costs related to construction of the state's RAN as detailed in the state alternative plan approved by the FCC. Ongoing maintenance, operation (inclusive of all recurring costs), and improvement costs are not eligible grant expenses. A RAN Construction Grant may fund a portion of the overall cost of the construction of a state's RAN, and any unanticipated costs beyond the RAN Construction Grant award are the responsibility of the state. Further, a state's decision to propose to NTIA a more costly plan than what is proposed in the FirstNet state plan will be at the state's discretion and expense; the RAN Construction Grant award will not be increased to accommodate any such proposal.

    4. Partnership Valuation. Applicants will be required to disclose the value of any partnering agreement that will enable and support the state in the construction and/or operation of the state RAN. Further, a state must demonstrate how any such agreement and state policies and procedures will ensure that revenues from such an agreement will be used only for constructing, maintaining, operating, and improving the state RAN pursuant to the Act and not for any other purpose.26

    26See 47 U.S.C. 1442(g).

    5. Environmental Compliance. NTIA will require that all of a state's RAN Construction Grant-funded activities comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other applicable federal environmental requirements.27

    27 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and other such federal policy directives require federal administrative agencies to factor environmental and historic preservation considerations into their discretionary decision-making, including federally funded actions such as grants. NEPA directs that federal agencies implement, “to the fullest extent possible,” methods and procedures designed to accord environmental and historic preservation factors appropriate consideration. See 42 U.S.C. 4332. Therefore, RAN Construction activities will be subject to compliance with NEPA and NHPA and such requirements will be set out in the FFO.

    IV. Lease Authority and RAN Construction Grant Application Demonstrations

    Central to the Act's provision of Lease Authority and a RAN Construction Grant is a detailed set of demonstrations a state must make to NTIA to establish eligibility for these grant opportunities.28 These demonstrations are separate and distinct from any demonstrations required of a state in its alternative state plan submitted to the FCC pursuant to the Act.29 The required demonstrations to NTIA are distinct in that they address: (1) the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability, rather than the capability of interoperability as of the time the state plan is submitted to the FCC; (2) the technical and financial viability of the proposed RAN deployment, operation, maintenance, and improvement; and (3) the state's planned timelines, security, coverage, and quality of service as compared to that of the NPSBN.30

    28See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D).

    29See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(i)-(ii). For the FCC review, the state alterative plan must demonstrate interoperability: a) at the technical level via compliance with the Interoperability Board Minimum Technical Requirements; and b) with the NPSBN.

    30See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D) (providing the requirements that a qualified state must show to obtain grant funds and spectrum capacity leasing rights).

    NTIA interprets each of the criteria in 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D) below to provide NTIA's preliminary view on how states should make the required demonstrations and how NTIA will evaluate each criterion. The forthcoming FFO notice will provide more specific, quantifiable, and finalized criteria and application questions.

    A. The Technical Capabilities To Operate, and the Funding To Support, the State RAN 31

    31See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(I) (requiring that a qualified state has the technical capabilities to operate, and funding to support, its RAN).

    Under this provision of the Act, a state must demonstrate: (1) That it can operate the state RAN on a technical level; and (2) that it has the financial resources to do so. We discuss how a state can effectively make each part of this demonstration below.

    As a primary matter, a state must be able to demonstrate with specificity that it can operate its RAN on a technical level. To make such a demonstration, it must have a technical standard against which its demonstrations may be measured. As established in the Act, all components of the NPSBN, including the core network and the RAN, must be operated under common technical network policies.32 To give meaning to the Act's focus on ensuring technical compatibility and interoperability across each part of the NPSBN, NTIA believes that these policies must be applied to any portion of the RAN, regardless whether FirstNet or a state assumes responsibility for the building, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the RAN in a given state. Accordingly, the network policies that apply to FirstNet as it ensures the building, operation, maintenance, and improvement of the NPSBN core and any portion of the RAN also must apply to a state seeking to build, operate, maintain, and improve the RAN in its state. Applying the network policies uniformly to all parts of the RAN helps ensure the NPSBN will function uniformly and in a manner that best serves public safety, consistent with the Act's requirement to create a single, nationwide architecture.33 Therefore, a state will need to be compliant with the RAN-specific network policies established by FirstNet as required by the Act in order to meet the demonstrations required in 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D).

    32See 47 U.S.C. 1426(b)(1).

    33See 47 U.S.C. 1422(b) (“The [NPSBN] shall be based on a single, national network architecture . . . .”).

    From a resource management perspective, NTIA will require a state to identify the proposed management capabilities and organizational structure of its RAN project team.34 Further, NTIA will require a state to provide information on its planned staff size and technical operations to demonstrate how the state's staffing plan, if properly funded, will ensure that the RAN is built, operated, and maintained in accordance with the RAN-specific network policies FirstNet establishes. A forthcoming FFO notice will provide additional details regarding the technical capabilities a state must demonstrate under 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(I).

    34 NTIA may require a state to provide information on each key staff member (e.g., status as partner employee, government employee, contractor, or consultant; curriculum vitae; operational function via organizational chart).

    In addition to this technical showing, 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(I) requires a state to demonstrate that it has the financial resources to build, operate, maintain, and improve the RAN for the duration of the requested authorized operation. In that context, a state will be required to provide its budgeting documents and staffing plan for its operations and must disclose its sources of funding for its RAN (e.g., whether such funds are covered lease fees or other state fees, state appropriations, in-kind contributions, or grants). Further, a state must disclose any partnership agreement (whether or not such an agreement constitutes a “public-private partnership” or “covered leasing agreement” under the Act) 35 it has executed, or intends to execute, with respect to its RAN. A state will also need to address funding risks and lifecycle plans in its demonstrations and how these may impact its ability to financially support the implementation of FirstNet's RAN-specific network policies. Among other things, NTIA may require surety bonds to ensure RAN construction completion in the event of default by the state's RFP partner.

    35See 47 U.S.C. 1442(g) (stating prohibitions which a state must adhere to in developing partnership arrangements).

    B. The Ability To Maintain Ongoing Interoperability With the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network 36

    36See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(II) (stating a State must show the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability with the NPSBN).

    Under this requirement, a state must demonstrate that its RAN and other network attributes will be interoperable with the NPSBN on an “ongoing” basis. Consistent with the interoperability demonstration a state must make to the FCC in its state alternative plan, NTIA will determine interoperability with the NPSBN if a state demonstrates the ability to ensure that its RAN is capable of: 1) meeting the Interoperability Board Minimum Technical Requirements; and 2) interoperating with the NPSBN.37 To the extent FirstNet's network policies establish interoperability requirements, NTIA will consider a state's demonstration of adoption of and long-term capability of compliance with those requirements, including potential changes in policies, as strong evidence of a state RAN's interoperability with the NPSBN from a technical perspective.

    37See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(i).

    However, the 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(II) demonstration must include a state's ability to ensure ongoing interoperability with the NPSBN. Thus, a state must demonstrate that its entire operation as authorized by the FCC, insofar as it engages any RAN or core elements of the NPSBN, will be interoperable on an ongoing basis. For this reason, a state's demonstration must also show how, for example, any deployable RAN components and related applications the state intends to use will be interoperable with the NPSBN. This demonstration must include technical attributes and a plan for ensuring, through staffing and resources, the ability to meet those technical imperatives. Additionally, NTIA may require that a state demonstrate the ability to maintain ongoing interoperability with the NPSBN from a non-technical standpoint and require information on planned RAN governance models, standard operating procedures, training and exercises, and usage.

    As a state must show capability of “ongoing” interoperability with the NPSBN, a state's demonstration must be forward looking and illustrate how its RAN and other network attributes will be interoperable with the NPSBN over time. Recognizing that the ongoing aspect of interoperability will largely be facilitated by a state's partner charged with constructing, operating, maintaining, and improving the RAN, NTIA will require that any state partnership agreement ensures the RAN will be interoperable with the NPSBN from deployment onward. Such a requirement may include demonstration of a partner's commitment to complying with FirstNet's evolving interoperability-based network policies.

    Further, a state's RAN must be capable of interoperability with the NPSBN as it evolves and improves throughout the duration of the proposed RAN operation by the state, including compliance with new or evolving network policies. Such demonstrations should also include evidence that the state has the funding to fulfill these necessary elements for maintaining ongoing interoperability as detailed in Section IV. B.

    C. The Ability To Complete the Project Within Specified Comparable Timelines Specific to the State 38

    38See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(i)(III) (providing that states must demonstrate the ability to complete projects with specified timelines).

    FirstNet currently anticipates that its state plans will include timelines for NPSBN buildout as “minimum legally required contents of a FirstNet plan for a State” against which a state may present project completion time frames for comparison in its demonstration to NTIA.39 Accordingly, we require that a state's demonstration to NTIA contain specified timelines for the completion of its project as authorized by the FCC. These timelines must be of the same number, nature, and type as those presented to the state by FirstNet in its proposed state plan so that identical benchmark topics and timeframes may be readily compared and assessed.

    39 FirstNet Second Notice, 80 FR at 13342.

    D. The Cost-Effectiveness of the State Plan Submitted to the FCC

    NTIA will require that a state alternative plan, as submitted by a state to and approved by the FCC pursuant to the Act, is the plan at issue in this required demonstration. We believe every aspect of that plan as itemized in the Act—RAN construction, maintenance, operation, and improvement 40 —must be assessed for cost-effectiveness for the duration of the requested authorized operation.

    40See 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(C)(i).

    In determining cost-effectiveness, NTIA may assess areas, including but not limited to, the proposed federal and state partner share of the RAN cost; the value, use, and revenue return of spectrum and other assets; and overall financial value of the proposed plan. For example, a state plan that proposes a “greenfield” build (one that does not leverage existing infrastructure and/or a public-private partnership and deploys a network solely consisting of new components) is not likely to demonstrate cost effectiveness. Additionally, the Act makes clear that a nationwide buildout can provide significant economies of scale across state boundaries that can leverage existing infrastructure when feasible and reduce the cost of NPSBN RAN construction in any given state or territory. NTIA will take these cross-border economies into account in the context of a state opt-out plan's cost effectiveness.

    E. Comparable Security, Coverage, and Quality of Service to That of the NPSBN 41

    41See § 1442(e)(3)(D)(iii).

    FirstNet anticipates including specific details on security, coverage, and quality of service in its proposed plan for the buildout of the NPSBN in a given state.42 This will form the basis around which a state should build its demonstration pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 1442(e)(3)(D)(iii). NTIA will compare the security, coverage, and quality of service aspects of a state's demonstration to the equivalent elements and for the equivalent duration in FirstNet's proposed plan for the buildout of the NPSBN in that state.

    42See FirstNet Second Notice, 80 FR at 13342.

    With respect to coverage, we note that the Act requires the NPSBN to include “substantial rural coverage milestones as part of each phase of the construction and deployment of the network.” 43 As a result, any state with significant rural areas should include substantial rural coverage milestones as part of its overall demonstration to enable NTIA to make an appropriate rural buildout plan comparison between the two plans.

    43 47 U.S.C. 1426(b)(3).

    V. Request for Public Comment and Ex Parte Communications

    NTIA invites public comment on any and all issues identified in this Notice. Any non-public oral presentation to NTIA regarding the substance of this Notice will be considered an ex parte presentation, and the substance of the meeting will be placed on the public record and become part of this docket. No later than two (2) business days after an oral presentation or meeting, an interested party must submit a memorandum to NTIA summarizing the substance of the communication. NTIA reserves the right to supplement the memorandum with additional information as necessary, or to request that the party making the filing do so, if NTIA believes that important information was omitted or characterized incorrectly. Any written presentation provided in support of the oral communication or meeting will also be placed on the public record and become part of this docket. Such ex parte communications must be submitted to this docket as provided in the ADDRESSES section above and clearly labeled as an ex parte presentation. Federal entities are not subject to these procedures.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17034 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Corporation for National and Community Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed.

    Currently, CNCS is soliciting comments concerning its proposed new application instructions for AmeriCorps Affiliate.

    Brief description: Applicants for the AmeriCorps Affiliate program will submit an application following the application instructions. Completion of the information collection is required to be considered for Education Awards. No grant funding is available through AmeriCorps Affiliate.

    Copies of the information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the ADDRESSES section by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection activity, by any of the following methods:

    (1) By mail sent to: Corporation for National and Community Service, CPO Office; Attention Patti Stengel, Senior Program Officer for Grants and Initiatives, Room 3208B; 250 E St. SW., Washington, DC 20525.

    (2) By hand delivery or by courier to the CNCS mailroom at Room 4200 at the mail address given in paragraph (1) above, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    (3) Electronically through www.regulations.gov.

    Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TTY-TDD) may call 1-800-833-3722 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patti Stengel, 202-606-6745, or by email at pstengel[email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    CNCS is particularly interested in comments that:

    • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are expected to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses).

    Background

    Applicants for the AmeriCorps Affiliate program provide information through the use of the application instructions. Applicants use these application instructions to submit their application for Education Awards. This program provides only designations of positions as approved national service positions. CNCS may not award financial resources to applicants under this authority. The application information is collected electronically through the CNCS eGrants system.

    Current Action

    This is a new information collection request. This new information collection would allow for an open competition to be an AmeriCorps Affiliate sponsor.

    There are no current approved application instructions for the AmeriCorps Affiliate program.

    Type of Review: New.

    Agency: Corporation for National and Community Service.

    Title: AmeriCorps Affiliate Application Instructions.

    OMB Number: None.

    Agency Number: None.

    Affected Public: The public affected are applicant organizations for AmeriCorps Affiliate.

    Total Respondents: An estimated 20 organizations will respond each year.

    Frequency: At most, the frequency is annual. Applications will be received and reviewed on a rolling basis up to three times each year. The AmeriCorps Affiliate competition will result in three year agreements. Applicants selected will also use these instructions to apply annually for continuation Education Awards.

    Average Time per Response: Averages 10 hours.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 200 hours.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): None.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Kim Mansaray, Chief of Program Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17048 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6050-28-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Board on Coastal Engineering Research AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal advisory committee meeting of the Board on Coastal Engineering Research. This meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The Board on Coastal Engineering Research will meet from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. on August 9, 2016, and reconvene from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 10, 2016. The Executive Session of the Board will convene from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on August 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All sessions will be held at the Caribe Hilton San Cristobal Jr. Ballroom 1 San Geronimo Street, San Juan, PR 00907. All sessions, including the Executive Session are open to the public. For more information about the Board, please visit http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/Media/Fact-Sheets/Fact-Sheet-Article-View/Article/740763/usace-coastal-engineering-research-board/

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    COL Bryan S. Green Designated Federal Officer (DFO), U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, phone 601-634-2513, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.150. The Board on Coastal Engineering Research provides broad policy guidance and reviews plans for the conduct of research and the development of research projects in consonance with the needs of the coastal engineering field and the objectives of the U.S. Army Chief of Engineers.

    Purpose of the Meeting: The theme of the meeting is “A Systems Approach along Heterogeneous Coasts.” The purpose of the meeting is to identify research and technical capabilities required to integrate a patchwork of natural, urban, and partially developed coasts in a narrow shelf island environment to maximize value and minimize risk. Puerto Rico is a testbed to understanding the coupling between an inland watershed and coastal processes and hazards.

    Agenda: On Tuesday morning, August 9, 2015, panel presentations will deal with Puerto Rico State of the Coast. Presentations will include Puerto Rico's Coastal Risk Challenges, Puerto Rico Water Resources Infrastructure Challenges, and Regional Sediment Management (RSM) Challenges on the Highly Variable North Shoreline (A Primer for the Field Trip). There will be an optional field trip Tuesday afternoon, which is open to the public. It includes a bus tour to Piñones and a presentation on Variable Morphology and Associated Challenges and a tour to Loíza with a presentation on Work Done to Date, RSM Challenges, and Research Needs.

    On Wednesday morning, August 10, 2016, the Board will reconvene to discuss Addressing Coastal Research Challenges. Presentations will include Challenges Characterizing Heterogeneous Coasts; Generation 2 Coastal Risk Model; Project Impacts Due to Deficient Processes Models; Puerto Rico Modeling Testbed, Waves, Surge, and Coral Reefs; State of Knowledge and Capability for Urban Flood Modeling; Modeling Storm Surge in Puerto Rico; and Integrated Watershed Infrastructure Interdependencies. Wednesday afternoon session continues with the Addressing Coastal Research Challenges panel. Presentations include Application of USACE Modeling Tools in Puerto Rico; CARICOOS: Ocean Observing in Support of Coastal Engineering and Navigation; Artificial Reef Systems in High Energy Environments; Coastal Dune Research; and Integrated Federal Coastal Nearshore Processes Research Implementation Plan.

    The Board will meet in Executive Session to discuss ongoing initiatives and future actions on Thursday morning, August 11, 2016.

    Meeting Accessibility: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, and subject to the availability of space, the meeting is open to the public. Because seating capacity is limited, advance registration is required. For registration requirements please see below.

    Oral participation by the public is scheduled for 3:45 p.m. on Wednesday, August 10, 2016. The Caribe Hilton Hotel is fully handicap accessible. For additional information about public access procedures, please contact COL Bryan S. Green, the Board's DFO, at the email address or telephone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

    Registration: It is encouraged for individuals who wish to attend the meeting of the Board to register with the DFO by email, the preferred method of contact, no later than July 29, using the electronic mail contact information found in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The communication should include the registrant's full name, title, affiliation or employer, email address, and daytime phone number. If applicable, include written comments or statements with the registration email.

    Written Comments and Statements: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.015(j) and 102-3.140 and section 10(a)(3) of the FACA, the public or interested organizations may submit written comments or statements to the Board, in response to the stated agenda of the open meeting or in regard to the Board's mission in general. Written comments or statements should be submitted to COL Bryan S. Green, DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Each page of the comment or statement must include the author's name, title or affiliation, address, and daytime phone number. The DFO will review all submitted written comments or statements and provide them to members of the Board for their consideration. Written comments or statements being submitted in response to the agenda set forth in this notice must be received by the DFO at least five business days prior to the meeting to be considered by the Board. The DFO will review all timely submitted written comments or statements with the Board Chairperson and ensure the comments are provided to all members of the Board before the meeting. Written comments or statements received after this date may not be provided to the Board until its next meeting.

    Verbal Comments: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.140d, the Board is not obligated to allow a member of the public to speak or otherwise address the Board during the meeting. Members of the public will be permitted to make verbal comments during the Board meeting only at the time and in the manner described below. If a member of the public is interested in making a verbal comment at the open meeting, that individual must submit a request, with a brief statement of the subject matter to be addressed by the comment, at least five business days in advance to the Board's DFO, via electronic mail, the preferred mode of submission, at the address listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The DFO will log each request, in the order received, and in consultation with the Board Chair, determine whether the subject matter of each comment is relevant to the Board's mission and/or the topics to be addressed in this public meeting. A 30-minute period near the end of the meeting will be available for verbal public comments. Members of the public who have requested to make a verbal comment, and whose comments have been deemed relevant under the process described above, will be allotted no more than five minutes during this period, and will be invited to speak in the order in which their requests were received by the DFO.

    Brenda S. Bowen, Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16918 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Education, President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Office of Undersecretary, U.S. Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of an open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the agenda for the July 22, 2016, meeting of the President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (PBA) and provides information to members of the public on submitting written comments and on the process as to how to request time to make oral comments at the meeting. The notice also describes the functions of the Board. Notice of the meeting is required by § 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and intended to notify the public of its opportunity to attend. This notice is being published less than 15 days due to ensuring five new Board members appointed by the President within the last two weeks were officially vetted in order to attend the meeting and establish quorum.

    DATES:

    The PBA meeting will be held on July 22, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. E.D.T. in the Sky Room of the Beach House Hilton Head Island, 1 S. Forest Beach Drive, Hilton Head Island, South Carolina 29928.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sedika Franklin, Associate Director, U.S. Department of Education, White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20204; telephone: (202) 453-5634 or (202) 453-5630, fax: (202) 453-5632, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    PBA's Statutory Authority and Function: The President's Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (the Board) is established by Executive Order 13532 (February 26, 2010) and continued by Executive Order 13708 which was signed by the President on September 30, 2015. The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), (Pub. L. 92-463; as amended, 5 U.S.C.A., Appendix 2) which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory committees. The purpose of the Board is to advise the President and the Secretary of Education (Secretary) on all matters pertaining to strengthening the educational capacity of Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

    The Board shall advise the President and the Secretary in the following areas: (i) Improving the identity, visibility, and distinctive capabilities and overall competitiveness of HBCUs; (ii) engaging the philanthropic, business, government, military, homeland-security, and education communities in a national dialogue regarding new HBCU programs and initiatives; (iii) improving the ability of HBCUs to remain fiscally secure institutions that can assist the nation in reaching its goal of having the highest proportion of college graduates by 2020; (iv) elevating the public awareness of HBCUs; and (v) encouraging public-private investments in HBCUs.

    Meeting Agenda: Members of the public who which to listen to the meeting via telephone may dial (877) 952-8895.

    Participant Code: 6588206. In addition to its review of activities prior to July 22, 2016, the meeting agenda will include Chairman William R. Harvey's report on HBCU issues and concerns; Deputy Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and Acting Executive Director/Designated Federal Official of the Initiative, Kim Hunter Reed will provide an update on current priorities of the White House Initiative on HBCUs to include planning strategies and initiatives; Kim Hunter Reed will also provide an update on education policies relevant to HBCUs; and Chairman Harvey and Acting Executive Director Hunter Reed will welcome newly appointed members of the advisory board and lead a conversation regarding how the Board will complete its work as the Administration draws to a close; Chairman Harvey will open the floor for subcommittee reports (Black Males, Strategy, Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (STEM), Community Colleges and Aspirational Support) and for the full Board to receive and vote on recommendations from each subcommittee; and HBCU Stakeholder groups will provide updates on issues and concerns relative to their member institutions. The public comment period will begin immediately following the conclusion of such reports.

    Submission of requests to make an oral comment: There are two methods the public may use to provide an oral comment pertaining to the work of the Board at the July 22, 2016 meeting.

    Method One: Submit a request by email to the [email protected] mailbox. Please do not send materials directly to PBA members. Requests must be received by July 18, 2016. Include in the subject line of the email request “Oral Comment Request: (organization name).” The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, telephone number, of the person(s) requesting to speak, and a brief summary (not to exceed one page) of the principal points to be made. All individuals submitting an advance request in accordance with this notice will be afforded an opportunity to speak for three minutes.

    Method Two: Register at the meeting location on July 18, 2016, to make an oral comment during the the public comment period. The requestor must provide his or her name, title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number. Individuals will be selected on a first-come, first-served basis. If selected, each commenter will have an opportunity to speak for three minutes.

    All oral comments made will become part of the official record of the Board. Similarly, written materials distributed during oral presentations will become part of the official record of the meeting.

    Submission of written public comments: The Board invites written comments, which will be read during the Public Comment segment of the agenda. Comments must be received by July 18, 2016, in the [email protected] mailbox, include in the subject line “Written Comments: Public Comment”. The email must include the name(s), title, organization/affiliation, mailing address, email address, and telephone number, of the person(s) making the comment. Comments should be submitted as a Microsoft Word document or in a medium compatible with Microsoft Word (not a PDF file) that is attached to an electronic mail message (email) or provided in the body of an email message. Please do not send material directly to the PBA members.

    Access to Records of the Meeting: The Department will post the official report of the meeting on the PBA Web site 90 days after the meeting. Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the public may also inspect the materials at 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC, by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 453-5634 to schedule an appointment.

    Reasonable Accommodations: The meeting site is accessible to individuals with disabilities. If you will need an auxiliary aid or service to participate in the meeting (e.g., interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format), notify the contact person listed in this notice at least one week before the meeting date. Although we will attempt to meet a request received after that date, we may not be able to make available the requested auxiliary aid or service because of insufficient time to arrange it.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Authority:

    Presidential Executive Order 13532, continued by Executive Order 13708.

    Ted Mitchell, Under Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16928 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Oak Ridge Reservation AGENCY:

    Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge Reservation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.`

    DATES:

    Saturday, August 6, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Tremont Lodge, 7726 East Lamar Alexander Parkway, Townsend, Tennessee 37882.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melyssa P. Noe, Alternate Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management, P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Phone (865) 241-3315; Fax (865) 241-6932; E-Mail: [email protected] Or visit the Web site at www.energy.gov/orssab.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to make recommendations to DOE-EM and site management in the areas of environmental restoration, waste management, and related activities.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Welcome and Opening Remarks

    • Comments from the Deputy Designated Federal Officer (DDFO)

    • Comments from Oak Ridge SSAB (ORSSAB) Chair

    • Discussion of Fiscal Year 2017 Work Plan Topics with Comments from DOE, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, and Environmental Protection Agency Liaisons

    • Presentation by DOE • ORSSAB Officer Nominations • Public Comment Period • Alternate DDFO Report • Meeting Summary • Adjourn

    Public Participation: The EM SSAB, Oak Ridge, welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Melyssa P. Noe at least seven days in advance of the meeting at the phone number listed above. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to the agenda item should contact Melyssa P. Noe at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comments will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.

    Minutes: Minutes will be available by writing or calling Melyssa P. Noe at the address and phone number listed above. Minutes will also be available at the following Web site: www.energy.gov/orssab.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16954 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY National Petroleum Council AGENCY:

    Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the National Petroleum Council. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Friday, July 29, 2016; 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    St. Regis Hotel, 923 16th and K Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20006.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nancy Johnson, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas (FE-30), Washington, DC 20585; telephone (202) 586-5600 or facsimile (202) 586-6221.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Committee: To provide advice, information, and recommendations to the Secretary of Energy on matters relating to oil and natural gas, or the oil and natural gas industries.

    Tentative Agenda:

    • Call to Order and Introductory Remarks.

    • Remarks by the Honorable Ernest Moniz, Secretary of Energy.

    • Follow Up on the 2014 NPC Report on Emergency Preparedness for Natural Disasters.

    • Remarks by the Honorable Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Deputy Secretary of Energy.

    • Administrative Matters.

    • Discussion of Any Other Business Properly Brought Before the National Petroleum Council.

    • Adjournment.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. The Chair of the Council will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Ms. Nancy Johnson at the address or telephone number listed above. Request for oral statements must be received at least three days prior to the meeting. Those not able to attend the meeting or having insufficient time to address the Council are invited to send a written statement to [email protected] Any member of the public who wishes to file a written statement to the Council will be permitted to do so, either before or after the meeting.

    Transcripts: Transcripts of the meeting will be available by contacting Ms. Johnson at the address above, or [email protected]

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16953 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of open teleconference.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a teleconference call of the State Energy Advisory Board (STEAB). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463; 86 Stat.770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Thursday, August 18, 2016 from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EDT). To receive the call-in number and passcode, please contact the Board's Designated Federal Officer at the address or phone number listed below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Li, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, US Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone number 202-287-5718, and email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: To make recommendations to the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy regarding goals and objectives, programmatic and administrative policies, and to otherwise carry out the Board's responsibilities as designated in the State Energy Efficiency Programs Improvement Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-440).

    Tentative Agenda: Receive STEAB Task Force updates on action items and revised objectives for FY 2016, discuss follow-up opportunities and engagement with EERE and other DOE staff as needed to keep Task Force work moving forward, continue engagement with DOE, EERE and EPSA staff regarding energy efficiency and renewable energy projects and initiatives, and receive updates on member activities within their states. Recap June meeting and follow-up on action items from that meeting.

    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or after the meeting. Members of the public who wish to make oral statements pertaining to agenda items should contact Michael Li at the address or telephone number listed above. Requests to make oral comments must be received five days prior to the meeting; reasonable provision will be made to include requested topic(s) on the agenda. The Chair of the Board is empowered to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public review and copying within 60 days on the STEAB Web site at: http://www.energy.gov/eere/steab/state-energy-advisory-board.

    Issued at Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016. LaTanya R. Butler, Deputy Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16956 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Excess Uranium Management: Effects of DOE Transfers of Excess Uranium on Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries; Request for Information AGENCY:

    Office of Nuclear Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Request for information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is preparing for a potential new Secretarial Determination covering transfers of uranium for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for down-blending of highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium (LEU). This RFI solicits information from the public about the uranium markets and domestic uranium industries, and the potential effects of DOE transfers in the uranium markets and possible consequences for the domestic uranium mining, conversion and enrichment industries. DOE will consider this information as part of its analysis to determine whether its transfers would have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information responding to this RFI submitted on or before August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons may submit comments by any of the following methods.

    1. Email: [email protected] Submit electronic comments in Microsoft Word, or PDF file format and avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.

    2. Postal Mail: Ms. Cheryl Moss Herman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Mailstop B-409, 19901 Germantown Rd., Germantown, MD 20874-1290. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disk (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    3. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Cheryl Moss Herman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Mailstop B-409, 19901 Germantown Rd., Germantown, MD 20874-1290. Phone: (301) 903-1788. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name for this request for information. No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information may be sent to: Ms. Cheryl Moss Herman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Mailstop B-409, 19901 Germantown Rd., Germantown, MD 20874-1290. Phone: (301) 903-1788. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Authority and Background II. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment and Information III. Submission of Comments IV. Confidential Business Information I. Authority and Background

    Title I, Chapters 6-7, 14, of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., “AEA”) authorizes the Department of Energy to transfer special nuclear material and source material. Enriched uranium and natural uranium are types of special nuclear material and source material, respectively. In 1996, Congress enacted the USEC Privatization Act (Public Law 104-134, 42 U.S.C. 2297h et seq.), which places certain limitations on DOE's authority to transfer uranium from its excess uranium inventory. Specifically, under section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 2297h-10(d)(2)(B)), DOE may make certain transfers of natural or low-enriched uranium if the Secretary determines that the transfers “will not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion or enrichment industry, taking into account the sales of uranium under the Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement and the Suspension Agreement.” Section 306(a) of Division D, Title III of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (Public Law 113-235), limits the validity of any determination by the Secretary under section 3112(d)(2)(B) of the USEC Privatization Act to no more than two calendar years subsequent to the determination.

    In recent years, DOE has transferred uranium for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for down-blending of highly-enriched uranium to low-enriched uranium (LEU). In May 2015, the Secretary determined that certain transfers, described in the determination, would not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry (the “2015 Secretarial Determination”).1 The 2015 Determination covers transfers to contractors for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant of up to 2,000 metric tons of natural uranium equivalent (MTU) contained in natural uranium hexafluoride in calendar year 2015, as well as transfers of up to 1,600 MTU per calendar year contained in natural uranium hexafluoride in calendar year 2016 and thereafter. The 2015 Secretarial Determination also covers an amount of LEU equivalent to up to 500 MTU of natural uranium per calendar year in calendar year 2015 and thereafter, transferred to contractors for down-blending highly-enriched uranium to LEU.

    1 Excess Uranium Management: Secretarial Determination of No Adverse Impact on the Domestic Uranium Mining, Conversion, and Enrichment Industries, 80 FR 26366 (May 7, 2015).

    DOE is preparing for a new Secretarial Determination that would cover further transfers of uranium for cleanup services at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant and for down-blending of highly-enriched uranium to LEU upon expiration of the 2015 Secretarial Determination. DOE is initiating this process by publishing this RFI seeking information on the uranium markets and domestic uranium industries. DOE will evaluate comments received in response to this RFI, along with other information and analysis, to determine whether its future transfers would have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry.

    II. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment and Information

    This RFI seeks information from interested parties on the uranium markets and domestic uranium industries, and the potential effects of DOE's transfers on the uranium markets and possible consequences for domestic uranium industries. DOE will use that information to help analyze and determine whether its transfers would have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium mining, conversion, or enrichment industry. For all comments, DOE requests that interested parties fully explain any assumptions that underlie their reasoning. DOE also requests that commenters provide underlying data or other information sufficient to allow DOE to review and verify any of the assumptions, calculations or views expressed by the commenters.

    DOE specifically invites public comment on the following questions:

    (1) What are current and projected conditions in the uranium markets, and the domestic uranium mining, conversion and enrichment industries?

    (2) What market effects and industry consequences could DOE expect from continued transfers at annual rates comparable to the transfers described in the 2015 Secretarial Determination?

    (3) Would transfers at a lower annual rate or a higher annual rate significantly change these effects, and if so, how?

    (4) Are there any anticipated changes in these markets that may significantly change how DOE transfers affect the domestic uranium industries?

    Although comment is particularly welcome on the issues discussed above, DOE also requests comments on other topics that commenters consider significant in preparing for a potential new Secretarial Determination.

    III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit, in writing by August 18, 2016, comments and information on matters addressed in this RFI. Any information that may be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should be submitted as described in section IV. Confidential Business Information. After the close of the comment period, DOE will continue collecting data, conducting analyses, and reviewing the public comments, as needed.

    IV. Confidential Business Information

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked “confidential” including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked “non-confidential” with the information believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 12, 2016. Raymond Furstenau, Associate Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Nuclear Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17024 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY [FE Docket No. 15-190-LNG] Rio Grande LNG, LLC; Application for Long-Term, Multi-Contract Authorization To Export Liquefied Natural Gas to Non-Free Trade Agreement Nations AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

    ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of receipt of an application, filed on December 23, 2015, amended on June 7, 2016 (Application), by Rio Grande LNG, LLC (Rio Grande LNG). Rio Grande LNG requests long-term, multi-contract authorization to export domestically produced liquefied natural gas (LNG) in a volume equivalent to approximately 1,318 billion cubic feet (Bcf) per year of natural gas (3.61 Bcf per day). Rio Grande LNG seeks to export the LNG by vessel from its proposed natural gas liquefaction and LNG export terminal to be located in Cameron County, Texas, along the north embankment of the Brownsville Ship Channel (Rio Grande LNG Project). Rio Grande LNG requests authorization to export this LNG to any country with which the United States does not have a free trade agreement (FTA) requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (non-FTA countries).1 Rio Grande LNG seeks authorization to export this LNG for (a) a single 20-year primary term applicable to the entire Rio Grande LNG Project consisting of six (6) liquefaction trains commencing on the earlier of (i) the date of first export from the first of the Rio Grande LNG Project's trains to be commissioned, or (ii) seven (7) years from the date of the DOE/FE order authorizing such exports, coupled with (b) a five (5) year Make-Up Period at the conclusion of the 20-year primary term.2 Rio Grande LNG seeks to export this LNG on its own behalf and as agent for other entities who hold title to the LNG at the time of export. The Application was filed under section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA). Additional details can be found in Rio Grande LNG's Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: https://cms.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/Rio_Grande15_190-LNG_App.pdf and in the amendment to the Application, posted on the DOE/FE Web site at: https://cms.doe.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/07/f33/RGLNG_Amend06_07_16.pdf. Protests, motions to intervene, notices of intervention, and written comments are invited.

    1 In the Application, Rio Grande LNG also requests authorization to export the same volume of LNG to any nation that currently has, or in the future may enter into, a FTA requiring national treatment for trade in natural gas, and with which trade is not prohibited by U.S. law or policy (FTA countries). DOE/FE will review that request separately pursuant to section 3(c) of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. § 717b(c).

    2 Rio Grande's proposed request is uniquely structured due to the scope of the Rio Grande LNG Project. The Rio Grande Project will be the largest LNG export project in the U.S. to be developed in a single phase.

    DATES:

    Protests, motions to intervene or notices of intervention, as applicable, requests for additional procedures, and written comments are to be filed using procedures detailed in the Public Comment Procedures section no later than 4:30 p.m., Eastern time, September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic Filing by email: [email protected]

    Regular Mail: U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, P.O. Box 44375, Washington, DC 20026-4375.

    Hand Delivery or Private Delivery Services (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.): U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beverly Howard, or Larine Moore, U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9387; (202) 586-9578. Edward Myers, U.S. Department of Energy (GC-76), Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Electricity and Fossil Energy, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9793. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    DOE/FE Evaluation

    The Application will be reviewed pursuant to section 3(a) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. 717b(a), and DOE will consider any issues required by law or policy. To the extent determined to be relevant, these issues will include the domestic need for the natural gas proposed to be exported, the adequacy of domestic natural gas supply, and U.S. energy security. DOE may also consider other factors bearing on the public interest, including the impact of the proposed exports on the U.S. economy, international considerations, and whether the authorization is consistent with DOE's policy of promoting competition in the marketplace by allowing commercial parties to freely negotiate their own trade arrangements. As part of this analysis, DOE will consider the following two studies examining the cumulative impacts of exporting domestically produced LNG:

    Effect of Increased Levels of Liquefied Natural Gas on U.S. Energy Markets, conducted by the U.S. Energy Information Administration upon DOE's request (2014 EIA LNG Export Study); 3 and

    3 The 2014 EIA LNG Export Study, published on Oct. 29, 2014, is available at: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/fe/.

    The Macroeconomic Impact of Increasing U.S. LNG Exports, conducted jointly by the Center for Energy Studies at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy and Oxford Economics, on behalf of DOE (2015 LNG Export Study).4

    4 The 2015 LNG Export Study, dated Oct. 29, 2015, is available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/12/f27/20151113_macro_impact_of_lng_exports_0.pdf.

    Additionally, DOE will consider the following environmental documents:

    Addendum to Environmental Review Documents Concerning Exports of Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 48132 (Aug. 15, 2014); 5 and

    5 The Addendum and related documents are available at http://energy.gov/fe/addendum-environmental-review-documents-concerning-exports-natural-gas-united-states.

    Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Perspective on Exporting Liquefied Natural Gas From the United States, 79 FR 32260 (June 4, 2014).6

    6 The Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Report is available at: http://energy.gov/fe/life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-perspective-exporting-liquefied-natural-gas-united-states.

    Parties that may oppose this Application should address these issues in their comments and/or protests, as well as other issues deemed relevant to the Application.

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., requires DOE to give appropriate consideration to the environmental effects of its proposed decisions. No final decision will be issued in this proceeding until DOE has met its environmental responsibilities.

    Public Comment Procedures

    In response to this Notice, any person may file a protest, comments, or a motion to intervene or notice of intervention, as applicable. Due to the complexity of the issues raised by the Applicant, interested persons will be provided 60 days from the date of publication of this Notice in which to submit comments, protests, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention.

    Any person wishing to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene or notice of intervention. The filing of comments or a protest with respect to the Application will not serve to make the commenter or protestant a party to the proceeding, although protests and comments received from persons who are not parties will be considered in determining the appropriate action to be taken on the Application. All protests, comments, motions to intervene, or notices of intervention must meet the requirements specified by the regulations in 10 CFR part 590.

    Filings may be submitted using one of the following methods: (1) Emailing the filing to [email protected], with FE Docket No. 15-190-LNG in the title line; (2) mailing an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES; or (3) hand delivering an original and three paper copies of the filing to the Office of Regulation and International Engagement at the address listed in ADDRESSES. All filings must include a reference to FE Docket No. 15-190-LNG. Please Note: If submitting a filing via email, please include all related documents and attachments (e.g., exhibits) in the original email correspondence. Please do not include any active hyperlinks or password protection in any of the documents or attachments related to the filing. All electronic filings submitted to DOE must follow these guidelines to ensure that all documents are filed in a timely manner. Any hardcopy filing submitted greater in length than 50 pages must also include, at the time of the filing, a digital copy on disk of the entire submission.

    A decisional record on the Application will be developed through responses to this notice by parties, including the parties' written comments and replies thereto. Additional procedures will be used as necessary to achieve a complete understanding of the facts and issues. If an additional procedure is scheduled, notice will be provided to all parties. If no party requests additional procedures, a final Opinion and Order may be issued based on the official record, including the Application and responses filed by parties pursuant to this notice, in accordance with 10 CFR 590.316.

    The Application is available for inspection and copying in the Office of Regulation and International Engagement docket room, Room 3E-042, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585. The docket room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    The Application and any filed protests, motions to intervene or notice of interventions, and comments will also be available electronically by going to the following DOE/FE Web address: http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/gasregulation/index.html.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. [FR Doc. 2016-17025 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Project No. 8221-094] Alaska Energy Authority; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's) regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Alaska Energy Authority's application for a non-capacity amendment to the license for the Bradley Lake Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 8221), located on the south shore and near the head of Kachemak Bay, 22.5 miles east, northeast of the city of Homer, Kenai Peninsula Borough, Alaska. The project currently occupies a total of 5,498 acres of federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management.

    Staff prepared a final environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the potential environmental effects of constructing and operating a new diversion on the West Fork of Upper Battle Creek that would divert water to Bradley Lake and thereby increase generation at the project. The final EA concludes that authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at www.ferc.gov using the “eLibrary” link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 202-502-8659.

    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    For further information, contact Steven Sachs by telephone at 202-502-8666 or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17010 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section 3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C. 552b:

    AGENCY HOLDING MEETING:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    July 21, 2016 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    Room 2C, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    STATUS:

    Open.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Agenda.

    * NOTE—Items listed on the agenda may be deleted without further notice.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Telephone (202) 502-8400.

    For a recorded message listing items struck from or added to the meeting, call (202) 502-8627.

    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link, or may be examined in the Commission's Public Reference Room.

    1029th—Meeting, Regular Meeting [July 21, 2016, 10:00 a.m.] Item No Docket No. Company ADMINISTRATIVE A-1 AD16-1-000 Agency Administrative Matters. A-2 AD16-7-000 Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market Operations. A-3 AD16-22-000 Briefing on Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between FERC and the U.S. Army Corps for Non-Federal Hydropower Development at the Corps' Facilities. ELECTRIC E-1 ER12-959-007 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-2 ER16-791-000 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-3 EL16-91-000 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-4 EL14-12-001 Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity, Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, Illinois Industrial Energy Consumers, Indiana Industrial Energy Consumers, Inc., Minnesota Large Industrial Group, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group v., Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ALLETE, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, American Transmission Company LLC, Cleco Power LLC, Duke Energy Business Services, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., Indianapolis Power & Light Company, International Transmission Company, ITC Midwest LLC, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, Otter Tail Power Company, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company. E-5 EL15-45-001, Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, Mississippi Delta Energy Agency, Clarksdale Public Utilities Commission, Public Service Commission of Yazoo City, Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc. v., ALLETE, Inc., Ameren Illinois Company, Ameren Missouri, Ameren Transmission Company of Illinois, American Transmission Company LLC, Cleco Power LLC, Duke Energy Business Services, LLC, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., Entergy Gulf States Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Louisiana, LLC, Entergy Mississippi, Inc., Entergy New Orleans, Inc., Entergy Texas, Inc., Indianapolis Power & Light Company, International Transmission Company, ITC Midwest LLC, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC, MidAmerican Energy Company, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., Northern Indiana Public Service Company, Northern States Power Company-Minnesota, Northern States Power Company-Wisconsin, Otter Tail Power Company, Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Company. EL16-99-000 Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. E-6 Omitted. E-7 RM16-17-000 Data Collection for Analytics and Surveillance and Market-Based Rate Purposes. E-8 RM15-14-002 Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards. E-9 RM15-14-001 Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards. E-10 RM16-18-000 Cyber Systems in Control Centers. E-11 RM16-8-000 Requirements for Frequency and Voltage Ride Through Capability of Small Generating Facilities. E-12 RM05-5-025 Standards for Business Practices and Communication Protocols for Public Utilities. E-13 RM15-23-000 Collection of Connected Entity Data from Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators. E-14 RM16-3-000 Ownership Information in Market-Based Rate Filings. E-15 ER16-1774-000 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-16 ER16-13-002 Southwest Power Pool, Inc. E-17 ER12-678-006 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-18 ER12-678-004 EL14-58-001 Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. E-19 Omitted. E-20 EL16-69-000, QF16-362-001, QF16-363-001, QF16-364-001, QF16-365-001, QF16-366-001, QF16-367-001, QF16-368-001, QF16-369-001, QF16-370-001, QF16-371-001, QF16-372-001, QF16-373-001, QF16-374-001, QF16-375-001, QF16-376-001, QF16-377-001, QF16-378-001, QF16-379-001, QF16-380-001, QF16-381-001, QF16-382-001, QF16-383-001, QF16-384-001, QF16-385-001, QF16-386-001, QF16-387-001 Windham Solar LLC and Allco Finance Limited. E-21 Omitted. E-22 Omitted. E-23 QM16-1-000 Nebraska Public Power District. HYDRO H-1 P-13458-003 BOST1 Hydroelectric LLC. CERTIFICATES C-1 CP15-498-000 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company. C-2 CP15-18-000 CP15-18-001 Eastern Shore Natural Gas Company. Dated: July 14, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.

    A free webcast of this event is available through www.ferc.gov. Anyone with Internet access who desires to view this event can do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating this event in the Calendar. The event will contain a link to its webcast. The Capitol Connection provides technical support for the free webcasts. It also offers access to this event via television in the DC area and via phone bridge for a fee. If you have any questions, visit www.CapitolConnection.org or contact Danelle Springer or David Reininger at 703-993-3100.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at Commission headquarters, but will not be telecast through the Capitol Connection service.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17121 Filed 7-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Privacy Act System of Records AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission or Agency)

    ACTION:

    Notice of a new system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The FCC proposes to add a new system of records, FCC/CGB-5, CGB Stakeholder Database, to its inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. This action is necessary to meet the requirements of the Privacy Act to publish in the Federal Register notice of the existence and character of records maintained by the agency (5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4)). The FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB or Bureau) will use FCC/CGB-5 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) contained in a database of its stakeholders to provide information concerning its public events as well as recent developments at the FCC as part of its outreach activities.

    DATES:

    Written comments are due on or before August 18, 2016. This action will become effective on August 29, 2016 unless comments are received that require a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments to Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Room 1-C216, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie F. Smith, (202) 418-0217, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The CGB Stakeholder Database allows CGB to fulfill its outreach responsibilities as set forth in 47 CFR 0.141. The database contains contact information for individuals who interact with the Bureau through electronic or in-person contact with the Bureau.

    FCC/CGB-5 SYSTEM NAME:

    CGB Stakeholder Database.

    SECURITY CLASSIFICATION:

    The FCC's CIO will develop a security classification to this system of records based on NIST FIPS-199 standards.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Members of the general public; representatives of federal, state, local and tribal governments; and representatives of public and private companies, trade groups, and interest groups.

    CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

    The categories of records in this information system include the contact information that individuals have provided in their interactions with the Bureau, including: Personal contact information (including but not limited to, name, personal cell phone number, business cell phone number, home telephone number, business telephone number, personal and professional email address, personal and professional facsimile number, business and home mailing address, and social media contact information) and job-related data (including but not limited to organizational affiliation and title).

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 155, 303; 47 CFR 0.141.

    PURPOSE(S):

    These records enable CGB personnel to contact interested parties concerning its public events, e.g., workshops, conferences, and Webinars, etc., as well as recent developments at the FCC, and to share contact information of governmental, law enforcement, industry, advocacy groups, employment centers, faith-based organizations, libraries, policy organizations, media outlets, schools, seniors centers, veterans groups, national governmental associations or tribal intergovernmental organizations.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FCC as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows. In each of these cases, the FCC will determine whether disclosure of the records is compatible with the purpose(s) for which the records were collected.

    1. Congressional Inquiries—To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    2. Contact Information Sharing—to share contact information for federal, state, local, or tribal governments; law enforcement; industry; advocacy groups; non-profit organizations; employment centers; faith-based organizations; libraries; policy organizations; media outlets; schools; seniors centers; veterans groups; national governmental associations; or tribal intergovernmental organizations with these entities, or members of the public, as part of CGB's outreach activities, but in no case will individual members of the public's contact information be provided to these entities without consent.

    3. Government-wide Program Management and Oversight—To the National Archives and Records Administration for use in its records management inspections; to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for oversight purposes; to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.

    4. Adjudication and Litigation—To the Department of Justice (DOJ), or other administrative body before which the FCC is authorized to appear, when: (a) The FCC or any component thereof; (b) any employee of the FCC in his or her official capacity; (c) any employee of the FCC in his or her individual capacity where DOJ or the FCC has agreed to represent the employee; or (d) the United States is a party to litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ or the FCC is deemed by the FCC to be relevant and necessary to the litigation.

    5. Law Enforcement and Investigation—To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, where the FCC becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation; and

    6. Breach Notification—To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the Commission suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Commission has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    DISCLOSURE TO CONSUMER REPORTING AGENCIES:

    None.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: STORAGE:

    The information in this system includes electronic data entered into the CGB Stakeholder Database that is maintained in the FCC's computer network.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Information in the CGB Stakeholder Database can be retrieved from the database by any element of an individual's contact information.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    The electronic records are maintained in a database housed in the FCC computer network databases. The FCC's computer network is protected by the FCC's IT privacy safeguards, a comprehensive and dynamic set of IT safety and security protocols and features that are designed to meet all Federal IT privacy standards, including those required by the National Institute of Standard and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). In addition, access to the information in the database is restricted to authorized CGB supervisors and staff and to authorized FCC Information Technology (IT) staff who maintain these computer databases. Other FCC employees and contractors may be granted access only on a “need-to-know” basis.

    Physical documents containing information to be added into the CGB Stakeholders Database, such as business cards and sign-in sheets, are disposed of once the information is incorporated into the CGB Stakeholder Database and the physical records are no longer need for another business purpose. Before destruction of physical records, they are stored in CGB staff offices which are locked at the end of the business day.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    The CGB Stakeholder Database will be retained by the FCC until a records schedule has been approved by NARA. Upon approval of a records schedule by NARA, the CGB Stakeholder Database will be retained and disposed of pursuant to that records schedule.

    SYSTEMS MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554. NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE:

    Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them may do so by writing to Leslie F. Smith, Privacy Manager, Information Technology (IT), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or email [email protected] Individuals must furnish reasonable identification by showing any two of the following: Social security card; driver's license; employee identification card; Medicare card; birth certificate; bank credit card; or other positive means of identification, or by signing an identity statement stipulating that knowingly or willfully seeking or obtaining access to records about another person under false pretenses is punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.

    Individuals requesting access must also comply with the FCC's Privacy Act regulations regarding verification of identity and access to records (5 CFR part 0, subpart E).

    RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to request an amendment of records about them should follow the Notification Procedure above. CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: Individuals wishing to contest information pertaining to him or her in the system of records should follow the Notification Procedure above. RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    The sources for information in the CGB Stakeholder Database include but are not limited to information provided by members of the general public, representatives of federal, state, local and tribal governments, representatives of public and private interest groups who:

    1. Contact the Bureau through phone, letter, email, or social media communications;

    2. Attend Bureau-hosted events and leave their information on a paper or electronic sign-in sheet;

    3. Register for Bureau-hosted events through temporary “@fcc.gov” email addresses;

    4. Voluntarily subscribe to [email protected] to receive update on the Bureau's work on accessibility issues;

    5. Are organizations whose publicly available information is used by the Bureau to initiate contact;

    6. Attend non-FCC events and provide information to Bureau staff in attendance;

    7. Electronically confirm attendance at Webinars or in-person meetings; and/or

    8. Provide paper business cards to CGB staff.

    EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

    None.

    Federal Communcations Commission. Marlene Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16965 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-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 3, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Chapelle Davis, Assistant Vice President) 1000 Peachtree Street, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Patrick Anderson, Wasden, Senoia, Georgia, and Jaynie Loftin Nesmith, Manchester, Georgia; to retain shares of F&M Holding Company, Inc., and its subsidiary, F&M Bank and Trust Company, both of Manchester, Georgia.

    2. Lynley Loftin Hipps, Columbus, Georgia; to acquire voting shares of F& M Holding Company, and thereby acquire shares of F&M Bank and Trust Company, both of Manchester, Georgia.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 13, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16936 Filed 7-18-16; 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 4, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. Mary W. Harsh, Magnolia, Arkansas, individually and as trustee of the Mary W. Harsh Revocable Trust; Nina Marie Harsh Burns, Magnolia, Arkansas, individually and as trustee of the Molly Burns Nonexempt Trust, the Nina Marie (Molly) Harsh Burns Revocable Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2005 Family Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2002 Family Trust, the Robert Samuel Burns Exempt Trust, the Rebecca M. Burns Gosnell Exempt Trust, and the Mary Elizabeth Burns Anderson Exempt Trust; Amy H. Sixbey, Roland, Arkansas, individually and as trustee of the Amy Sixbey Nonexempt Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2005 Family Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2002 Family Trust, the Mary Elizabeth Sixbey Exempt Trust, and the Annie Alexander Sixbey Exempt Trust; Roxana Whitner, Hot Springs Village, Arkansas, as trustee of the Roxana Harsh Whitner Revocable Trust, the Roxana Whitner Nonexempt Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2005 Family Trust, the Mary W. Harsh 2002 Family Trust, John Douglas Whittemore Exempt Trust, the Jessica Grayson Luther Exempt Trust, the Julia Roxana Kirk Exempt Trust, the Mary Jane Platt Exempt Trust, the Jessica Grayson Luther Revocable Trust, and the John Douglas Whittemore Revocable Trust; Robert L. Burns, Magnolia, Arkansas, individually and as trustee of the Robert L. Burns Revocable Trust; Pat Sixbey, Roland, Arkansas, individually and as trustee of the Mary Elizabeth Sixbey Trust, the Annie Alexander Sixbey Trust, and the Amy Harsh Sixbey 2009 Irrevocable Trust; Robert S. Burns, Magnolia, Arkansas, as trustee of the Robert Samuel Burns Revocable Trust, and the Bob and Molly Burns Family Irrevocable Trust; Mary Elizabeth Burns, trustee of the Mary Elizabeth Burns Revocable Trust and the Bob and Molly Burns Family Irrevocable Trust; and Rebecca M. Burns, trustee of the Rebecca M. Burns Revocable Trust, and the Bob and Molly Burns Family Irrevocable Trust, to collectively acquire an additional 0.72 percent of the shares and thereby retain control of more than 25 percent of Magnolia Banking Corporation, Magnolia, Arkansas, and thereby acquire Farmers Bank and Trust Company, Magnolia, Arkansas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2016. Michele Taylor Fennell, Assistant Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17022 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD Sunshine Act; Notice of FRTIB Board Member Meeting TIME AND DATE:

    8:30 a.m. (Eastern Time) July 25, 2016.

    PLACE:

    10th Floor Board Meeting Room, 77 K Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    STATUS:

    Parts will be open to the public and parts will be closed to the public.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Open to the Public 1. Approval of the Minutes of the June 27, 2016 Board Member Meeting 2. Monthly Reports (a) Participant Activity Report (b) Legislative Report 3. Quarterly Reports (c) Investment Policy Report (d) Budget Review 4. Target Architecture Plan 5. 2017-2021 Strategic Plan—Office of Enterprise Planning 6. Internal Audit Report 7. Review of EBSA Audits 8. Department of Labor Presentation Closed to the Public

    Information covered under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(9)(B) and (c)(10).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Weaver, Director, Office of External Affairs, (202) 942-1640.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Megan G. Grumbine, General Counsel, Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17141 Filed 7-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6760-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-10295, CMS-838, CMS-10157, CMS-10309, and CMS-R-199] Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; 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 (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 a second opportunity for public comment on the notice. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate 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 on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    When commenting on the proposed information collections, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be received by the OMB desk officer via one of the following transmissions: OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: CMS Desk Officer, Fax Number: (202) 395-5806 OR, Email: [email protected].

    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 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:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-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 that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment:

    1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Reporting Requirements for States Under Transitional Medical Assistance (TMA) Provisions; Use: The HHS Secretary is required to submit annual reports to Congress with information collected from states in accordance with section 5004(d) of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Medicaid agencies in 50 states complete the reports while we review the information to determine if each state has met all of the reporting requirements specified under section 5004(d). Form Number: CMS-10295 (OMB control number: 0938-1073). Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 50; Total Annual Responses: 200; Total Annual Hours: 400. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Martin Burian at 410-786-3246.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicare Credit Balance Reporting Requirements; Use: Quarterly credit balance reporting is needed to monitor and control the identification and timely collection of improper payments. Credit balances are mainly attributable to provider billing practices and cannot be eliminated by program functions; they will continue to occur. The OIG issued a Management Advisory Report (MAR) on their extended review of credit balances (See Attachment). They state that approximately 90 percent of credit balances result from providers: (1) Billing Medicare and a private insurer for the same service, (2) submitting duplicate billings for services in a manner which cannot be detected by system edits, and (3) billing for services not performed. The MAR recommends that CMS continue its plan of recovery by requiring hospitals to report Medicare credit balances to contractors on a quarterly basis. Form Number: CMS-838 (OMB control number: 0938-0600); Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits); Number of Respondents: 52,582; Total Annual Responses: 210,328; Total Annual Hours: 630,984. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Anita Crosier at 410-786-0217).

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: HIPPA Eligibility Tracking System; Use: Federal law requires that CMS take precautions to minimize the security risk to the federal information system. Federal Information Processing Standards Publication (FIPS PUB) 1( ) 1-2 Paragraph 11.7—Security and Authentication states that: “Agencies shall employ risk management techniques to determine the appropriate mix of security controls needed to protect specific data and systems. The selection of controls shall take into account procedures required under applicable laws and regulations.” Accordingly, CMS requires that entities who wish to connect to the HETS application via the CMS Extranet and/or Internet are uniquely identified. CMS is required to verify the identity of the person requesting the Protected Health Information (PHI) and the person's authority to have access to Medicare eligibility information. Furthermore, CMS requires that trading partners who wish to conduct eligibility transactions on a real-time basis with CMS provide certain assurances as a condition of receiving access to the Medicare eligibility information for the purpose of conducting real-time 270/271 inquiry/response transactions. Form Number: CMS-10157 (OMB control number: 0938-0960); Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits and Not-For-Profits); Number of Respondents: 2,000; Total Annual Responses: 2,000; Total Annual Hours: 250. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Rupinder Singh at 410-786-7484).

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Grandfathering Provisions of the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program; Use: The grandfathering process was established in the April 10, 2007 final rule for competitive bidding for rented DME and oxygen and oxygen equipment included under the Medicare DMEPOS Competitive Bidding Program. This process only applies to suppliers that rented DME and oxygen and oxygen equipment to beneficiaries who maintain a permanent residence in a CBA before the implementation of the competitive bidding program. The competitive bidding program will require some beneficiaries to change their suppliers. In order to avoid a beneficiary being without medically necessary equipment we felt it necessary to establish this notification process. Form Number: CMS-10309 (OMB control number: 0938-1079); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Private Sector (Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 1,125; Total Annual Responses: 39,998; Total Annual Hours: 4,535. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Djanira Rivera at 410-786-8646).

    5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid Report on Payables and Receivables; Use: The Government Management and Reform Act of 1994 requires that all offices, bureaus and associated activities of the 24 CFO Act agencies must be covered in an agency-wide, audited financial statement. Collection of Medicaid data and the calculation of the Medicaid Incurred But Not Reported (IBNR) estimate are pertinent to CMS' financial audit. The Medicaid Report on Payables and Receivables will provide the information needed to calculate the Medicaid IBNR. Failure to collect this information could result in non-compliance with the law. Form Number: CMS-R-199 (OMB Control Number: 0938-0697); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 56; Total Annual Responses: 56; Total Annual Hours: 392. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Beverly Boher at 410-786-7806.)

    Dated: July 14, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17059 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-R-64] 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 19, 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 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-R-64 Indirect Medical Education and Supporting Regulations

    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: Indirect Medical Education and Supporting Regulations; Use: Section 1886(d)(5)(B) of the Social Security Act requires additional payments to be made under the Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS) for the indirect medical educational costs a hospital incurs in connection with interns and residents (IRs) in approved teaching programs. In addition, Title 42, Part 413, sections 75 through 83 implement section 1886(d) of the Act by establishing the methodology for Medicare payment of the cost of direct graduate medical educational activities. These payments, which are adjustments (add-ons) to other payments made to a hospital under PPS, are largely determined by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) IRs that work at a hospital during its cost reporting period. In Federal fiscal year (FY) 2015, the estimated Medicare program payments for indirect medical education (IME) costs amounted to $8.38 billion. Medicare program payments for direct graduate medical education (GME) are also based upon the number of FTE-IRs that work at a hospital. In FY 2015, the estimated Medicare program payments for GME costs amounted to $3.1 billion. Form Number: CMS-R-64 (OMB control number: 0938-0456); Frequency: Yearly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other For-profits); Number of Respondents: 1,245; Total Annual Responses: 1,245; Total Annual Hours: 2,490. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Milton Jacobson at 410-786-7553.)

    Dated: July 14, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17070 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; OAA Title III-C Evaluation AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information to Susan Jenkins at [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Jenkins, 202.795.7369

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Administration for Community Living (ACL, formerly the Administration for Aging) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. The Administration for Community Living/Administration on Aging (ACL/AoA) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to complete data collection associated with the Outcome Evaluation of the Title III-C Nutrition Services Program. ACL is requesting to renew an existing clearance to complete 12 month follow up data collection that was initially approved under OMB Control Number: 0985-0037. The Title III-C Elderly Nutrition Services Program (ENSP) represents a key component of America's strategy for ensuring that the needs of elderly people are adequately met. The overall evaluation of the Title III-C Program has three broad objectives: (1) To provide information to support program planning, including an analysis of program processes (process evaluation), (2) to develop information about program efficiency and cost issues (cost study), and (3) to assess program effectiveness, as measured by the program's effects on a variety of important outcomes, including nutrient adequacy, socialization opportunities, health outcomes, and, ultimately, helping elderly people avoid institutionalization (outcome evaluation). The renewal is to complete the data collection related to objective 3.

    The total burden estimate for the remaining data collection is: 144 hours. The proposed data collection tools may be found on the ACL Web site at: http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Program_Results/Program_survey.aspx.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16976 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Administration on Disabilities, President's Committee for People With Intellectual Disabilities AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The President's Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities (PCPID) will host a webinar/conference call for its members to discuss the potential topics of the Committee's 2017 Report to the President. All the PCPID meetings, in any format, are open to the public. This virtual meeting will be conducted in a discussion format.

    DATES:

    Webinar: Monday, August 22, 2016 from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST).

    ADDRESSES:

    Webinar Web page: https://meetingserver.hhs.gov/orion/joinmeeting.do?ED=QtF0ep1Kkddkw3ioj3RkaQ==

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS NEEDS CONTACT:

    Dr. MJ Karimi, PCPID Team Lead, 330 C Street SW., 1108A, Washington, DC 20201. Email: [email protected]; telephone: 202-79-7374; fax: 202-205-0402.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Committee held a conference call on May 2, 2016 to discuss and finalize the Committee's 2016 Report to the President. The purpose of this virtual meeting is to provide PCPID members with an update on submission of the 2016 Report to the President and to begin exploring the topics for the Committee's 2017 report.

    Webinar/Conference Call: The webinar is scheduled for August 22, 2016, 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. (EST) and may end early if discussions are finished.

    Instructions to Participate in the Webinar/Conference Call on Monday, August 22, 2016:

    1. Enter the following WebEx Link: https://meetingserver.hhs.gov/orion/joinmeeting.do?ED=QtF0ep1Kkddkw3ioj3RkaQ==

    2. Click on the “join” button on the page

    3. Enter your name and email address

    4. Follow additional instructions as provided by WebEx. This WebEx does not require a password.

    5. Please dial: (888) 469-0940; Pass Code: 5315454 (you should put your phone on mute during the meeting)

    Background Information on the Committee: The PCPID acts in an advisory capacity to the President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services on a broad range of topics relating to programs, services and support for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The PCPID Executive Order stipulates that the Committee shall: (1) provide such advice concerning intellectual disabilities as the President or the Secretary of Health and Human Services may request; and (2) provide advice to the President concerning the following for people with intellectual disabilities: (A) expansion of educational opportunities; (B) promotion of homeownership; (C) assurance of workplace integration; (D) improvement of transportation options; (E) expansion of full access to community living; and (F) increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies.

    Dated: July 6, 2016. Aaron Bishop, Commissioner, Administration on Disabilities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16980 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Community Living Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Extension With No Changes of a Currently Approved Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; State Program Report AGENCY:

    Administration for Community Living, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Administration for Community Living (ACL) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit written comments on the collection of information to Elena Fazio at 202-795-7343 or email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elena Fazio at 202-795-7343 or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, ACL has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    The Older Americans Act (OAA) requires annual program performance reports from States, the District of Columbia, and Territories. In compliance with this OAA provision, ACL developed a State Program Report (SPR) in 1996 as part of its National Aging Program Information System (NAPIS). The SPR collects information about how State Agencies on Aging expend their OAA funds as well as funding from other sources for OAA authorized supportive services. The SPR also collects information on the demographic and functional status of the recipients, and is a key source for ACL performance measurement. This collection is an extension with no changes of the 2013 approved version. The proposed version will be in effect for the FY 2017 reporting year and thereafter. The proposed FY 2017 version may be found on the ACL Web site link entitled Renewal SPR Instrument for 2016 Extension With No Changes available at http://www.aoa.acl.gov/Program_Results/OAA_Performance.aspx. ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: 2750 hours

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Kathy Greenlee, Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Aging.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16978 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Red Blood Cells for Transfusion; Public Workshop AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public workshop.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public workshop entitled “Pre-Clinical Evaluation of Red Blood Cells for Transfusion.” The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss new methodologies for pre-clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of red blood cell transfusion products. The workshop has been planned in partnership with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institutes of Health (NIH); the Department of Defense; and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Department of Health and Human Services. The workshop will include presentations and panel discussions by experts from academic institutions, industry, and government Agencies.

    DATES:

    The public workshop will be held on October 6, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and on October 7 from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for registration date and information.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public workshop will be held at the Ruth Kirschstein Auditorium, Natcher Conference Center, Bldg. 45, National Institutes of Health Campus, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892. The entrance for the public workshop participants (non-NIH employees) is through the NIH Gateway Center located adjacent to the Medical Center Metro, where routine security check procedures will be performed. Please visit the following Web site for NIH campus location, parking, security, and travel information: http://www.nih.gov/about/visitor/index.htm. Please visit the following Web site for information on the Natcher Conference Center: http://www.genome.gov/11007522.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Matthew Morrison, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-8126, [email protected] For questions email: [email protected] (Subject line: Red Blood Cell (RBC) Workshop).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the public workshop is to discuss new methodologies for pre-clinical evaluation of the safety and efficacy of red blood cell transfusion products including potential identification of biomarkers measurable during red cell storage that could predict the in vivo functionality of transfused red blood cells. The first day of the workshop will include presentations and panel discussions on the following topics: (1) Overview of red blood cells for transfusion; (2) methods for determining the suitability of red blood cells for transfusion; (3) new methods for detecting red blood cell processing and storage legions; and (4) the use of animal models of oxygen delivery as markers of red blood cell safety and efficacy in the acute bleeding and trauma resuscitation settings.

    The second day of the workshop will include presentations and panel discussions on the potential mechanisms of red blood cell transfusion-associated toxicity and a summary of all workshop panel discussions, identified gaps, and future directions.

    Registration: Please visit the following Web site to register for the workshop by September 23, 2016: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/pre-clinical-evaluation-of-red-blood-cells-for-transfusion-registration-25813463765. There is no registration fee for the public workshop. Early registration is recommended because seating is limited. Registration on the day of the public workshop will be provided on a space available basis beginning at 7:30 a.m.

    If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Matthew Morrison (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days in advance.

    Transcripts: Please be advised that as soon as possible after a transcript of this public workshop is available, it will be accessible at: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/NewsEvents/WorkshopsMeetingsConferences/ucm507890.htm.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17008 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1895] Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting; Request for Comments AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing a public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) for fiscal years (FYs) 2018 through 2022. PDUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees and use them for the process for the review of human drug applications. The current legislative authority for PDUFA expires in September 2017. At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue collecting prescription drug user fees in future fiscal years. Following discussions with the regulated industry and periodic consultations with public stakeholders, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) directs FDA to publish the recommendations for the reauthorized program in the Federal Register, hold a meeting at which the public may present its views on such recommendations, and provide for a period of 30 days for the public to provide written comments on such recommendations. FDA will then consider such public views and comments and revise such recommendations as necessary.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held on August 15, 2016, from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. Please register for the meeting by August 8, 2016, at http://pdufareauthorization.eventbrite.com. Submit electronic or written comments to the public docket by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting and workshop will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503, Section A), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Participants must enter through Building 1 and undergo security screening. For more information on parking and security procedures, please refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

    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-N-1895 for “Prescription Drug User Fee Act; Public Meeting.” 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.

    FDA will post the agenda approximately 5 days before the meeting at: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm446608.htm.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Graham Thompson, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1146, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-5003, FAX: 301-847-8443, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Introduction

    FDA is announcing a public meeting to discuss proposed recommendations for the reauthorization of PDUFA, the legislation that authorizes FDA to collect user fees and use them for the process for the review of human drug applications. The current authorization of the program (PDUFA V) expires in September 2017. Without new legislation, FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees for future fiscal years to fund the process for the review of human drug applications. Section 736B(d)(4) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379h-2(d)(4)) requires that after FDA holds negotiations with regulated industry and periodic consultations with stakeholders, we do the following: (1) Present recommendations to the relevant Congressional committees, (2) publish recommendations in the Federal Register, (3) provide a period of 30 days for the public to provide written comments on the recommendations, (4) hold a meeting at which the public may present its views, and (5) after consideration of public views and comments, revise the recommendations as necessary.

    This notice, the 30-day comment period, and the public meeting will satisfy some of these requirements. After the public meeting, we will revise the recommendations as necessary and present our proposed recommendations to the Congressional committees.

    The purpose of the meeting is to hear the public's views on the proposed recommendations for the reauthorized program (PDUFA VI). The following information is provided to help potential meeting participants better understand the history and evolution of the PDUFA program and the current status of the proposed PDUFA VI recommendations.

    II. What is PDUFA and what does it do?

    PDUFA is a law that authorizes FDA to collect fees from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain human drug and biological products. PDUFA was originally enacted in 1992 as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (Pub. L. 102-571) for a period of 5 years. In 1997, Congress passed the FDA Modernization Act (FDAMA, Pub. L. 105-115) that reauthorized the program (PDUFA II) for an additional 5 years. In 2002, Congress extended PDUFA again through FY 2007 (PDUFA III) in the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act (Pub. L. 107-188). In 2007, Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA, Pub. L. 110-85) reauthorized PDUFA through FY 2012 (PDUFA IV). Most recently, PDUFA was reauthorized through FY 2017 (PDUFA V) as Title I of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA, Pub. L. 112-144).

    PDUFA's intent is to provide additional revenues so that FDA can hire more staff, improve systems, and establish a better-managed human drug review process to make important therapies available to patients sooner without compromising review quality or FDA's high standards for safety, efficacy, and quality. As part of FDA's agreement with industry during each reauthorization, the Agency agrees to certain performance goals. These goals apply to the process for the review of new human drug and biological product applications, resubmissions of original applications, and supplements to approved applications. During the first few years of PDUFA I, the additional funding enabled FDA to eliminate backlogs of original applications and supplements. Phased in over the 5 years of PDUFA I, the goals were to review and act on 90 percent of priority new drug applications (NDAs), biologics license applications (BLAs), and efficacy supplements within 6 months of submission of a complete application; to review and act on 90 percent of standard original NDAs, BLAs, and efficacy supplements within 12 months; and to review and act on resubmissions and manufacturing supplements within 6 months. Over the course of PDUFA I, FDA exceeded all of these performance goals and significantly reduced median review times of both priority and standard NDAs and BLAs.

    Under PDUFA II, some of the review performance goals were shortened and new procedural goals were added to improve FDA's interactions with industry sponsors and to help facilitate the drug development process. The procedural goals, for example, articulated timeframes for scheduling sponsor-requested meetings intended to address issues or questions regarding specific drug development programs, as well as timeframes for the timely response to industry-submitted questions on special study protocols. FDA met or exceeded nearly all of the review and procedural goals under PDUFA II. However, concerns grew that overworked review teams often had to return applications as “approvable” because they did not have the resources and sufficient staff time to work with the sponsors to resolve issues so that applications could be approved in the first review cycle.

    A sound financial footing and support for limited postmarket risk management were key themes of PDUFA III. Base user fee resources were significantly increased and a mechanism to account for changes in human drug review workload was adopted. PDUFA III also expanded the scope of user fee activities to include postmarket surveillance of new therapies for up to 3 years after marketing approval. FDA committed to the development of guidance for industry on risk assessment, risk management, and pharmacovigilance as well as guidance to review staff and industry on good review management principles and practices (GRMPs). Initiatives to improve application submissions and Agency-sponsored interactions during the drug development and application review processes were also adopted.

    With PDUFA's reauthorization under FDAAA Title I (PDUFA IV), FDA obtained a significant increase in base fee funding and committed to full implementation of GRMPs, which includes providing a planned review timeline for premarket review, development of new guidance for industry on innovative clinical trials, modernization of postmarket safety, and elimination of the 3-year limitation on fee support for postmarket surveillance. Additional provisions in FDAAA (Titles IV, V, and IX) gave FDA additional statutory authority that increased the pre- and postmarket review process requirements, added new deadlines, and effectively increased review workload. Specifically, the new provisions expanded FDA's drug safety authorities such as the authority to require risk evaluation mitigation strategies, order safety labeling changes, and require postmarket studies.

    With the current authorization of PDUFA under Title I of FDASIA, FDA implemented a new review program (“the Program”) to promote greater transparency and increase communication between the FDA review team and the applicant on the most innovative products reviewed by the Agency. The Program applies to all new molecular entity (NME) NDAs and original BLAs received by the Agency from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2017. The Program adds new opportunities for communication between the FDA review team and the applicant during review of a marketing application, including mid-cycle communications and late-cycle meetings, while adding 60 days to the review clock to provide for this increased interaction and to address review issues for these complex applications. PDUFA V also required two assessments of the impact of the Program. The first of these, the interim assessment, is available on FDA's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM436448.pdf.

    In addition to continued commitment to a significant set of review, processing, and procedural goals, PDUFA V also included commitments related to enhancing regulatory science and expediting drug development, enhancing benefit-risk assessment in regulatory decisionmaking, modernizing the FDA drug safety system, and improving the efficiency of human drug application review by requiring electronic submissions and standardization of electronic drug application data. The PDUFA V Commitment Letter requires that FDA report on the progress in satisfying these commitments in the annual PDUFA performance report. The annual performance reports can be found at http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/UserFeeReports/PerformanceReports/ucm2007449.htm. More information about FDA's implementation of PDUFA V can also be found at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm272170.htm.

    III. Proposed PDUFA VI Recommendations

    In preparing the proposed recommendations to Congress for PDUFA reauthorization, FDA conducted discussions with the regulated industry and consulted with stakeholders, as required by the law. We began the PDUFA reauthorization process by publishing a notice in the Federal Register requesting public input on the reauthorization and announcing a public meeting that was held on July 15, 2015. The meeting included presentations by FDA and a series of panels with representatives of different stakeholder groups, including patient advocates, consumer groups, regulated industry, health professionals, and academic researchers. The materials from the meeting, including a transcript and Webcast recording, can be found at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm446608.htm.

    Following the July 2015 public meeting, FDA conducted negotiations with the regulated industry and held monthly consultations with stakeholders from September 2015 through February 2016. As directed by Congress, FDA posted minutes of these meetings on its Web site at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm446608.htm.

    The proposed enhancements for PDUFA VI address many of the top priorities identified by public stakeholders, the regulated industry, and FDA. While some of the proposed enhancements are new, many either build on successful enhancements or refine elements from the existing program. The enhancements are proposed in the following areas: Premarket review, regulatory decision tools, postmarketing evaluation, electronic submissions and data standards, and administrative areas (hiring and financial management). The full text of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter can be found here at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm446608.htm. Each significant new or modified enhancement is described briefly below:

    A. Program for Enhanced Review Transparency and Communication for NME NDAs and Original BLAs

    The program for enhanced review transparency and communication for NME NDAs and original BLAs (the Program), first established in PDUFA V, provides for additional communication between FDA review teams and the applicants of NME NDAs or original BLAs in the form of pre-submission meetings, mid-cycle communications, and late-cycle meetings, while also adding 60 days to the review timeframe to accommodate this additional interaction. An interim assessment of the Program suggested that the Program has created conditions that enhance the ability of applicants and FDA reviewers to work toward application approval in the first cycle (see http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm327030.htm).

    For PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to maintain the Program with minor modifications to reduce administrative burden and increase flexibility to the benefit of FDA review teams and applicants. FDA proposes to provide an option for the FDA review team and the applicant to agree on a formal communication plan to govern interactions during the application review. The formal communication plan may or may not include Program elements (e.g. mid-cycle communication, late-cycle meeting) and may include other interactions that are not part of the Program (e.g. application orientation meetings). Additional flexibility is also provided for scheduling of advisory committee (AC) meetings and an option for an informal teleconference following the AC meeting is provided as well for purposes of discussing the committee's input. Review activities involving FDA's controlled substance scheduling recommendations are also to be discussed at Program meetings, if relevant. Applications that receive a refuse-to-file action and are subsequently filed over protest are now subject to the Program review performance goals, but do not benefit from the Program interactions; additionally any subsequent resubmissions for applications filed over protest are not subject to any review performance goals.

    This enhancement is described in section I.B. of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    B. Goal Extensions for Missing Manufacturing Facilities

    Inspections late in the review process of inadequately identified manufacturing facilities can adversely impact FDA's ability to complete application review within the performance goal timeframes. FDA proposes to extend the goal date for an original application or an efficacy supplement when it identifies a need to inspect a facility that was not included in a comprehensive and readily located list of manufacturing facilities. This enhancement is described in section I.A.5.b of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    C. Meeting Management

    The number of requests for formal meetings between sponsors and the FDA is rapidly increasing; in FY 2015 alone, FDA received over 3,000 requests for formal PDUFA meetings with sponsors. The background packages for these meetings are increasingly complex which creates challenges for FDA to review and deliberate internally before providing advice to sponsors on complex drug development questions within current performance goal timeframes. To help address this issue, FDA proposes to create a new Type B End of Phase (EOP) meeting type for certain EOP 1 and EOP 2/pre-phase 3 meetings. The performance goal timeframes for responses to meeting requests, submission of meeting background packages, and FDA's issuance of preliminary responses for the Type B (EOP) meetings and the Type C meetings would be modified to provide adequate time for FDA review and response. Sponsors would receive preliminary responses to their questions no later than five calendar days before the scheduled meeting, providing the sponsor with time to evaluate whether an in-person meeting would still be necessary. Sponsors would also be able to request a Written Response Only for any meeting type. The language for meeting management is described in section I.H of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    D. Enhancing Regulatory Science and Expediting Drug Development

    The enhancements under this section focus on enhancing regulatory science and expediting drug development. Regulatory science, in this context, is the science of developing and applying new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, effectiveness, quality, and performance of FDA-regulated drug products. The details of these enhancements can be found in section I.I of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    1. FDA-Sponsor Communication During Drug Development

    FDA recognizes that timely interactive communication with sponsors can help foster efficient and effective drug development. Under commitments in PDUFA V, FDA focused on improving communication between FDA and sponsors during drug development by establishing a dedicated drug development communications and training staff in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and augmenting existing communications staff in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Under PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to build on this enhancement by conducting a third-party evaluation of current communication practices between FDA and sponsors during drug development, to convene a public workshop to discuss results of this evaluation, and then to update the guidance on “Best Practices for Communication Between IND Sponsors and FDA During Drug Development,” if necessary (available here: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm475586.pdf).

    2. Breakthrough Therapies

    FDASIA established a new designation, breakthrough therapy, for drugs intended to treat a serious or life threatening disease or condition where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints. Utilization of the breakthrough therapy program has been higher than anticipated with over 300 requests for designation received, and over 100 granted (as of March 2016). Additional resources will enable the FDA to continue to work closely with sponsors throughout the development and review of breakthrough therapies. Both the FDA and the regulated industry are committed to ensuring the expedited development and review of innovative therapies for serious or life-threatening diseases by investing additional resources in the breakthrough therapy program during PDUFA VI.

    3. Early Consultation on New Surrogate Endpoints

    FDA recognizes that early consultation can be important to an efficient development program when a sponsor intends to use a biomarker as a new surrogate endpoint that has never been used as the primary basis for product approval in the proposed context of use. Early consultation enables the FDA review team to consult with senior management to evaluate the sponsor's proposal before providing advice to the sponsor on a critical aspect of their development program. FDA proposes that these requests for early consultation in PDUFA VI be considered as Type C meeting requests. The purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the feasibility of the surrogate as a primary endpoint, any knowledge gaps, and how these gaps should be addressed before the surrogate endpoint could be used as the primary basis for approval. To qualify for this consultation, the meeting background package will be due at the time of the meeting request and must include preliminary human data indicating the impact of the drug on the biomarker.

    4. Rare Disease Drug Development

    In PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to build on the success of the Rare Disease Program (RDP) by continuing to advance and facilitate the development and timely approval of drugs and biologics for rare diseases, including diseases in children. In addition to providing training for review staff related to development and review of drugs for rare diseases and engaging in outreach to external stakeholders, the RDP staff in CDER will be integrated into review teams for rare disease development programs and application review, while the RDP Staff in CBER will ensure that CBER's review offices consider flexible and feasible approaches in review. The RDP will also continue to foster collaborations in the development of tools to support rare disease drug development and facilitate interactions between stakeholders to increase awareness of FDA regulatory programs and engagement of patients in FDA's regulatory decisionmaking.

    5. Advancing Development of Drug-Device and Biologic-Device Combination Products Regulated by CBER and CDER

    Under PDUFA VI FDA will pursue the opportunity to improve inter-center and intra-center combination review coordination and transparency for PDUFA-led products. FDA proposes to enhance staff capacity and capability across the relevant medical product centers and the Office of Combination Products to more efficiently, effectively, and consistently review drug and device-led combination products. FDA also proposes to streamline the process for combination product review and to improve the Agency's ability to track drug and device-led combination product review workload, including a third party assessment of current practices for combination drug product review.

    Under this enhancement FDA will also establish new performance goals and submission procedures for the review of human factors protocols for PDUFA combination products. These goals will be to provide the sponsor with written comments on these protocols within 60 days of receipt. The goals to provide written comments within 60 days will begin at the 50 percent level in FY 2019, and increase to 90 percent by FY 2021.

    In addition, FDA proposes to publish draft guidance or update previously published guidance on bridging studies and patient-oriented labeling.

    6. Enhancing Use of Real World Evidence for Use in Regulatory Decisionmaking

    FDA recognizes the potential value of utilizing “real-world” evidence in evaluating not only the safety of medications but also their effectiveness. To better understand how real-world evidence can be generated and used appropriately in product evaluation, FDA proposes to conduct one or more public workshops, as well as other appropriate activities (e.g. pilot studies or methodology development projects). Considering the available input, FDA will then publish draft guidance on how real-world evidence can contribute to the assessment of safety and effectiveness in regulatory submissions.

    7. Enhancing Regulatory Decision Tools to Support Drug Development and Review

    The enhancements under this section focus on enhancing regulatory decision tools to support drug development and review. The details of these enhancements can be found in section I.J of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    8. Enhancing the Incorporation of the Patient's Voice in Drug Development and Decisionmaking

    In PDUFA V, FDA conducted a series of Patient-Focused Drug Development (PFDD) meetings with the aim to more systematically gather patients' perspectives on their condition and available therapies to treat their condition. Under PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to build on these efforts to bridge from PFDD meetings to fit-for-purpose tools to collect meaningful patient input that can be incorporated into regulatory review. FDA proposes to develop a series of guidance documents to advance the collection of meaningful patient input. The publication of each draft guidance will be preceded by a public workshop conducted by FDA to gather stakeholder input relevant to the topics that will be the focus of that guidance. FDA also proposes to publish a repository of publicly available tools on FDA's Web site as a resource for stakeholders, to update internal policies and procedures, as appropriate, to incorporate an increased focus on patient input, and to enhance staff capacity to facilitate development and use of patient-focused methods to inform drug development and regulatory decisions.

    9. Enhancing Benefit-Risk Assessment in Regulatory Decisionmaking

    Ensuring the safety, effectiveness, and quality of drug products is an increasingly complicated regulatory task, requiring FDA's expert consideration of a multitude of complex factors. During PDUFA V, FDA implemented an enhanced structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in regulatory decisionmaking for drug products. In PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to publish an update to its benefit-risk framework implementation plan, to conduct an evaluation of the implementation of the benefit-risk framework, to develop guidance on benefit-risk assessments for new drugs and biologics, and to revise relevant policies and procedures to include new approaches that incorporate the benefit-risk framework into the human drug review program.

    10. Advancing Model-Informed Drug Development

    The development and application of exposure-based, biological, and statistical models derived from preclinical and clinical data sources can be used to inform regulatory decision-making, for example, in determining patient selection in clinical trials, individualized dosing for specific populations, or the need for post-marketing studies. To facilitate the development and application of these approaches during PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to convene a series of workshops to identify best practices for model-informed drug development (MIDD), to conduct a pilot program, to develop guidance on MIDD, and to update policies and procedures, as appropriate, to incorporate guidelines for the evaluation of MIDD approaches.

    11. Enhancing Capacity To Review Complex Innovative Designs

    To facilitate the advancement and use of complex adaptive, Bayesian, and other novel clinical trial designs during PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to convene a public workshop on complex innovative trial designs, publish guidance on complex innovative trial designs, to conduct a pilot program, and to update policies and procedures as appropriate to incorporate guidelines on evaluating complex innovative trial designs.

    12. Enhancing Capacity To Support Analysis Data Standards for Product Development and Review

    As regulatory submissions are increasingly submitted in fully standard electronic format, it becomes increasingly important to ensure that analysis datasets are structured according to the standards to facilitate acceptance and analysis of the datasets. To support the enhancement of analysis data standards for product development and review in PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to enhance staff capacity to develop and update relevant standards, to support the efficient submission and review of analysis datasets, to convene a public workshop to advance the development and application of analysis data standards, to collaborate with external stakeholders on development of data standards, and to update, as appropriate, internal policies and procedures associated with the submission and utilization of standardized analysis datasets.

    13. Enhancing Drug Development Tools Qualification Pathway for Biomarkers

    The Biomarker Qualification Program was established to support FDA's work with external partners to develop biomarkers that aid in the drug development process. To facilitate the enhancement of the drug development tools qualification pathway for biomarkers in PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to convene a public meeting to discuss taxonomy and a framework with standards for biomarkers used in drug development, to develop guidance on biomarker taxonomy, contexts of uses, and general evidentiary standards, and to maintain a public Web site to communicate a list of biomarker qualification submissions in the qualification process.

    E. Enhancement and Modernization of the FDA Drug Safety System

    The drug safety enhancements in PDUFA VI focus on expansion of the Sentinel System and enhancements to support the review, oversight, tracking, and communication of postmarketing drug safety issues. The enhancements are described in I.K of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    1. Advancing Postmarketing Drug Safety Evaluation Through Expansion of the Sentinel System and Integration into FDA Pharmacovigilance Activities

    FDA's Sentinel Initiative is a long-term program designed to build and implement a national electronic system for monitoring the safety of FDA-approved medical products. FDA recently transitioned from the Mini-Sentinel pilot to the Sentinel System, but full utilization of the Sentinel System remains a work in progress. Continued development and integration of the Sentinel System is needed to realize the system's full value to the postmarketing safety review process. To help realize the full value of the Sentinel System during PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to continue to expand the systems' data sources and core capabilities, to systematically integrate Sentinel into postmarketing review activities, to enhance Sentinel communication practices with sponsors and the public, and to conduct an analysis of the impact of Sentinel expansion and integration for regulatory purposes.

    2. Timely and Effective Evaluation and Communication of Postmarketing Safety Findings Related to New Drugs

    During PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to continue to support the review, oversight, tracking, and communication of postmarketing drug safety issues. FDA proposes to make improvements to its current processes and information technology systems to enhance the management and oversight of postmarketing drug safety issues, to update policies and procedures to provide timely notification to a sponsor, to the extent practicable, when a serious safety signal is identified, and to conduct an assessment of how its data systems and processes support review, oversight, and communication of postmarketing drug safety issues.

    F. Electronic Submissions and Data Standards Activities

    FDA is committed to achieving the long-term goal of improving the predictability and consistency of the electronic submission process and enhancing transparency and accountability of FDA information technology related activities. During PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to publish submission documentation, metrics, submission status, and system and process changes, to hold quarterly meetings to share performance updates between FDA and the regulated industry, to hold annual public meetings to gather stakeholder input to inform the FDA information technology strategic plan, and to collaborate with standards development organizations and stakeholders to ensure the long-term sustainability of supported data standards. These enhancements are described in section IV of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    G. Improving FDA Hiring and Retention of Review Staff

    To speed and improve development of safe and effective new therapies for patients requires that FDA hire and retain sufficient numbers and types of technical and scientific experts to efficiently conduct reviews of human drug applications. In order to strengthen this core function during PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to commit to completing implementation of an full time equivalent staff (FTE)-based position management system capability, to complete implementation of an online position classification system, to complete implementation of corporate recruiting practices, to augment hiring capacity with expert contractor support, to complete establishment of a dedicated function to ensure needed scientific staffing for the human drug review program, to establish clear goals for human drug review program hiring, and to conduct a comprehensive and continuous assessment of hiring and retention performance. These enhancements are described in section III of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    H. Enhancing Management of User Fee Resources

    FDA is committed to enhancing management of PDUFA resources and ensuring PDUFA user fee resources are administered, allocated, and reported in an efficient and transparent manner. In PDUFA VI, FDA proposes to establish a resource capacity planning function to improve its ability to analyze current resource needs and project future resource needs, to modernize its time reporting approach, to conduct an evaluation of PDUFA program resource management, to publish a 5-year PDUFA financial plan with annual updates, and to convene an annual public meeting, beginning in FY 2019, to discuss the financial plan and progress towards the financial management enhancements. These enhancements are described in section II of the proposed PDUFA VI commitment letter.

    I. Enhancements to Fee Structure and Related Mechanisms for Increased Predictability, Stability, and Efficiency

    The current overall PDUFA fee structure and the fee setting process were established in 1993 for PDUFA I and have generally remained in place through four reauthorizations of PDUFA. Over the years, FDA and industry agreed that some elements of the fee structure and the fee setting process could be updated to enhance the predictability and stability of fee amounts and revenues in a manner to improve FDA's ability to engage in long-term financial planning. Additionally, some elements of the fee structure reduce the efficiency of administrative work without a corresponding benefit to the public or to the regulated industry. To address these issues, FDA proposes to shift a greater proportion of the target revenue allocation to more predictable fee-paying types (20 percent to applications; 80 percent to Program fees), to discontinue the establishment and supplement fees, to rename the product fee as the PDUFA Program fee, to modify the Program fee billing date to minimize the need for multiple billing cycles, to add a limitation that a sponsor shall not be assessed more than five PDUFA Program fees for a fiscal year for products identified in each distinct approved human drug application held by that sponsor, and to discontinue the Fees-Exceed-the-Costs waiver. FDA also proposes during PDUFA VI to replace the workload adjuster with a robust methodology for adjusting fees based on the capacity needs of the program, and to replace the fifth year offset provision and final year adjustment provisions with an annual operating reserve adjustment to provide for adequate carryover resources.

    J. Impact of PDUFA VI Enhancements on User Fee Revenue

    To implement the proposed enhancements for PDUFA VI, funding for a cumulative total of 230 FTE staff is proposed to be phased in over the course of PDUFA VI. The new funding will be phased in as follows:

    • $20,077,793 for FY 2018 • $21,317,472 for FY 2019 • $16,953,329 for FY 2020 • $5,426,896 for FY 2021 • $2,769,609 for FY 2022

    In addition, $8.73 million will be added in FY 2018 to provide for other additional direct costs associated with the PDUFA VI enhancements. This amount will be included for FYs 2019 through 2022 after being adjusted for inflation.

    IV. Purpose and Scope of the Meeting

    If you wish to attend this meeting, visit http://pdufareauthorization.eventbrite.com. Please register by August 8, 2016. If you are unable to attend the meeting in person, you can register to view a live Webcast of the meeting. You will be asked to indicate in your registration if you plan to attend in person or via the Webcast. Seating will be limited, so early registration is recommended. Registration is free and will be on a first-come, first-served basis. However, FDA may limit the number of participants from each organization based on space limitations. Registrants will receive confirmation once they have been accepted. Onsite registration on the day of the meeting will be based on space availability. If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact Graham Thompson (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 7 days before the meeting.

    The meeting will include a presentation by FDA and a series of invited panels representing different stakeholder groups identified in the statute (such as patient advocacy groups, consumer advocacy groups, health professionals, and regulated industry). We will also provide an opportunity for other organizations and individuals to make presentations at the meeting or to submit written comments to the docket before the meeting.

    FDA will also hold an open public comment period at the meeting to give the public an opportunity to present their comments. Registration for open public comment will occur at the registration desk on the day of the meeting and workshop on a first-come, first-served basis.

    Transcripts: As soon as a transcript is available, FDA will post it at http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm446608.htm.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16916 Filed 7-15-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0403] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Protection of Human Subjects: Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the collection of information related to certain regulations that provide protection for human subjects of clinical investigations conducted in support of applications or submissions to FDA for FDA-regulated products. The regulations provide protection of the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects involved in research activities within FDA's jurisdiction.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0403 for “Protection of Human Subjects; Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20851, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of information set forth in this document.

    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

    Protection of Human Subjects; Informed Consent; Institutional Review Boards—21 CFR Parts 50 and 56—OMB Control Number 0910-0755—Extension

    Part 50 (21 CFR part 50) applies to all clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) and 520(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i) and 360j(g), respectively), as well as clinical investigations that support applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by FDA, including foods and dietary supplements that bear a nutrient content claim or a health claim, infant formulas, food and color additives, drugs for human use, medical devices for human use, biological products for human use, and electronic products. Compliance with part 50 is intended to protect the rights and safety of subjects involved in investigations filed with FDA under sections 403, 406, 409, 412, 413, 502, 503, 505, 510, 513-516, 518-520, 721, and 801 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 343, 346, 348, 350a, 350b, 352, 353, 355, 360, 360c-360f, 360h-360j, 379e, and 381, respectively) and sections 351 and 354-360F of the Public Health Service Act.

    With few exceptions, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in FDA-regulated research unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative (see § 50.20 (21 CFR 50.20)). In seeking informed consent, each subject must be provided with certain elements of informed consent. Those elements are listed in § 50.25. Informed consent shall be documented in writing as described in § 50.27.

    An institutional review board (IRB) may approve emergency research without requiring the informed consent of all research subjects provided the IRB finds and documents that certain criteria are met as required in § 50.24. We estimate that about eight times per year an IRB is requested to review emergency research under § 50.24. We estimate, of the eight yearly requests for IRB review under § 50.24, a particular IRB will take about an hour during each of three separate fully convened IRB meetings to review the request under § 50.24 (one meeting occurring after community consultation). The total annual reporting burden for IRB review of emergency research under § 50.24 is estimated at 24 hours (see table 1).

    The information requested in the regulations for exception from the general requirements for informed consent for medical devices (21 CFR 812.47), and the information requested in the regulations for exception from the general requirements of informed consent in § 50.23, paragraphs (a) through (c), and (e), is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0586. The information requested in the investigational new drug (IND) regulations concerning exception from informed consent for emergency research under § 50.24 is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. In addition, the information requested in the regulations for IND safety reporting requirements for human drug and biological products and safety reporting requirements for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies in humans (21 CFR 320.31(d), and 21 CFR 312.32(c)(1)(ii) and (iv)) is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0672.

    Some clinical investigations involving children, although otherwise not approvable, may present an opportunity to understand, prevent, or alleviate a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children (see § 50.54). Certain clinical investigations involving children may proceed if the IRB finds and documents that the clinical investigation presents a reasonable opportunity to further the understanding, prevention, or alleviation of a serious problem affecting the health or welfare of children and when the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, after consultation with a panel of experts in pertinent disciplines and following opportunity for public review and comment, makes a determination that certain conditions are met (see § 50.54(b)).

    The information requested for clinical investigations in children of FDA-regulated products is covered by the collections of information in the IND regulations (part 312 (21 CFR part 312)), the investigational device exemption (IDE) regulations (part 812 (21 CFR part 812)), the IRB regulations (§ 56.115 (21 CFR 56.115)), the food additive petition and nutrient content claim petition regulations (21 CFR 101.69 and 101.70), and the infant formula regulations (parts 106 and 107 (21 CFR parts 106 and 107)), all of which are approved by OMB. Specifically, the information collected under the IND regulations is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0014. The information collected under the IDE regulations is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The information collected under the IRB regulations is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0130. The information collected in food additive and nutrient content claim petitions is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0381 (general requirements) and 0910-0016 (FDA Form 3503). The information collected under the infant formula regulations is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0256 (general requirements) and 0910-0188 (infant formula recalls).

    Part 56 (21 CFR part 56) contains the general standards for the composition, operation, and responsibility of an IRB that reviews clinical investigations regulated by FDA under sections 505(i) and 520(g) of the FD&C Act, as well as clinical investigations that support applications for research or marketing permits for products regulated by FDA, including foods and dietary supplements that bear a nutrient content claim or a health claim, infant formulas, food and color additives, drugs for human use, medical devices for human use, biological products for human use, and electronic products. Compliance with part 56 is intended to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects involved in such investigations.

    The information collected under the IRB regulations “Protection of Human Subjects—Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements for Institutional Review Boards (part 56),” including the information collection activities in the provisions in § 56.108(a)(1) and (b), is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0130. The information collected under the regulations for the registration of IRBs in § 56.106 is currently approved under OMB control number 0990-0279. The information collected for IRB review and approval for the IDE regulations (part 812) is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0078. The information collected for premarket approval of medical devices (part 814 (21 CFR part 814)) is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0231. The information collected under the regulations for IRB requirements for humanitarian use devices (part 814, subpart H) is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0332. The information collected under the regulations for IRB review and approval of INDs (part 312) is currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0014.

    This collection of information is limited to certain provisions in part 50, subpart B (Informed Consent of Human Subjects), and part 56 (Institutional Review Boards), currently approved under OMB control number 0910-0755.

    This proposed extension applies to the following collections of information in part 50: §§ 50.24 (Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research.), 50.25 (Elements of informed consent.), and 50.27 (Documentation of informed consent.).

    In part 56, this proposed extension applies to the following collections of information: § 56.109(d) (written statement about research when documentation of informed consent is waived); § 56.109(e) (IRB written notification to approve or disapprove research); § 56.109(f) (continuing review of research); § 56.109(g) (IRB written statements to the sponsor about required public disclosures related to emergency research under § 50.24); § 56.113 (Suspension or termination of IRB approval of research.); § 56.120(a) (IRB response to lesser administrative actions for noncompliance); and, § 56.123 (Reinstatement of an IRB or an institution.).

    In § 56.109(d), if an IRB has waived documentation of consent for research that (1) presents no more than minimal risk of harm to subjects and (2) involves no procedures for which consent is normally required outside of the research context, the IRB may nevertheless require the investigator to provide a written statement about the research to the subjects. We estimate that each IRB will review about two minimal risk FDA-regulated studies each year. Because the studies are minimal risk, the review can be fairly straightforward, and the written statement for the subjects would be brief. We estimate that IRB review of each written statement could be completed in less than 30 minutes (0.5 hours).

    In § 56.109(f), the amount of time an IRB spends on the continuing review of a particular study will vary depending on the nature and complexity of the research, the amount and type of new information presented to the IRB, and whether the investigator is seeking approval of substantive changes to the research protocol or informed consent document. For many studies, continuing review can be fairly straightforward, and the IRB should be able to complete its deliberations and approve the research within a brief period of time.

    In § 56.109(g), an IRB is required to provide the sponsor of a study involving an exception from informed consent for emergency research under § 50.24 with a written statement of information that has been publicly disclosed to the communities in which the investigation will be conducted and from which the subjects will be drawn. Public disclosure prior to initiation of the investigation would include the plans for the investigation and its risks and expected benefits. There must also be public disclosure of sufficient information following completion of the clinical investigation to apprise the community and researchers of the study, including the demographic characteristics of the research population, and its results. (See § 50.24(a)(7)(ii) and (iii).) The purpose of the IRB's written statements is to make the sponsor aware that public disclosure has occurred, so that the sponsor can provide copies of the information that has been disclosed to FDA, as required by 21 CFR 312.54(a) and 812.47(a).

    We estimate that about eight requests to review emergency research under § 50.24 are submitted each year, and the IRBs that review those studies would prepare two public disclosure reports: One prior to initiation of the research and one following the study's completion. We estimate that it will take an IRB approximately 1 hour to prepare a written statement to the study sponsor describing each public disclosure, for a total of 2 hours per study. The total annual third party disclosure burden for IRBs to fulfill this requirement related to emergency research under § 50.24 is estimated at 16 hours (see table 2).

    When an IRB or institution violates the regulations, FDA issues to the IRB or institution a noncompliance letter (see § 56.120(a)). The IRB or institution must respond to the noncompliance letter describing the corrective actions that will be taken by the IRB or institution. FDA estimates about seven IRBs or institutions will be issued a noncompliance letter annually. We estimate that the IRB's or institution's response will take about 10 hours to prepare, with an estimated total annual burden of 70 hours.

    In 2016, FDA disqualified one IRB under § 56.121. To date, no IRB or institution has been reinstated or applied for reinstatement under § 56.123. For this reason, we estimate the annual reporting burden for one respondent only. We estimate a 5-hour burden per response, with an estimated total annual burden of 5 hours.

    The regulatory provisions in parts 50 and 56 currently approved under this collection of information, OMB control number 0910-0755, and for which this extension is requested, are shown in table 1.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    56.109(d) Written statement about minimal risk research when documentation of informed consent is waived 2,520 2 5,040 0.5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 2,520
    56.109(e) IRB written notification to approve or disapprove research; 56.109(f) Continuing review; 50.25 Elements of informed consent; and 50.27 Documentation of informed consent 2,520 40 100,800 1 100,800 50.24 Exception from informed consent requirements for emergency research 8 3 24 1 24 56.113 Suspension or termination of IRB approval of research 2,520 1 2,520 0.5
  • (30 minutes)
  • 1,260
    56.120(a) IRB response to lesser administrative actions for noncompliance 7 1 7 10 70 56.123 Reinstatement of an IRB or an institution 1 1 1 5 5 Total 104,679 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • disclosures
  • Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours
    56.109(g) IRB written statement about public disclosures to sponsor of emergency research under 50.24 8 2 16 1 16 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17016 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0315] E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report and E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report—Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidances for Industry; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of guidances for industry entitled “E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation” (E2C(R2) guidance) and “E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report—Questions and Answers” (E2C(R2) Q&A guidance). These guidances were prepared under the auspices of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), formerly the International Conference on Harmonisation. The E2C(R2) draft guidance, issued April 11, 2012, updated and combined two ICH guidances, “E2C Clinical Safety Data Management: Periodic Safety Update Reports for Marketed Drugs” (E2C guidance) and “Addendum to E2C Clinical Safety Data Management: Periodic Safety Update Reports for Marketed Drugs” (addendum to the E2C guidance). The E2C(R2) guidance is intended to describe the format, content, and timing of a Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report (PBRER) for an approved drug or biologic, and it finalizes the draft guidance. The E2C(R2) Q&A guidance is a supplementary guidance that is intended to clarify key issues in the E2C(R2) guidance.

    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-2012-D-0315 for “E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report and E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report—Questions and Answers; International Council for Harmonisation; Guidances for Industry; Availability.” 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 these guidances to the 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, or the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. The guidances may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or 240-402-8010. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance documents.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Regarding the guidance: Maureen Melvin, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5366; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.

    Regarding the ICH: Amanda Roache, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4548.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies.

    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer representatives and others. ICH is concerned with harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of pharmaceutical products for human use among regulators around the world. The six founding members of the ICH are the European Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; CDER and CBER, FDA; and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The Standing Members of the ICH Association include Health Canada and Swissmedic. Any party eligible as a Member in accordance with the ICH Articles of Association can apply for membership in writing to the ICH Secretariat. The ICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, operates as an international nonprofit organization and is funded by the Members of the ICH Association.

    The ICH Assembly is the overarching body of the Association and includes representatives from each of the ICH members and observers.

    In the Federal Register of April 11, 2012 (77 FR 21782), FDA published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance entitled “E2C(R2) Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report.” The draft E2C(R2) guidance updated and combined the E2C guidance and the addendum to the E2C guidance. The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by May 11, 2012.

    After consideration of the comments received and revisions to the guidance, a final draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and endorsed by the regulatory agencies in November 2012.

    The E2C(R2) guidance provides guidance on the format, content, and timing of a PBRER for an approved drug or biologic, and it finalizes the draft guidance. The PBRER will serve as a common standard for periodic reporting on approved drugs or biologics among the ICH regions. The harmonized PBRER is intended to promote a consistent approach to periodic postmarket safety reporting among the ICH regions and to enhance efficiency by reducing the number of reports generated for submission to the regulatory authorities.

    Since the E2C(R2) draft guidance was made available in 2012, ICH has identified questions linked to the interpretation and application of the E2C(R2) guidance. The E2C(R2) Q&A guidance is intended to clarify questions relating to implementation of the E2C(R2) guidance.

    These guidances are being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidances represent the current thinking of FDA on the E2C(R2) PBRER. They do not establish any rights for any person and are not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    II. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These guidances refer to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collection of information in the “Guidance on Reporting in Accordance with International Council for Harmonisation—Periodic Benefit-Risk Evaluation Report (E2C(R2)) and Providing Waiver-Related Materials” has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0771. The guidances also reference other collections of information. The collection of information in 21 CFR 314.80 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0230, and the collection of information in 21 CFR 600.80 has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0308.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17009 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0873] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug and Biological Products AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0537. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown Street, North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Bar Code Label Requirement for Human Drug Products and Blood; OMB Control No. 0910-0537—Extension

    In the Federal Register of February 26, 2004 (69 FR 9120), FDA issued a final rule that requires human drug product and biological product labels to have bar codes. Specifically, the rule requires bar codes on most human prescription drug products and on over-the-counter (OTC) drug products that are dispensed under an order and commonly used in health care facilities. The rule also requires machine-readable information on blood and blood components. For human prescription drug products and OTC drug products that are dispensed under an order and commonly used in health care facilities, the bar code must contain the NDC number for the product. For blood and blood components, the rule specifies the minimum contents of the label in a format that is machine-readable and approved for use by the Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. We believe the rule helps to reduce the number of medication errors in hospitals and other health care settings by allowing health care professionals to use bar code scanning equipment to verify that the right drug (in the right dose and right route of administration) is being given to the right patient at the right time.

    While most of the information collection burdens created by the final rule have now been incorporated into currently approved information collections supporting the applicable regulations, respondents to the collection may continue to seek an exemption from the bar code label requirement under § 201.25(d) (21 CFR 201.25(d)). Section 201.25(d) requires submission of a written request for an exemption and describes the information that must be included in such a request. Based on the number of exemption requests we have received previously, we estimate that approximately 2 exemption requests will be submitted annually and that each exemption request will require 24 hours to complete. This results in an annual reporting burden of 48 hours, as reflected below in Table 1.

    In the Federal Register of December 15, 2015 (80 FR 77637) FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours
    201.25(d) 2 1 2 24 48 1 There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17044 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training Workshop; Correction AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the Federal Register on June 16, 2016 (81 FR 39271). The document announced a “Pediatric Clinical Investigator Training” workshop and contained an incorrect Web link for registration and an incorrect Web link for more information on the workshop. This document corrects those errors.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terrie L. Crescenzi, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected] or Betsy Sanford, Office of Pediatric Therapeutics, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Federal Register of Thursday, June 16, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-14230, on page 39272, the following corrections are made:

    1. On page 39272, in the first column, in the first paragraph under the “Workshop Attendance and Participation” heading, the first sentence is corrected to read “If you wish to attend this workshop, visit https://www.eventbrite.com/e/pediatric-clinical-investigator-training-workshop-tickets-19708166657.

    2. On page 39272, in the first column, in the second paragraph under the “Workshop Attendance and Participation” heading, the first sentence is corrected to read “Registration information, the agenda, and additional background materials can be found at http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/MeetingsConferencesWorkshops/ucm506658.htm.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17015 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request—Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students Program AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects (Section 3506(c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments to [email protected] or mail the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, Room 10-29, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email [email protected] or call the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.

    Information Collection Request Title: Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students (SDS) Program.

    OMB No. 0915-0149—Revision.

    Abstract: The program specific form for the SDS program has been revised to reflect a change in the order of the fields only. Fields K (Public or Non Profit Institution) and H (Point of Contact) have been moved to fields A and B respectively. Now Field A is Public or Non Profit Institution and Field B is Point of Contact. All other fields remained in sequence but were renamed with the appropriate letter order.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: The purpose of the SDS Program is to provide funds to eligible schools to provide scholarships to full-time, financially needy students from disadvantaged backgrounds enrolled in health professions programs. To qualify for participation in the SDS program, a school must be carrying out a program for recruiting and retaining students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including students who are members of racial and ethnic minority groups (section 737(d)(1)(B) of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act). A school must meet the eligibility criteria to demonstrate that the program has achieved success based on the number and/or percentage of disadvantaged students who graduate from the school. In awarding SDS funds to eligible schools, funding points must be given to schools based on the proportion of graduating students going into primary care, the proportion of underrepresented minority students, and the proportion of graduates working in medically underserved communities (section 737(c) of the PHS Act).

    Likely Respondents: The respondents are institutions that will be applying to the SDS program every four years.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this Information Collection Request are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hour
  • burden
  • Application 323 1 323 13 4,199 Total 323 1 323 13 4,199

    HRSA specifically requests comments on (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.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17031 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Public Comment Request; Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.

    DATES:

    Comments on this ICR should be received no later than August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, including the ICR title, to the desk officer for HRSA, either by email to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer at [email protected] or call (301) 443-1984.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Information Collection Request Title: Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership Program Performance Improvement Measurement System.

    OMB No. 0915-xxxx-New.

    Abstract: The Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership (Care Coordination) Program is authorized under section 330A(f) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254(c)(f)), as amended, to “support the development of formal, mature rural health networks that focus on care coordination activities for the following chronic conditions: diabetes, congestive heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.” This authority permits the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP) to support grants for eligible entities to promote, through planning and implementation, the development of integrated health care networks that have combined the functions of the entities participating in the networks to: (i) Achieve efficiencies; (ii) expand access to, coordinate, and improve the quality of essential health care services; and (iii) strengthen the rural health care system as a whole.

    Need and Proposed Use of the Information: For this program, performance measures were drafted to provide data to the program and to enable HRSA to provide aggregate program data required by Congress under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993. These measures cover the principal topic areas of interest to FORHP, including: (a) Access to care; (b) population demographics; (c) staffing; (d) sustainability; (e) health information technology; (f) quality improvement; (g) care coordination; and (h) clinical measures. Several measures will be used for the Outreach Program. All measures will speak to FORHP's progress toward meeting the goals.

    Likely Respondents: The respondents would be recipients of the Care Coordination program funding.

    Burden Statement: Burden in this context means the time expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide the information requested. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information; to search data sources; to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. The total annual burden hours estimated for this ICR are summarized in the table below.

    Total Estimated Annualized Burden—Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Average
  • burden
  • per response (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Rural Health Care Coordination Network Partnership Grant Program Measures 8 1 8 3.5 28 Total 8 8 28
    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17005 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Idaho National Laboratory in Scoville, Idaho, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On June 3, 2016, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in Scoville, Idaho, and were monitored for external radiation at INL (e.g., having at least one film badge or TLD dosimeter) during the period from March 1, 1970, through December 31, 1974, and were employed for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under employment during the period from March 1, 1970, through December 31, 1974, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on July 3, 2016. Therefore, beginning on July 3, 2016, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17018 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On June 3, 2016, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked in any area at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, California, during the period from January 1,1974, through December 31, 1989, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on July 3, 2016. Therefore, beginning on July 3, 2016, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17019 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Final Effect of Designation of a Class of Employees for Addition to the Special Exposure Cohort AGENCY:

    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HHS gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees from the Argonne National Laboratory-West in Scoville, Idaho, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director, Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, NIOSH, 1090 Tusculum Avenue, MS C-46, Cincinnati, OH 45226-1938, Telephone 877-222-7570. Information requests can also be submitted by email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7384q(b). 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C).

    On June 3, 2016, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384l(14)(C), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

    All employees of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies, and their contractors and subcontractors who worked at the Argonne National Laboratory-West during the time period from April 10, 1951, through December 31, 1957, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in the Special Exposure Cohort.

    This designation became effective on July 3, 2016. Therefore, beginning on July 3, 2016, members of this class of employees, defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC.

    John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17017 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES [30-day notice] Agency Information Collection Request; 30-Day Public Comment Request, Grants.gov AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Grants.gov (EGOV), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate 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.

    To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, email your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, to [email protected], or call the Reports Clearance Office on (202) 690-6162. Send written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections within 30 days of this notice directly to the Grants.gov OMB Desk Officer; faxed to OMB at 202-395-6974.

    Proposed Project:

    Project Performance Site Location, Project Abstract, Key Contacts OMB Control Number 4040-0010.

    3 Year Extension and assignment as a Common Form.

    Office: Grants.gov.

    Abstract: The Project Performance Site Location, Project Abstract, and Key Contacts forms are an OMB-approved collection (4040-0010). This information collection is used by more than 26 Federal grant-making entities for research and related projects. This IC originally is to expire on September 30, 2016. We are requesting a three-year clearance of this collection and that it be designated as a Common Form.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Table Total Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden hours
    Project Abstract 85 1 1 85 Project Performance Site Location(s) 143,567 1 1 143,567 Key Contacts 3,565 1 1 3,565 Total 147,217 147,217
    Terry S. Clark, Asst Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-15982 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4151-AE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel

    Date: August 30, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Room 2137C, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 13, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16952 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel, Toward the Creation of New Genetic-Based, Phenotypic Classification System for COPD.

    Date: August 11, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Stephanie J Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7196, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-435-0291, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 13, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16951 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of SGS North America, Inc., As a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of January 26, 2016.

    DATES:

    The approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger became effective on January 26, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for January 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that SGS North America, Inc., 1740 West 4th St., Suite 108, Freeport, TX 77541, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the following Web site for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16993 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of January 27, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on January 27, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for January 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 1550 Industrial Park Dr., Nederland, TX 77627, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties Data. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 D287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products. 27-03 D4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-05 D4928 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-14 D2622 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Products. 27-46 D5002 Density of Crude Oils by Digital Density Meter. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 D93 Standard Test Methods for Flash-Point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16998 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of July 15, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on July 15, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for July 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 471 Eastern Ave., Chelsea, MA 02150, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-08 ASTM D-86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure. 27-11 ASTM D-445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). 27-13 ASTM D-4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry. 27-48 ASTM D-4052 Standard test method for density and relative density of liquids by digital density meter. 27-53 ASTM D-2709 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge. 27-57 ASTM D-7039 Standard Test Method for Sulfur content by monochromatic wavelength dispersive X-ray. 27-58 ASTM D-5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method). N/A ASTM D-5453 Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence. N/A ASTM D-2699 Standard Test Method for Research Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. N/A ASTM D-2700 Standard Test Method for Motor Octane Number of Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel. N/A ASTM D-3606 Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. N/A ASTM D-4815 Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. N/A ASTM D-1319 Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 7, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17003 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of June 16, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The approval of Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., as a commercial gauger became effective on June 16, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for June 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., 2382 Highway 1 South, Donaldsonville, LA 70346, has been approved to gauge petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Marine Technical Surveyors, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the following Web site for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 7, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16992 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of February 18, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of Camin Cargo Control, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on February 18, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for February 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that Camin Cargo Control, Inc., 2844 Sharon Street, Suite B, Kenner, LA 70062, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and certain petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 11 Physical Properties Data. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    Camin Cargo Control, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL Number ASTM Title 27-01 D287 Standard Test Method for API Gravity of crude Petroleum and Petroleum Products. 27-03 D4006 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oil by Distillation. 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-05 D4928 Standard Test Method for Water in Crude Oils by Coulometric Karl Fischer Titration. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-46 D5002 Density of Crude Oils by Digital Density Meter. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-57 D7039 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Gasoline and Diesel Fuel by Monochromatic Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for the current CBP Approved Gaugers and Accredited Laboratories List. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17002 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 30, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that SGS North America, Inc., 11729 Port Road, Seabrook, TX 77586, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    SGS North America, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-48 ASTM D 4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16997 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of August 6, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on August 6, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for August 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that SGS North America, Inc., 925 Corn Products Road, Corpus Christi, TX 78409, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API
  • chapters
  • Title
    3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    SGS North America, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-01 ASTM D-287 Standard test method for API Gravity of crude petroleum products and petroleum products (Hydrometer Method). 27-02 ASTM D-1298 Standard Test Method for specific gravity by Hydrometer method. 27-03 ASTM D-4006 Standard test method for water in crude oil by distillation. 27-04 ASTM D-95 Standard test method for water in petroleum products and bituminous materials by distillation. 27-06 ASTM D-473 Standard test method for sediment in crude oils and fuel oils by the extraction method. 27-11 ASTM D-445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (and Calculation of Dynamic Viscosity). 27-13 ASTM D-4294 Standard test method for sulfur in petroleum and petroleum products by energy-dispersive x-ray fluorescence spectrometry.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 7, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16995 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of September 9, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on September 9, 2015. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for September 2018.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that SGS North America, Inc., 7315 S. 76th Ave., Bridgeview, IL 60455, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 9 Density Determination. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    SGS North America, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-08 ASTM D 86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products at Atmospheric Pressure. 27-11 ASTM D 445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids (the Calculation of Dynamic Velocity). 27-48 ASTM D 4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-50 ASTM D 93 Standard test methods for flash point by Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester. 27-53 ASTM D 2709 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Middle Distillate Fuels by Centrifuge. 27-58 ASTM D 5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products (Mini Method). N/A ASTM D5453 Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Sulfur in Light Hydrocarbons, Spark Ignition Engine Fuel, Diesel Engine Fuel, and Engine Oil by Ultraviolet Fluorescence. N/A ASTM D1319 Standard Test Method for Hydrocarbon Types in Liquid Petroleum Products by Fluorescent Indicator Adsorption. N/A ASTM D4815 Standard Test Method for Determination of MTBE, ETBE, TAME, DIPE, tertiary-Amyl Alcohol and C1 to C4 Alcohols in Gasoline by Gas Chromatography. N/A ASTM D3606 Standard Test Method for Determination of Benzene and Toluene in Finished Motor and Aviation Gasoline by Gas Chromatography.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16994 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Accreditation and Approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a Commercial Gauger and Laboratory AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as a commercial gauger and laboratory.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that SGS North America, Inc., has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of April 13, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: The accreditation and approval of SGS North America, Inc., as commercial gauger and laboratory became effective on April 13, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for April 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13, that SGS North America, Inc., 1100 SE 24th St., Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316, has been approved to gauge and accredited to test petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.12 and 19 CFR 151.13. SGS North America, Inc., is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 3 Tank gauging. 7 Temperature Determination. 8 Sampling. 9 Density Determination. 12 Calculations. 17 Maritime Measurements.

    SGS North America, Inc., is accredited for the following laboratory analysis procedures and methods for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Laboratory Methods (CBPL) and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM):

    CBPL No. ASTM Title 27-04 D95 Standard Test Method for Water in Petroleum Products and Bituminous Materials by Distillation. 27-06 D473 Standard Test Method for Sediment in Crude Oils and Fuel Oils by the Extraction Method. 27-08 D86 Standard Test Method for Distillation of Petroleum Products. 27-11 D445 Standard Test Method for Kinematic Viscosity of Transparent and Opaque Liquids. 27-13 D4294 Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum and Petroleum Products by Energy-Dispersive X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. 27-48 D4052 Standard Test Method for Density and Relative Density of Liquids by Digital Density Meter. 27-54 D1796 Standard Test Method for Water and Sediment in Fuel Oils by the Centrifuge Method. 27-58 D5191 Standard Test Method For Vapor Pressure of Petroleum Products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct laboratory analyses and gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific test or gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific test or gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16996 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Approval of Barrios Measurement Services LLC, as a Commercial Gauger AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Notice of approval of Barrios Measurement Services LLC, as a commercial gauger.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to CBP regulations, that Barrios Measurement Services LLC, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes for the next three years as of March 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective Dates: The approval of Barrios Measurement Services LLC, as commercial gauger became effective on March 31, 2016. The next triennial inspection date will be scheduled for March 2019.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Approved Gauger and Accredited Laboratories Manager, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, tel. 202-344-1060.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, that Barrios Measurement Services LLC, 228 West 133rd St., Cut Off, LA 70345, has been approved to gauge petroleum and petroleum products for customs purposes, in accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Barrios Measurement Services LLC, is approved for the following gauging procedures for petroleum and certain petroleum products set forth by the American Petroleum Institute (API):

    API chapters Title 8.2 Standard Practice for Automatic Sampling of Liquid Petroleum and Petroleum Products. 8.3 Standard Practice for Mixing and Handling of Liquid Samples of Petroleum and Petroleum products.

    Anyone wishing to employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and receive written assurances from the entity that it is accredited or approved by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific gauger service this entity is accredited or approved to perform may be directed to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The inquiry may also be sent to [email protected] Please reference the Web site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and accredited laboratories. http://www.cbp.gov/about/labs-scientific/commercial-gaugers-and-laboratories.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Ira S. Reese, Executive Director, Laboratories and Scientific Services Directorate.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17004 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0009] Agency Information Collection Activities: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information or new collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0009 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2005-0030. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2005-0030;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, Telephone number (202) 272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at (800) 375-5283; TTY (800) 767-1833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2005-0030 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Background

    On December 31, 2015, USCIS published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register at 80 FR 81900 proposing to amend its regulations related to certain employment-based immigrant and nonimmigrant visa programs. The NPRM allowed for a 60-day public comment period on proposed amendments and 27,979 commenters responded. As part of the proposed regulatory amendments, USCIS proposed several revisions to Form I-129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker. USCIS invited the public to submit comments regarding proposed revisions to Form I-129 as part the NPRM's 60-day public comment period in accordance to 5 CFR 1320.11. USCIS is currently reviewing those public comments in consideration of how to address and/or revise its proposed amendments.

    Under 5 CFR 1320.5(a), USCIS is required to evaluate comments received under § 1320.11. In addition, 5 CFR 1320.5(b) requires USCIS to ensure that Form I-129 displays a currently valid OMB control number. As USCIS continues its careful review and evaluation of the public comments received from 27,979 commenters, USCIS must ensure that Form I-129 continues to display a currently valid OMB control number. Currently, Form I-129 is set to expire on October 31, 2016. To ensure Form I-129 retains a valid OMB control number during review and evaluation of the public comments received from 27,979 commenters, USCIS must implement an Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions. This form is used by an employer to petition for aliens to come to the U.S. temporarily to perform services, labor, and training or to request extensions of stay or changes in nonimmigrant status for nonimmigrant workers.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129 is 333,891 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.34 hours.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 1,631,400 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $78,027,021.25.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17042 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services [OMB Control Number 1615-0068] Agency Information Collection Activities: Registration for Classification as a Refugee, Form I-590; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the Federal Register to obtain comments regarding the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (i.e. the time, effort, and resources used by the respondents to respond), the estimated cost to the respondent, and the actual information collection instruments.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0068 in the subject box, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0036. To avoid duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following methods to submit comments:

    (1) Online. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site at http://www.regulations.gov under e-Docket ID number USCIS-2007-0036;

    (2) Email. Submit comments to [email protected];

    (3) Mail. Submit written comments to DHS, USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20529-2140, telephone number 202-272-8377 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS Web site at http://www.uscis.gov, or call the USCIS National Customer Service Center at 800-375-5283 (TTY 800-767-1833).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Comments

    You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at: http://www.regulations.gov and enter USCIS-2009-0020 in the search box. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that you provide in any voluntary submission you make to DHS. DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:

    (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Overview of This Information Collection

    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.

    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Registration for Classification as Refuge.

    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-590; USCIS.

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-590 provides a uniform method for applicants to apply for refugee status and contains the information needed for USCIS to adjudicate such applications.

    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: Registration for Classification—100,000 respondents at 3 hours per response; Request for Interview—1,500 respondents at 1 hour per response; DNA Evidence—100 respondents at 2 hours per response; Biometric processing—101,600 respondents at 20 minutes per response.

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 368,228 hours.

    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is 0.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. Samantha Deshommes, Acting Chief, Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17041 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-97-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX16AE6000C1000] Intent To Grant an Exclusive License AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to grant an exclusive license.

    SUMMARY:

    The Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Geological Survey intends to grant to Induced Polarization Associates, LLC., 1124 NW. 53rd St., Seattle, WA 98107, an exclusive license to practice the following: A system and method, to utilize induced polarization to locate and detect minerals, and oil plumes below the surface water.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received fifteen (15) days from the effective date of this notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sharon Borland, Chief, Office of Policy and Analysis, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Dr., MS 153, Reston, VA 20192, 703-648-6723.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    It is in the public interest to license this invention, as Induced Polarization Associates, LLC., submitted a complete and sufficient application for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted unless, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Policy and Analysis receives written evidence and argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

    Shari Delung, Acting Deputy Associate Director for Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16944 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLWY920000. 16XL5017AR. L57000000.RB0000] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW160587, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Anadarko E&P Onshore, LLC and WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC have filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW160587, which is located in Campbell County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The lessee has paid the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. No leases that affect these lands were issued before the petition was filed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Hite, Chief of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82009; phone 307-775-6176; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. Hite during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In connection with this lease reinstatement, the lessees agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties specified in the applicable regulations—$10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16 2/3 percent, respectively. The lessees also agreed to the amended lease stipulations described in the associated Reinstatement Certification. The lessees paid the required $500 administrative fee and the $159 cost for publishing this notice. The lessees met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease effective February 1, 2015, under the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.

    Chris Hite, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17023 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLWY920000. 16XL5017AR. L57000000.RB0000] Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease WYW178491, Wyoming AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Hilcorp Energy I, L.P. has filed a petition for reinstatement of competitive oil and gas lease WYW178491, which is located in Crook County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and consistent with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The lessee has paid the required rentals accruing from the date of termination. No leases that affect these lands were issued before the petition was filed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chris Hite, Chief of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming, 82009; phone 307-775-6176; email [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact Mr. Hite during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In connection with this lease reinstatement, the lessee agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties specified in the applicable regulations—$10 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 162/3 percent, respectively. The lessee also agreed to the amended lease stipulations described in the associated Reinstatement Certification. The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and the $159 cost for publishing this notice. The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease under Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. The BLM proposes to reinstate the lease effective January 1, 2013, pursuant to the applicable rental and royalty rate terms, as well as, any stipulation changes identified in the Reinstatement Certification.

    Chris Hite, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17021 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LWO30100.PQ0000 L13400000] Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0132 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    60-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) invites public comments on, and plans to request approval to continue, the collection of information from those who wish to participate in the exploration, development, production, and utilization of geothermal resources on BLM-managed public lands, and on lands managed by other Federal agencies. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has assigned control number 1004-0132 to this information collection.

    DATES:

    Please submit comments on the proposed information collection by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic mail.

    Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW, Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.

    Fax: to Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050.

    Electronic mail: [email protected]

    Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0132” regardless of the form of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Kalish at 202-912-7312. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Kalish.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, require that interested members of the public and affected agencies be given an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8 (d) and 1320.12(a)). This notice identifies an information collection that the BLM plans to submit to OMB for approval. The Paperwork Reduction Act provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

    The BLM will request a 3-year term of approval for this information collection activity. Comments are invited on: (1) The need for the collection of information for the performance of the functions of the agency; (2) the accuracy of the agency's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the information collection burden on respondents, such as use of automated means of collection of the information. A summary of the public comments will accompany our submission of the information collection requests to OMB.

    Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The following information pertains to this request:

    Title: Geothermal Resource Leases and Unit Agreements (43 CFR parts 3200 and 3280).

    OMB Control Number: 1004-0132.

    Summary: The BLM collects the information in order to decide whether or not to approve geothermal resource leases and unit agreements, process nominations for geothermal lease sales, and monitor compliance with granted approvals.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion, except for the Monthly Report of Geothermal Operations (Form 3260-5), which is required monthly.

    Forms:

    • Form 3200-9, Notice of Intent to Conduct Geothermal Resource Exploration Operations;

    • Form 3203-1, Nomination of Lands for Competitive Geothermal Leasing;

    • Form 3260-2, Geothermal Drilling Permit;

    • Form 3260-3, Geothermal Sundry Notice; and

    • Form 3260-4; Geothermal Well Completion Report; and

    • Form 3260-5; Monthly Report of Geothermal Operations.

    Description of Respondents: Those who wish to participate in the exploration, development, production, and utilization of geothermal resources on BLM-managed by other Federal agencies.

    Estimated Annual Responses: 908.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 5,404.

    Estimated Annual Non-Hour Costs: $77,110.

    The estimated burdens are itemized in the following table:

    Type of response Number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
  • (column B × column C)
  • A B C D Lessee Qualifications, 43 CFR subpart 3202 75 1 75 Nomination of Lands for Competitive Leasing, 43 CFR subpart 3203, Form 3203-1 80 1 80 Noncompetitive Leasing Other than Direct Use Leases, 43 CFR subpart 3204 50 4 200 Direct Use Leasing, 43 CFR subpart 3205 10 10 100 Lease Issuance, 43 CFR subpart 3206 155 1 155 Lease Terms and Extensions, 43 CFR subpart 3207 50 1 50 Lease Consolidation, 43 CFR subpart 3210 50 1 50 Lease Suspensions and Royalty Rate Reductions, 43 CFR subpart 3212 10 40 400 Lease Relinquishment, Termination, and Cancellation, 43 CFR subpart 3213 10 40 400 Lease Reinstatement, 43 CFR subpart 3213 5 1 5 Cooperative Agreement, 43 CFR subpart 3217 10 40 400 Notice of Intent to Conduct Geothermal Exploration Activities, 43 CFR subpart 3251, Form 3200-9 12 8 96 Geothermal Sundry Notice, 43 CFR subpart 3252, Form 3260-3 100 8 800 Reports: Exploration Operations, 43 CFR subpart 3253 12 8 96 Exploration Operations Relief and Appeals, 43 CFR subpart 3256 10 8 80 Geothermal Drilling Permit, 43 CFR subpart 3261, Form 3260-2 60 8 480 Geothermal Well Completion Report, 43 CFR subpart 3264, Form 3260-4 12 10 120 Utilization Plans and Facility Construction Permits, 43 CFR subpart 3272 10 10 100 Site License Application, 43 CFR subpart 3273 10 10 100 Relinquishment, Assignment, or Transfer of a Site License, 43 CFR subpart 3273 22 1 22 Commercial Use Permit, 43 CFR subpart 3274 10 10 100 Monthly Report of Geothermal Operations, 43 CFR subpart 3276, Form 3260-5 120 10 1200 Unit Agreement, 43 CFR subpart 3281 10 10 100 Participating Area, 43 CFR subpart 3282 10 10 100 Unit Agreement Modifications, 43 CFR subpart 3283 10 10 100 Totals 913 5,409
    Jean Sonneman, Bureau of Land Management, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17020 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-964] Certain Windscreen Wipers and Components Thereof; Notice of a Commission Determination Not To Review an Initial Determination Granting a Joint Motion To Terminate the Investigation Based on a Settlement Agreement AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 29) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a settlement agreement.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Liberman, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3115. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on August 24, 2015, based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Trico Products Corporation of Rochester Hills, Michigan, alleging a violation of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain windscreen wipers and components thereof by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,836,925 and 6,799,348. 80 FR 51309 (Aug. 24, 2015). The respondents are Valeo North America, Inc. of Troy, Michigan, and Delmex de Juarez S. de R.L. de C.V. of Parque Industrial Intermex, Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico. Id. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating in the investigation.

    On May 27, 2016, complainant and respondents filed a joint motion to terminate this investigation in its entirety based on a settlement agreement.

    On June 20, 2016, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 29), granting the motion for termination. The ALJ found that the joint motion complies with the Commission Rules and that termination of the investigation will not adversely affect the public interest. No party petitioned for review of the subject ID. The Commission has determined not to review the ID.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By Order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 13, 2016. William R. Bishop, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17011 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances Application: Cambrex Charles City ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a) on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417 (January 25, 2007).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on May 5, 2016, Cambrex Charles City, 1205 11th Street, Charles City, Iowa 50616 applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer the following basic classes of controlled substances:

    Controlled Substance Schedule Amphetamine (1100) II Lisdexamfetamine (1205) II Methylphenidate (1724) II 4-Anilino-N-phenethyl-4-piperidine (ANPP) (8333) II Phenylacetone (8501) II Cocaine (9041) II Codeine (9050) II Oxycodone (9143) II Hydromorphone (9150) II Hydrocodone (9193) II Morphine (9300) II Oripavine (9330) II Thebaine (9333) II Opium extracts (9610) II Opium fluid extract (9620) II Opium tincture (9630) II Opium, powdered (9639) II Oxymorphone (9652) II Noroxymorphone (9668) II Fentanyl (9801) II

    The company plans to manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers, for dosage form development, for clinical trials, and for use in stability qualification studies.

    Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17061 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration [Docket No. DEA-392] Importer of Controlled Substances Application: Rhodes Technologies ACTION:

    Notice of application.

    DATES:

    Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic classes, and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a) on or before August 18, 2016. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application pursuant to 21 CFR 1301.43 on or before August 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/LJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/ODW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. Comments and requests for hearings on applications to import narcotic raw material are not appropriate. 72 FR 3417, (January 25, 2007).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Attorney General has delegated her authority under the Controlled Substances Act to the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 28 CFR 0.100(b). Authority to exercise all necessary functions with respect to the promulgation and implementation of 21 CFR part 1301, incident to the registration of manufacturers, distributors, dispensers, importers, and exporters of controlled substances (other than final orders in connection with suspension, denial, or revocation of registration) has been redelegated to the Deputy Assistant Administrator of the DEA Office of Diversion Control (“Deputy Assistant Administrator”) pursuant to section 7 of 28 CFR part 0, appendix to subpart R.

    In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on March 25, 2016, Rhodes Technologies, 498 Washington Street, Coventry, Rhode Island 02816 applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic classes of controlled substances:

    Controlled substance Schedule Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370) I Methylphenidate (1724) II Oxycodone (9143) II Hydromorphone (9150) II Hydrocodone (9193) II Morphine (9300) II Oxymorphone (9652) II Opium, raw (9600) II Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) II

    The company plans to import opium, raw (9600) and poppy straw concentrate (9670) in order to bulk manufacture controlled substances in Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) form. The company distributes the manufactured APIs in bulk to its customers. The company plans to import the other listed controlled substances for internal reference standards use only. The comparisons of foreign reference standards to the company's domestically manufacture API will allow the company to export domestically manufacture API to foreign markets.

    Louis J. Milione, Deputy Assistant Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17062 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Prisons Annual Determination of Average Cost of Incarceration AGENCY:

    Bureau of Prisons, Justice.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2015 was $31,977.65 ($87.61 per day). (Please note: There were 365 days in FY 2015.) The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Residential Re-entry Center for Fiscal Year 2015 was $26,082.90 ($71.46 per day).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Office of General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, 320 First St. NW., Washington, DC 20534.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sarah Qureshi, (202) 307-2105.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    28 CFR part 505 allows for assessment and collection of a fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates. We calculate this fee by dividing the number representing Bureau of Prisons facilities' monetary obligation (excluding activation costs) by the number of inmate-days incurred for the preceding fiscal year, and then by multiplying the quotient by 365. Under § 505.2, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons determined that, based upon fiscal year 2015 data, the fee to cover the average cost of incarceration for Federal inmates in Fiscal Year 2015 was $31,977.65 ($87.61 per day). (Please note: There were 365 days in FY 2015.) The average annual cost to confine an inmate in a Residential Re-entry Center for Fiscal Year 2015 was $26,082.90 ($71.46 per day).

    Kathleen M. Kenney, Assistant Director/General Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17040 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
    NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION [NARA-2016-041] Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; System of Records Notice AGENCY:

    National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).

    ACTION:

    Privacy Act system of records notice (SORN) of a new system, NARA 45; Withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) published notice in the Federal Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36959) of a proposed new system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) (“Privacy Act”). The new system was NARA 45, Insider Threat Program records. In addition, NARA updated Appendix B to add the SORN's system manager to the list of system managers and their addresses. The system of records notice (SORN) included a comment period ending on July 8, 2016, and an automatic effective date of July 18, 2016. However, NARA is now withdrawing this SORN due to changes in the scope of the system and it will no longer be effective. We will reissue the SORN once we have revised it.

    DATES:

    This withdrawal notice is effective July 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    National Archives and Records Administration; Regulations Comment Desk, Suite 4100; 8601 Adelphi Road; College Park, MD 20740.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    Kimberly Keravuori, External Policy Program Manager.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17146 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
    NATIONAL WOMEN'S BUSINESS COUNCIL Quarterly Public Meeting AGENCY:

    National Women's Business Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open public meeting.

    DATES:

    The Public Meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016 from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Atlanta, GA. Location details will be provided upon RSVP, as will information about teleconferencing and livestream options.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announces the meeting of the National Women's Business Council. The National Women's Business Council conducts research on issues of importance and impact to women entrepreneurs and makes policy recommendations to the SBA, Congress, and the White House on how to improve the business climate for women.

    This meeting is the 4th quarter meeting for Fiscal Year 2016. The program will include remarks from the Council Chair, Carla Harris; updates on research projects in progress, including: Women's participation in corporate supplier diversity programs, women's participation in accelerators and incubators, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and an upcoming report on the entrepreneurship amongst black women project; a recap of the Council's recent engagement efforts; and an announcement of the Council's FY2017 research portfolio. Time will be reserved at the end for audience participants to address Council Members directly with questions, comments, or feedback. Additional speakers will be promoted upon confirmation.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The meeting is open to the public however advance notice of attendance is requested. To RSVP and confirm attendance, the general public should email [email protected] with subject line—“RSVP for 8/02 Public Meeting”. Anyone wishing to make a presentation to the NWBC at this meeting must either email their interest to [email protected] or call the main office number at 202-205-3850.

    For more information, please visit the National Women's Business Council Web site at www.nwbc.gov.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. Miguel J. L'Heureux, SBA Committee Management Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16983 Filed 7-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [NRC-2016-0141] Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Biweekly notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular biweekly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.

    This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or proposed to be issued from June 21, 2016, to July 1, 2016. The last biweekly notice was published on July 5, 2016 (81 FR 43646).

    DATES:

    Comments must be filed by August 18, 2016. A request for a hearing must be filed by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject):

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2016-0141. 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.

    Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.

    For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lynn Ronewicz, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1927, email: [email protected]

    I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information

    Please refer to Docket ID: NRC-2016-0141 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this action by any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID: NRC-2016-0141.

    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 (if it is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that it is mentioned in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    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.

    B. Submitting Comments

    Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0141, facility name, unit number(s), application date, and subject in your comment submission.

    The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at http://www.regulations.gov, as well as enter the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information.

    If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.

    II. Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Combined Licenses and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination

    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in § 50.92 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown below.

    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. If the Commission makes a final no significant hazards consideration determination, any hearing will take place after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

    A. Opportunity To Request a Hearing and Petition for Leave To Intervene

    Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person(s) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and a petition to intervene with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license or combined license. Requests for a hearing and