Federal Register Vol. 81, No.141,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 141 (July 22, 2016)

Page Range47689-48313
FR Document

81_FR_141
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 48311 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Transnational Criminal OrganizationsPDF
81 FR 47752 - Cost Recovery Fee Schedule for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield FrameworkPDF
81 FR 47844 - In the Matter of Scanner Technologies Corp., Seville Ventures Corp., StarInvest Group, Inc., and The Digital Development Group Corp.; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 47699 - Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs); Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 48305 - Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) Policy Committee's Recommendations for the 2018 SOC; NoticePDF
81 FR 47834 - Notice of Charter RenewalPDF
81 FR 47854 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AIRLOOM; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 47853 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel SANDPIPER; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 47853 - Requested Administrative Waiver of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel INVICTUS; Invitation for Public CommentsPDF
81 FR 47799 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Application for New Active IngredientPDF
81 FR 47795 - Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New UsesPDF
81 FR 47849 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Electronic Diversity Visa Entry FormPDF
81 FR 47776 - Marine Fisheries Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47763 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Caribbean Electric Ray as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)PDF
81 FR 47848 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Breaking News: Turning the Lens on Mass Media” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 47848 - Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition Determinations: “Every People Under Heaven: Jerusalem, 1000-1400” ExhibitionPDF
81 FR 47826 - Mikhayl Soliman, M.D.: Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 47835 - Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air ActPDF
81 FR 47813 - The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47813 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment: Evaluation of the Office of Public and Indian Housing's (PIH) Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) ProgramPDF
81 FR 47815 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: HOME Investment Partnership ProgramPDF
81 FR 47778 - Procurement List; DeletionsPDF
81 FR 47777 - Procurement List; Proposed DeletionsPDF
81 FR 47841 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas Company; South Carolina Public Service Authority; Increased Concrete Thickness Tolerance for Column Line J-1 and J-2 Walls Above 66′6″PDF
81 FR 47840 - Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3PDF
81 FR 47810 - Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public HealthPDF
81 FR 47758 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (2014-2015; 2015-2016) and Compromise of Outstanding ClaimsPDF
81 FR 47756 - Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 47793 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 47759 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 47760 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public HearingsPDF
81 FR 47775 - Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public MeetingsPDF
81 FR 47762 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 47747 - Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in FoodPDF
81 FR 47807 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47779 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0074, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution FacilitiesPDF
81 FR 47750 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 47749 - Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 47829 - Proposed Adjustments to the Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016PDF
81 FR 47821 - Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs for the List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2017PDF
81 FR 47838 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47812 - Extension of the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 47714 - Health Information Technology Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria and Certification Programs for Health Information TechnologyPDF
81 FR 47722 - Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; General AmendmentsPDF
81 FR 47860 - Special Medical Advisory Group, Notice of Meeting; AmendmentPDF
81 FR 47732 - Amendments to Regulatory Guidance Concerning Periodic Inspection of Commercial Motor VehiclesPDF
81 FR 47748 - Missoula Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 47818 - Information Collection Request Sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Approval; National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom ProgramPDF
81 FR 47810 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47801 - Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47750 - Gogebic Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47854 - NHTSA Enforcement Guidance Bulletin 2016-03; Procedure for Invoking Paragraph 17 of the May 4, 2016 Amendment to the November 3, 2015 Takata Consent OrderPDF
81 FR 47751 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47790 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47849 - Academy Bus, LLC, and Corporate Coaches, Inc.-Purchase of Certain Assets of Corporate Coaches, Inc.PDF
81 FR 47707 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
81 FR 47749 - Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Ashley National ForestPDF
81 FR 47789 - Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 47802 - Public Availability of General Services Administration Fiscal Year 2015 Service Contract InventoryPDF
81 FR 47811 - Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 47839 - Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service DeliveryPDF
81 FR 47859 - Agency Information Collection (Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)/Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Addendum to Uniform Residential Loan Application) (VA Form 26-1802A) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47860 - Proposed Information Collection (Availability of Educational, Licensing, and Certification Records); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47861 - Agency Information Collection (Claim for One Sum Payment Government Life Insurance (VA Form 29-4125) and Claim for Monthly Payments Government Life Insurance (29-4125a)) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47861 - Proposed Information Collection (Application for Educational Assistance To Supplement Tuition Assistance) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47859 - Proposed Information Collection (Acquisition Regulation (VAAR) Clause 852.211-73, Brand Name or Equal) Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47858 - Agency Information Collection (Monthly Certification of Flight Training VA Form 22-6553c) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47857 - Agency Information Collection: (Designation of Beneficiary) (29-336) Activity: Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47858 - Agency Information Collection (Loan Service Report) Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47856 - Agency Information Collection (Pension Claim Questionnaire for Farm Income, VA Form 21P-4165); Activity Under OMB ReviewPDF
81 FR 47857 - Proposed Information Collection (VA Loan Electronic Reporting Interface (VALERI) System); Activity: Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47692 - Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk; Procedures for Measuring Daylight OverdraftsPDF
81 FR 47802 - Local Contracting PreferencePDF
81 FR 47845 - Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P., License No. 04/04-0298; Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business Investment Act, Conflicts of InterestPDF
81 FR 47738 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Murray, KYPDF
81 FR 47737 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Camden, ALPDF
81 FR 47754 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to a Final Court DecisionPDF
81 FR 47835 - Webinar Meeting of the Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile JusticePDF
81 FR 47762 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47689 - Procurement Methods; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 47811 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 47811 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 47798 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47799 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47796 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47791 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47792 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47820 - Hardwood Plywood From ChinaPDF
81 FR 47793 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer ReportingPDF
81 FR 47794 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47800 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47797 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47797 - Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (Renewal)PDF
81 FR 47843 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Extend the Pilot Programs That Permit the Exchange to Have No Minimum Size Requirement for Orders Entered Into the PIP and COPIPPDF
81 FR 47733 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17APDF
81 FR 47752 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47751 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska State Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 47845 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Request and Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47837 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Petition for Finding Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 3(40)PDF
81 FR 47836 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979PDF
81 FR 47805 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 47741 - Coverage for Contraceptive ServicesPDF
81 FR 47854 - Request for Information: Nationally Uniform 911 Data System; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 47708 - Air Plan Approval; RI; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous RevisionsPDF
81 FR 47745 - Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous RevisionsPDF
81 FR 47850 - Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act-Designation of Alternative Fuel CorridorsPDF
81 FR 47714 - Amendments To Implement Certain Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act”PDF
81 FR 47817 - Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Fee to Trust Transfer for Tribal Village and Casino, City of South Bend, St. Joseph County, IndianaPDF
81 FR 47814 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 47694 - Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC AirplanesPDF
81 FR 47706 - Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972PDF
81 FR 47791 - Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; SpringStar Inc.PDF
81 FR 47696 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 47691 - FCA Organization; Updates and Technical CorrectionsPDF
81 FR 47819 - Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Cook Inlet Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244; MMAA104000PDF
81 FR 47746 - Information Collection Request; Registration Form To Request Electronic Access Code InformationPDF
81 FR 47701 - Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit PropertyPDF
81 FR 47739 - Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit PropertyPDF
81 FR 47689 - NRC Enforcement PolicyPDF
81 FR 48219 - Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing EquipmentPDF
81 FR 47781 - Request for Information on Payday Loans, Vehicle Title Loans, Installment Loans, and Open-End Lines of CreditPDF
81 FR 47863 - Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment LoansPDF

Issue

81 141 Friday, July 22, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food Safety and Inspection Service

See

Forest Service

See

Rural Utilities Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47746-47747 2016-16817
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection PROPOSED RULES Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans, 47864-48218 2016-13490 NOTICES Requests for Information: Payday Loans, Vehicle Title Loans, Installment Loans, and Open-End Lines of Credit, 47781-47789 2016-13492 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47805-47809 2016-17251 2016-17376 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Child Care and Development Fund Financial Report for States and Territories, 47810 2016-17359 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Alaska State Advisory Committee, 47751-47752 2016-17260 Nevada State Advisory Committee, 47752 2016-17261 New York Advisory Committee, 47751 2016-17354 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Harmonization of Standards for Fire Protection, Detection, and Extinguishing Equipment, 48220-48304 2016-15229 Commerce Commerce Department See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 47777-47779 2016-17388 2016-17389 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities, 47779-47781 2016-17374 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47790-47791 2016-17353 Meetings: Defense Health Board, Federal Advisory Committee, 47789-47790 2016-17349
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Mikhayl Soliman, M.D., 47826-47829 2016-17394 Proposed Adjustments to the Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs: List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2016, 47829-47834 2016-17371 Proposed Aggregate Production Quotas for Schedule I and II Controlled Substances and Assessment of Annual Needs: List I Chemicals Ephedrine, Pseudoephedrine, and Phenylpropanolamine for 2017, 47821-47826 2016-17370 Employee Benefits Employee Benefits Security Administration PROPOSED RULES Requests for Information: Coverage for Contraceptive Services, 47741-47745 2016-17242 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Air Plan Approval; RI; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous Revisions, 47708-47714 2016-17184 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Rhode Island; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous Revisions, 47745 2016-17183 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting, 47793 2016-17285 NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants, 47798-47799 2016-17291 NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations, 47797-47798 2016-17281 NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production, 47794 2016-17284 NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production; Renewal, 47797 2016-17282 NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production, 47800-47801 2016-17283 NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations, 47799 2016-17290 NSPS for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units, 47796-47797 2016-17289 NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing, 47791-47792 2016-17288 NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants, 47792-47793 2016-17287 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 47793-47794 2016-17382 Pesticide Product Registrations: Application for New Active Ingredient, 47799-47800 2016-17409 Receipt of Applications for New Uses, 47795-47796 2016-17407 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration RULES FCA Organization; Updates and Technical Corrections, 47691-47692 2016-16962 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Aerospace LLC Airplanes, 47694-47696 2016-17039 Airbus Airplanes, 47696-47699 2016-17014 Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol and Dnipropetrovsk Flight Information Regions, 47699-47700 2016-17431 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Class E Airspace: Camden, AL, 47737-47738 2016-17310 Murray, KY, 47738-47739 2016-17311 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act: Designation of Alternative Fuel Corridors, 47850-47852 2016-17132 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration RULES Implementing Certain Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, 47714-47722 2016-17114 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance, 47722-47732 2016-17364 Regulatory Guidance Concerning Periodic Inspection of Commercial Motor Vehicles, 47732-47733 2016-17362 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk: Procedures for Measuring Daylight Overdrafts, 47692-47694 2016-17334 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47801-47802 2016-17358 Food Safety Food Safety and Inspection Service NOTICES Meetings: Codex Alimentarius Commission Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, 47747-47748 2016-17377 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Ashley National Forest, 47749 2016-17350 Meetings: Gogebic Resource Advisory Committee, 47750-47751 2016-17357 Missoula Resource Advisory Committee, 47748-47749 2016-17361 Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee, 47749-47750 2016-17372 2016-17373 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Service Contract Inventories; Availability: Fiscal Year 2015, 47802 2016-17347 Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council NOTICES Local Contracting Preference, 47802-47805 2016-17328 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

RULES Health Information Technology Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria and Certification Programs for Health Information Technology; CFR Correction, 47714 2016-17365 PROPOSED RULES Requests for Information: Coverage for Contraceptive Services, 47741-47745 2016-17242 NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health, 47810-47811 2016-17385
Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

NOTICES Meetings: President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, 47813 2016-17392
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47813-47817 2016-17390 2016-17391 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 47814 2016-17067 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Fee to Trust Transfer for Tribal Village and Casino, South Bend, St. Joseph County, IN, 47817-47818 2016-17074 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

National Park Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property, 47701-47706 2016-16563 PROPOSED RULES Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property, 47739-47741 2016-16561 Requests for Information: Coverage for Contraceptive Services, 47741-47745 2016-17242 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, 47756-47759 2016-17383 2016-17384 Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China, 47754-47756 2016-17308 Cost Recovery Programs: EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework; Fee Schedule, 47752-47754 2016-17508 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Hardwood Plywood from China, 47820-47821 2016-17286 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

See

Justice Programs Office

NOTICES Charter Renewals: Executive Advisory Board of the National Domestic Communications Assistance Center, 47834-47835 2016-17418 Consent Decrees under the Clean Air Act, 47835 2016-17393
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Federal Advisory Committee on Juvenile Justice; Webinar, 47835-47836 2016-17306 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employee Benefits Security Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, 47836-47837 2016-17252 Petition for Finding Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 47837-47838 2016-17253
Management Management and Budget Office NOTICES Standard Occupational Classification Policy Committee's Recommendations for for the 2018 SOC, 48306-48310 2016-17424 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Requests for Administrative Waivers of the Coastwise Trade Laws: Vessel AIRLOOM, 47854 2016-17416 Vessel INVICTUS, 47853 2016-17413 Vessel SANDPIPER, 47853-47854 2016-17415 National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Procedure for Invoking Paragraph 17 of the May 4, 2016 Amendment to the November 3, 2015 Takata Consent Order, 47854-47856 2016-17356 Requests for Information: Nationally Uniform 911 Data System; Correction, 47854 2016-17207 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 47811 2016-17297 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 47811 2016-17298 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic: Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17A, 47733-47736 2016-17272 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47762-47763 2016-17305 Endangered and Threatened Species: 12-Month Finding on Petition to List the Caribbean Electric Ray as Threatened or Endangered, 47763-47775 2016-17397 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings, 47760-47762 2016-17380 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 47775-47776 2016-17379 New England Fishery Management Council, 47759-47760 2016-17381 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 47762 2016-17378 Requests for Nominations: Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee, 47776-47777 2016-17398 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: National Underground Railroad Network to Freedom Program, 47818-47819 2016-17360 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47838-47839 2016-17369 Navy Navy Department RULES Certifications and Exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 47706-47708 2016-17028 2016-17351 NOTICES Exclusive Licenses: SpringStar, Inc., 47791 2016-17027 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Enforcement Policy, 47689-47690 2016-16476 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery, 47839-47840 2016-17345 Determinations of Successful Completions of Inspections, Tests, and Analyses: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, 47840-47841 2016-17386 Exemptions and Combined License Amendments: Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Units 2 and 3, South Carolina Electric and Gas Co., and South Carolina Public Service Authority: Increased Concrete Thickness Tolerance for Column Line J-1 and J-2 Walls, etc., 47841-47842 2016-17387 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Cook Inlet Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244, 47819-47820 2016-16847 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Transnational Criminal Organizations; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of July 20, 2016), 48311-48313 2016-17608 Rural Utilities Rural Utilities Service RULES Procurement Methods; Correction, 47689 2016-17303 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange LLC, 47843-47844 2016-17280 Trading Suspension Orders: Scanner Technologies Corp., Seville Ventures Corp., StarInvest Group, Inc., and The Digital Development Group Corp., 47844-47845 2016-17449 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Conflicts of Interest Exemptions: Harbert Mezzanine Partners II SBIC, L.P., 47845 2016-17317 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 47845-47848 2016-17259 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Electronic Diversity Visa Entry Form, 47849 2016-17399 Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition: Breaking News: Turning the Lens on Mass Media, 47848 2016-17396 Every People Under Heaven: Jerusalem, 1000-1400, 47848 2016-17395 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 47811-47812 2016-17346 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Purchase of Certain Assets of Corporate Coaches, Inc: Academy Bus, LLC, and Corporate Coaches, Inc., 47849-47850 2016-17352 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Extension of the Air Cargo Advance Screening Pilot Program, 47812-47813 2016-17366 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Acquisition Regulation Clause; Brand Name or Equal, 47859-47860 2016-17340 Application for Educational Assistance to Supplement Tuition Assistance, 47861-47862 2016-17341 Availability of Educational, Licensing, and Certification Records, 47860-47861 2016-17343 Claim for One Sum Payment Government Life Insurance and Claim for Monthly Payments Government Life Insurance, 47861 2016-17342 Department of Housing and Urban Development/Department of Veterans Affairs Addendum to Uniform Residential Loan Application, 47859 2016-17344 Designation of Beneficiary, 47857 2016-17338 Loan Service Report, 47858 2016-17337 Monthly Certification of Flight Training, 47858-47859 2016-17339 Pension Claim Questionnaire for Farm Income, 47856-47857 2016-17336 VA Loan Electronic Reporting Interface System, 47857-47858 2016-17335 Meetings: Special Medical Advisory Group; Amendment, 47860 2016-17363 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, 47864-48218 2016-13490 Part III Homeland Security Department, Coast Guard, 48220-48304 2016-15229 Part IV Management and Budget Office, 48306-48310 2016-17424 Part V Presidential Documents, 48311-48313 2016-17608 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.

81 141 Friday, July 22, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Utilities Service 7 CFR Part 1780 Procurement Methods; Correction AGENCY:

Rural Utilities Service, Agriculture.

ACTION:

Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY:

The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is correcting its portion of USDA's uniform federal assistance final rule, that was published in the Federal Register on February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7695) by revising the procurement methods section.

DATES:

Effective Date: July 22, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ben Shuman, Water and Environmental Programs, Rural Utilities Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9011, Telephone: 202-720-1784, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On December 26, 2013, OMB published Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards final guidance (78 FR 78589) giving all federal award making agencies one year to implement conforming changes to all regulations as needed to address changes in requirements associated with this new Uniform Guidance. On December 19, 2014, OMB published a joint interim final rule and conforming changes in the Federal Register (79 FR 75871), making the conforming changes for award making agencies across the Federal government. Included in this joint interim final rule were conforming changes to regulations regarding procurement methods under Federal awards for the Rural Utilities Service Water and Waste Disposal program to ensure consistency with the Uniform Guidance.

Need for Correction

The United States Department of Agriculture finalized its portion of the conforming changes in the Federal Register on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 (81 FR 7695), that inadvertently stated instructions in § 1780.72, as published, which contains errors that may prove to be misleading and need to be clarified.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1780

Business and industry, Community development, Community facilities, Grant programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Waste treatment and disposal, Water supply, Watersheds.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 1780 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:

PART 1780—WATER AND WASTE LOANS AND GRANTS 1. The authority citation for part 1780 continues to read as follows: Authority:

5 U.S.C. 301; 7 U.S.C. 1989; 16 U.S.C. 1005.

Subpart C—Planning, Designing, Bidding, Contracting, Constructing and Inspections 2. Revise § 1780.72 to read as follows:
§ 1780.72 Procurement methods.

Procurement shall be made by one of the following methods and in accordance with requirements of 2 CFR 200.320: Micro-purchases, procurement by small purchase procedures, procurement by sealed bids (formal advertising), procurement by competitive proposals, or procurement by noncompetitive proposals. The sealed bid method is the preferred method for procuring construction.

Dated: July 13, 2016. Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17303 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Chapter I [NRC-2016-0134] NRC Enforcement Policy AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Policy revision; issuance.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a revision to its Enforcement Policy (Enforcement Policy or Policy) to reflect the new maximum civil penalty amount the agency can assess for a violation of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), or any regulation or order issued under the AEA. By interim final rule, the NRC changed this amount from $140,000 to $280,469 per violation per day, as mandated by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Improvements Act). This action revises the Enforcement Policy so that dollar amounts in the policy correspond to the agency's revised civil penalty amount, and also provides guidance regarding instances where the NRC may exercise discretion in mitigating the amount of a civil penalty.

DATES:

This revision to the Enforcement Policy is effective on August 1, 2016. The Commission will apply the revised Enforcement Policy to any penalties assessed on and after the effective date; the penalty is not based on the date that the violation occurs.

ADDRESSES:

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0134 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0134. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select “ADAMS Public Documents” and then select “Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.” For problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to [email protected] The ADAMS accession number for each document referenced in this document (if that document is available in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The revised Enforcement Policy is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML16197A561, and on the NRC's public Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/enforcement/enforce-pol.html.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Arrighi, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-0205, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the 2015 Improvements Act, which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (FCPIAA) and required all agencies to adjust for inflation their levels of civil monetary penalties via rulemaking by July 1, 2016, to be effective no later than August 1, 2016. In an interim final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of the Federal Register (81 FR 43019; July 1, 2016), the NRC is amending its regulations to implement the 2015 Improvements Act by adjusting the amount in § 2.205(j) of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), according to a statutory formula based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI), from $140,000 to $280,469. This amount represents the new maximum civil penalty that the NRC may impose for a violation of the AEA, or any regulation or order issued under the AEA, per violation per day. Starting in January 2017, the 2015 Improvements Act also requires that the NRC make annual inflation adjustments to the maximum civil penalty amount in 10 CFR 2.205, rounded to the nearest multiple of $1.

To incorporate the updated maximum civil penalty amount specified in its regulations, the NRC is issuing a revision to its Enforcement Policy (ADAMS Accession No. ML16197A561). Specifically, the NRC is updating Table A in Section 8.0, “Table of Base Civil Penalties,” which currently lists $140,000 as the maximum civil penalty amount the agency may assess for the most significant severity level of violation. To promote regulatory certainty and save NRC staff resources by lessening the chances that the Enforcement Policy will have to be revised on an annual basis alongside 10 CFR 2.205 resulting from minor increases in inflation (less than one half percent), the maximum civil penalty amount in the revised Table A will be calculated by rounding the maximum civil penalty amount in 10 CFR 2.205 down to the nearest multiple of $10,000 (assuming the amount in 10 CFR 2.205 is not already a multiple of $10,000). Therefore, the new maximum civil penalty in Table A is now $280,000, rounded down from $280,469. The 2015 Improvements Act does not limit the Commission's authority to exercise discretion and assess civil penalty levels below the statutory maximum, and the gains to be realized from a more stable table of base civil penalties outweighs any arguable loss of deterrent effect from rounding this maximum figure down, at most, $9,999 in a given year. Additionally (and as stated in the Preface to the Enforcement Policy), this is a statement of policy, not regulation, and the Commission still reserves the right to deviate from the Enforcement Policy where particular circumstances warrant and assess the full statutory maximum.

The revised Table A in Section 8.0 of the Enforcement Policy also now includes a note explaining how the table's maximum civil penalty amount is generated as a result of rounding down from the number in 10 CFR 2.205. The note also explains that other amounts listed in the table have been adjusted to maintain the same proportional relationship between penalties. The revised table also now includes a footnote explaining that the maximum civil penalty is adjusted on an annual basis to put the regulated community on notice that the NRC may periodically update the amount in 10 CFR 2.205 pursuant to the 2015 Improvements Act, which would necessitate a change to the amounts in Table A in Section 8.0 of the Enforcement Policy. In the event of such an update, the NRC may assess civil penalties consistent with the updated amount in 10 CFR 2.205 even if it has not yet performed an update to Table A (though the NRC will strive to provide timely updates of the Enforcement Policy when necessitated by updates to 10 CFR 2.205). Additionally, as stated in Section 6 of the FCPIAA (28 U.S.C. 2461 note), when the NRC increases civil penalty amounts through rulemaking pursuant to the 2015 Improvements Act, it will apply those increased amounts when assessing any penalty after the effective date of that rulemaking, regardless of whether the underlying violation occurred before that effective date.

The NRC is not adjusting the civil penalty amounts in Table A for the “loss, abandonment, or improper transfer of disposal of regulated material, regardless of the use or type of licensee,” other than to note that these values will be periodically reviewed and updated, since these civil penalty amounts are determined by the estimated or actual cost of authorized disposal.

Lastly, because the agency's authority to issue civil penalties for violations of the AEA has more than doubled as a result of the 2015 Improvements Act, the NRC is also including new language in Section 3.6 of the Enforcement Policy, “Use of Discretion in Determining the Amount of a Civil Penalty,” to confirm that, notwithstanding the outcome of the normal civil penalty process, the agency may take into account mitigating factors based on the merits of an individual case, including the ability of various classes of licensees to pay. It is not the NRC's intention that the economic impact of a civil penalty be so severe that it adversely affects a licensee's ability to safely conduct licensed activities or puts a licensee out of business. Section 3.6 now allows NRC staff to consider enforcement discretion for cases where there is a concern that imposition of a base civil penalty would be overly punitive rather than a deterrent for the individual or licensee.

II. Congressional Review Act

This policy statement is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Andrew L. Bates, Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2016-16476 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 600, 602, 603, and 606 RIN 3052-AD17 FCA Organization; Updates and Technical Corrections AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA or Agency) issues a final rule amending its regulations to reflect changes in the Agency's organizational structure and correct the zip code for the field office located in Irving, TX.

DATES:

This regulation will become effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register during which either one or both Houses of Congress are in session. We will publish a notice of the effective date in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mike Wilson, Policy Analyst, Office of Regulatory Policy, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4124, TTY (703) 883-4434; or Autumn Agans, Attorney-Advisor, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Objectives

The objective of this final rule is to reflect changes to the FCA's organizational structure and correct the zip code for the field office located in Irving, TX. In addition, references in our regulations to various FCA offices, which have changed, have been revised. We also are re-ordering the list of FCA offices into a more logical progression that is consistent with FCA's organizational chart.

II. Overview

On April 27, 2016, the FCA Board approved an organizational chart that separated the unrelated functions of the Office of Management Services (OMS) into the Office of Agency Services (OAS) and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). This change will allow the Directors of the new offices to better focus on the core functions and duties of the offices.

III. Organizational Structure

The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552, requires, in part, that each Federal agency publish in the Federal Register, for the guidance of the public, a description of its organization structure. Accordingly, we revise our regulations by:

(1) In § 600.2, changing the zip code for the Irving, TX field office from 75602-3957 to 75062-3906;

(2) In § 600.4,

(a) Including the Office of the Chief Financial Officer in FCA's organization structure;

(b) Including the Office of Agency Services in FCA's organizational structure;

(c) Removing the Office of Management Services from the FCA's organizational structure; and

(d) Re-ordering the list of FCA offices into a more logical progression that is consistent with FCA's organizational chart.

(3) In §§ 602.8, 603.340, and 606.670, changing the Office of Management Services to the Office of Agency Services, and corresponding office name abbreviations, where appropriate;

(4) In § 602.25, removing “Regulation and Policy Division” and changing the Office of Policy and Analysis to the Office of Regulatory Policy.

IV. Certain Findings

We have determined that the amendments involve Agency management and personnel and other minor technical changes. Therefore, the amendments do not constitute a rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2). Under the APA, the public may participate in the promulgation of rules that have a substantial impact on the public. The amendments to our regulations relate to Agency management and personnel and a minor technical change only and have no direct impact on the public and, therefore, do not require public participation.

Even if these amendments were a rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 551, 553(a)(2) of the APA, we have determined that notice and public comment are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B) of the APA, an agency may publish regulations in final form when they involve matters of agency organization or where the agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As discussed above, these amendments result from recent office reorganizations. Because the amendments will provide accurate and current information on the organization of the FCA and update the citation to the Act, it would be contrary to the public interest to delay amending the regulations.

V. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FCA hereby certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Each of the banks in the Farm Credit System (System), considered together with its affiliated associations, has assets and annual income in excess of the amounts that would qualify them as small entities. Therefore, System institutions are not “small entities” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 600

Organization and functions (Government agencies).

12 CFR Part 602

Freedom of information.

12 CFR Part 603

Privacy.

12 CFR Part 606

Administrative practice and procedure, Civil rights, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities, Individuals with disabilities.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 600, 602, 603, and 606 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 600—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS 1. The authority citation for part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.17, 8.11 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2241, 2242, 2243, 2244, 2245, 2252, 2279aa-11).

§ 600.2 [Amended]
2. Amend § 600.2 in paragraph (b) by removing the zip code “75602-3957” and adding in its place the zip code “75062-3906.”
3. Revise § 600.4 to read as follows:
§ 600.4 Organization of the Farm Credit Administration.

(a) Offices and functions. The primary offices of the FCA are:

(1) Office of Inspector General. The Office of Inspector General conducts independent audits, inspections, and investigations of Agency programs and operations and reviews proposed legislation and regulations.

(2) Secretary to the Board. The Secretary to the Board serves as the parliamentarian for the Board and keeps permanent and complete records and minutes of the acts and proceedings of the Board.

(3) Equal Employment and Inclusion Director. The Office of Equal Employment and Inclusion manages and directs the Agency-wide Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Employment Opportunity Program for FCA and FCSIC. The office serves as the chief liaison with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of Personnel Management on all EEO, diversity, and inclusion issues. The office provides counsel and leadership to Agency management to carry out its continuing policy and program of nondiscrimination, affirmative action, and diversity.

(4) Designated Agency Ethics Official. The Designated Agency Ethics Official is designated by the FCA Chairman to administer the provisions of title I of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, to coordinate and manage FCA's ethics program and to provide liaison to the Office of Government Ethics with regard to all aspects of FCA's ethics program.

(5) Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. The Office of Congressional and Public Affairs performs Congressional liaison duties and coordinates and disseminates Agency communications.

(6) Office of Secondary Market Oversight. The Office of Secondary Market Oversight regulates and examines the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation for safety and soundness and compliance with law and regulations.

(7) Office of the Chief Operating Officer. The Chief Operating Officer has broad responsibility for planning, directing, and controlling the operations of the Offices of Management Services, Examination, Regulatory Policy, and General Counsel in accordance with the operating philosophy and policies of the FCA Board.

(8) Office of Agency Services. The Office of Agency Services manages human capital and administrative services for the Agency. This includes providing the following services to the Agency: Staffing and placement, job evaluation, compensation and benefits, payroll administration, performance management and awards, employee relations, employee training and development, contracting, acquisitions, records and property management, supply services, agency purchase cards, design, publication, and mail service.

(9) Office of the Chief Financial Officer. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer manages and delivers timely, accurate, and reliable financial services to the Agency. The office establishes financial policies and procedures and oversees the formulation and execution of the Agency's budget. The office reports periodically on the status of the Agency's financial position, results of operations, and budgetary resources. It also oversees the Agency's travel management, internal controls, and personnel security programs.

(10) Office of Regulatory Policy. The Office of Regulatory Policy develops policies and regulations for the FCA Board's consideration; evaluates regulatory and statutory prior approvals; manages the Agency's chartering activities; and analyzes policy and strategic risks to the System.

(11) Office of Examination. The Office of Examination evaluates the safety and soundness of FCS institutions and their compliance with law and regulations and manages FCA's enforcement and supervision functions.

(12) Office of Information Technology. The Office of Information Technology manages and delivers the Agency's information technology, data analysis infrastructure, and the security supporting Agency technology resources.

(13) Office of General Counsel. The Office of General Counsel provides legal advice and services to the FCA Chairman, the FCA Board, and Agency staff.

(b) Additional information. You may obtain more information on the FCA's organization by visiting our Web site at http://www.fca.gov. You may also contact the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs:

(1) In writing at FCA, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090;

(2) By email at [email protected]; or

(3) By telephone at (703) 883-4056.

PART 602—RELEASING INFORMATION 4. The authority citation for part 602 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 5.9, 5.17, 5.59 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2243, 2252, 2277a-8); 5 U.S.C. 301, 552; 12 U.S.C. 1821(t); 52 FR 10012; E.O. 12600; 52 FR 23781, 3 CFR 1987, p. 235.

§ 602.8 [Amended]
5. Amend § 602.8 as follows: a. In the second sentence of paragraph (a), by removing the words “Office of Management Services (OMS)” and adding in their place the words “Office of Agency Services (OAS).” b. In paragraphs (b) and (c), by removing the abbreviation “OMS” and adding in its place the abbreviation “OAS” each place it appears.
§ 602.25 [Amended]
6. Amend § 602.25 by removing the words “Regulation and Policy Division, Office of Policy and Analysis” and adding in their place the words “Office of Regulatory Policy.”
PART 603—PRIVACY ACT REGULATIONS 7. The authority citation for part 603 continues to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 5.9, 5.17 of the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2243, 2252); 5 U.S.C. app. 3, 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2) and (k)(2).

§ 603.340 [Amended]
8. Amend § 603.340 in paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing the words “Office of Management Services” and adding in their place the words “Office of Agency Services” each place they appear.
PART 606—ENFORCEMENT OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAP IN PROGRAMS OR ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED BY THE FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 9. The authority citation for part 606 continues to read as follows: Authority:

29 U.S.C. 794.

§ 606.670 [Amended]
10. Amend § 606.670 in paragraph (c) by removing the words “Office of Management Services” and adding in their place the words “Office of Agency Services.”
Dated: July 13, 2016. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-16962 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM 12 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. OP-1544] Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk; Procedures for Measuring Daylight Overdrafts AGENCY:

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

ACTION:

Policy statement.

SUMMARY:

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) has revised part II of the Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk (PSR policy) related to the procedures for measuring balances intraday in institutions' accounts at the Federal Reserve Banks (Reserve Banks) to conform with enhancements to the Reserve Banks' same-day automated clearinghouse (ACH) service previously approved by the Board.

DATES:

Effective Date: September 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey D. Walker, Assistant Director (202-721-4559), Jason Hinkle, Manager, Financial Risk Management (202-912-7805), or Michelle D. Olivier, Senior Financial Services Analyst (202-452-2404), Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; for users of Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202/263-4869.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

The Board's PSR policy establishes the procedures, referred to as posting rules, for the settlement of credits and debits to institutions' Federal Reserve accounts for different payment types.1 The application of these posting rules determines an institution's intraday account balance and whether it has incurred a negative balance (daylight overdraft).

1 The Board's PSR policy is available at www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/psr_policy.htm.

As announced on September 23, 2015, the Board approved enhancements to the Reserve Banks' FedACH® SameDay Service (FedACH SameDay Service) effective September, 23, 2016.2 The enhancements are intended to align the Reserve Banks' existing opt-in same-day ACH service with amendments to NACHA's Operating Rules and Guidelines.3 Under the newly enhanced Reserve Bank service, all receiving depository financial institutions will be required to participate in same-day ACH, and originating depository financial institutions will be required to pay a fee to receiving depository financial institutions for each same-day ACH forward transaction. The NACHA amendments, as incorporated into the Reserve Bank Operating Circulars, will become effective in multiple phases, beginning with same-day credit and return transactions this September and followed by same-day debit transactions in September 2017. Upon implementation of the first phase, the Reserve Banks' current opt-in same-day ACH service will cease to exist and will be supplanted by the newly-enhanced same-day service. The PSR policy's posting rules for forward and return same-day ACH transactions are being updated to conform to the Reserve Banks' new FedACH SameDay Service, effective September 23, 2016.

2 80 FR 58248 (Sep. 28, 2015).

3 NACHA, whose membership consists of insured financial institutions and regional payment associations, establishes network-wide ACH rules through its Operating Rules & Guidelines. As an ACH operator, the Reserve Banks, through Operating Circular 4, incorporate NACHA's Operating Rules & Guidelines as rules that govern clearing and settlement of commercial ACH items by the Reserve Banks, except for those provisions specifically excluded in the Operating Circular.

Under the Reserve Banks' current same-day ACH service, credits and debits for forward same-day ACH transactions post at 5:00 p.m.4 Beginning September 23, 2016, credits and debits for same-day ACH credit transactions will post at 1:00 p.m. or 5:00 p.m., depending on when the ACH file is received by the Reserve Banks for processing. Forward ACH debit transactions will be eligible to settle same-day beginning September 15, 2017, as part of the implementation of the second phase of the NACHA rule amendments, and credits and debits for same-day ACH debit transactions will post according to the same posting rules as same-day ACH credit transactions.5 The posting of future-dated ACH forward transactions will not be affected, and credits and debits for these transactions will continue to post at 8:30 a.m. on the effective settlement date.

4 All times are eastern time.

5 Enhancements to the Reserve Banks' same-day ACH service will alter treatment of check truncation items that settle through FedACH. A check truncation item is a check that has been converted into an ACH debit entry for presentment and settlement over the ACH network based on an agreement between the collecting and paying banks. Under the current posting rules, check truncation transactions post at 5:00 p.m. on the current business day. Beginning September 23, 2016, check truncation transactions will post at the same time as other ACH debit transactions at 8:30 a.m. on the next business day and will post either next-day or same-day, as appropriate, beginning with phase two of the NACHA rule amendments. At this time, the Reserve Banks do not have any volume associated with check truncation items.

The approved enhancements effective this September also alter the settlement of ACH return items processed by the Reserve Banks. Under the current posting rules, credits and debits for returns of future-dated and same-day ACH forward items post either at 8:30 a.m. or in the afternoon at 5:00 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., respectively, with the specific posting time determined by when the item is received by the Reserve Banks. Effective September 23, 2016, all ACH return items, regardless of whether the associated forward item was future-dated or same-day, will post at the next available posting time or following the settlement of the associated forward transaction. Thus, credits and debits for return items will post at 8:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m., 5:00 p.m., or 5:30 p.m., with the specific posting time determined by when the item is received by the Reserve Banks.6

6 Paper returns, FedLine Web returns, paper notifications of change (NOCs) and FedLine Web NOCs will only be processed twice daily at 2:15 a.m. and 2:45 p.m. As such, these transactions will post at 8:30 a.m. or 5:00 p.m., depending on when the item is received by the Reserve Banks.

Policy on Payment System Risk

The Federal Reserve Policy on Payment System Risk, section II.A, under the heading “Procedures for Measuring Daylight Overdrafts” and the subheadings “Post at 8:30 a.m. eastern time,” “Post at 1:00 p.m. eastern time,” “Post at 5:00 p.m. eastern time,” and “Post at 5:30 p.m. eastern time,” is amended as follows:

Post at 8:30 a.m. eastern time:

+/− Term deposit maturities and accrued interest +/− Government and commercial ACH transactions, including return items 7

7 Institutions that are monitored in real time must fund the total amount of their commercial ACH credit originations in order for the transactions to be processed. If the Federal Reserve receives commercial ACH credit transactions from institutions monitored in real time after the scheduled close of the Fedwire Funds Service, these transactions will be processed at 12:30 a.m. the next business day, or by the ACH deposit deadline, whichever is earlier. The Account Balance Monitoring System provides intraday account information to the Reserve Banks and institutions and is used primarily to give authorized Reserve Bank personnel a mechanism to control and monitor account activity for selected institutions. For more information on ACH transaction processing, refer to the ACH Settlement Day Finality Guide available through the Federal Reserve Financial Services Web site at http://www.frbservices.org.

The federal government will not participate in the same-day ACH upon initial implementation in September 2016. ACH forward transactions originated or received by the federal government will not be eligible for same-day settlement and will settle on the next business day, or on a future date as indicated by the effective settlement date.

+/− Commercial check transactions, including returned checks 8

8 For the three commercial check transaction posting times, the Reserve Banks will post credits and debits to institutions' accounts for checks deposited and presented, respectively, at least 30 minutes before the posting time.

+ Treasury checks, postal money orders, local Federal Reserve Bank checks, and savings bond redemptions in separately sorted deposits; these items must be deposited by the latest applicable deposit deadline preceding the posting time + Advance-notice Treasury investments - Penalty assessments for tax payments from the Treasury Investment Program (TIP) 9

9 The Reserve Banks will identify and notify institutions with Treasury-authorized penalties on Thursdays. In the event that Thursday is a holiday, the Reserve Banks will identify and notify institutions with Treasury-authorized penalties on the following business day. Penalties will then be posted on the business day following notification.

Post by 1:00 p.m. eastern time:

+/− Commercial check transactions, including returned checks +/− FedACH SameDay Service transactions, including return items + Same-day Treasury investments

Post at 5:00 p.m. eastern time:

+/− FedACH SameDay Service transactions, including return items 10

10 Paper returns, FedLine Web returns, paper notifications of change (NOCs), and FedLine Web NOCS will only post at 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., depending on when the item is received by the Reserve Banks.

+ Treasury checks, postal money orders, and savings bond redemptions in separately sorted deposits; these items must be deposited by the latest applicable deposit deadline preceding the posting time + Local Federal Reserve Bank checks; these items must be presented before 3:00 p.m. eastern time

Post at 5:30 p.m. eastern time:

+/− FedACH SameDay Service return transactions +/− Commercial check transactions, including returned checks By order of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, acting through the Director of the Division of Reserve Bank Operations and Payment Systems under delegated authority, July 18, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-17334 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5431; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-044-AD; Amendment 39-18593; AD 2016-15-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; M7 Aerospace LLC Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of multiple cracks in the steel horizontal tube of the cockpit control column. This AD requires inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks and repair or replacement of the cockpit control column as necessary. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 26, 2016.

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

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected] For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5431.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5431; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 1, 2016 (81 FR 18804). The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple cracks in the cockpit control column horizontal tube at the corners of the access panel cutout, at the pulley bolt welds, and at the elevator arm weld in the steel horizontal tube of the control column on M7 Aerospace SA26, SA226, and SA227 airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks and repair or replacement of the cockpit control column as necessary. This condition, if not corrected, could result in partial or complete control column failure with partial or complete loss of pitch and/or roll control. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM (81 FR 18804, April 1, 2016) and the FAA's response to the comment.

Request for Previously Done Credit

Michael O'Brien at Bearskin Airlines commented they had been complying with this AD by accomplishing the service bulletins that are listed in the proposed AD. He asked if it would be acceptable to just accomplish a technical records research to see when the required actions were last done.

We agree that credit should be given for actions previously done with the service bulletins called out in the NPRM. The NPRM already allows for this with the phrase “unless already done” in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of the NPRM.

Because the requested change is already part of this AD, we have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

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

• Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 18804, April 1, 2016) for correcting the unsafe condition; and

• Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was already proposed in the NPRM (81 FR 18804, April 1, 2016).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed M7 Aerospace LLC SA26 Series Service Bulletin (SB) 26-27-002, M7 Aerospace LLC SA226 Series SB 226-27-078, M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series SB 227-27-058, and M7 Aerospace LLC SA227 Series SB CC7-27-030, all dated October 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks and repair or replacement of the cockpit control column as necessary. All of the related service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 350 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Inspection 12 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,020 Not applicable $1,020 $357,000

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

    On-Condition Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Repair cracks 2 work-hours × $85 per hour = $170 Not applicable $170 Replace parts 16 work-hours × $85 per hour = $1,360 $5,000 6,360
    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-15-02 M7 Aerospace LLC: Amendment 39-18593; Docket No. FAA-2016-5431; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-044-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 26, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to M7 Aerospace LLC Models SA26-AT, SA26-T, SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), SA226-TC, SA227-AC (C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC (C-26A), SA227-CC, SA227-DC (C-26B), and SA227-TT airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

    (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2700, Flight Controls.

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of multiple cracks in the steel horizontal tube of the cockpit control column. We are requiring repetitive inspections of the cockpit control column horizontal tube with repair or replacement, as necessary, of the cockpit control column. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

    (f) Compliance

    Comply with paragraphs (g)(1) through (2) of this AD using the following service bulletins within the compliance times specified below, unless already done:

    (1) For Models SA26-T and SA26-AT: M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 26-27-002, dated October 8, 2015;

    (2) For Models SA226-AT, SA226-T, SA226-T(B), and SA226-TC: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 226-27-078, dated October 8, 2015;

    (3) For Models SA227-AC(C-26A), SA227-AT, SA227-BC(C-26A), and SA227-TT: M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-058, dated October 8, 2015; or

    (4) For Models SA227-CC and SA227-DC (C-26B): M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-030, dated October 8, 2015.

    (g) Actions

    (1) For all airplanes: Within the next 2,000 hours time-in-service (TIS) after [insert date 35 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] (the effective date of this AD) or no later than when the airplane accumulates 20,000 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, do an initial inspection of the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks following the Accomplishment Instructions in section 2. of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this AD, as applicable; and repetitively inspect as follows:

    (i) For airplanes with less than 35,000 hours TIS as of [insert date 35 days after date of publication in the Federal Register] (the effective date of this AD): Repetitively inspect the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks every 5,000 hours TIS until the airplane reaches 35,000 hours TIS at which time do the inspection within 2,000 hours TIS from the last inspection or within the next 100 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and then thereafter at intervals not to exceed 2,000 hours TIS.

    (ii) For airplanes with 35,000 hours TIS or more as of [insert date 35 days after date of publication in the Federal Register ] (the effective date of this AD): Repetitively inspect the cockpit control column horizontal tube for cracks every 2,000 hours TIS.

    (2) For all airplanes: If any cracks are found following the inspections required in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(1)(i), or (ii), as applicable, before further flight, repair the control column following the Accomplishment Instructions in section 2. of the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), or (4), as applicable, of this AD.

    Note to paragraph (g)(1) through (2) of this AD: The reporting of information requested in paragraph 2.H. of the Accomplishment Instructions in the service bulletins identified in paragraphs (f)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this AD is not a required action of this AD.

    (h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Fort Worth Airplane Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

    (i) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Andrew McAnaul, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ASW-143 (c/o San Antonio MIDO), 10100 Reunion Place, Suite 650, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 308-3365; fax: (210) 308-3370; email: [email protected]

    (j) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) M7 Aerospace LLC Service Bulletin (SB) 26-27-002, dated October 8, 2015;

    (ii) M7 Aerospace LLC SB 226-27-078, dated October 8, 2015;

    (iii) M7 Aerospace LLC SB 227-27-058, dated October 8, 2015; or

    (iv) M7 Aerospace LLC SB CC7-27-030, dated October 8, 2015.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact M7 Aerospace LLC, 10823 NE Entrance Road, San Antonio, Texas 78216; phone: (210) 824-9421; fax: (210) 804-7766; Internet: http://www.elbitsystems-us.com; email: [email protected]

    (4) You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 816-329-4148.

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

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 13, 2016. Pat Mullen, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17039 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3993; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-065-AD; Amendment 39-18592; AD 2016-15-01] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of partial loss of no-back brake (NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). This AD requires an inspection to determine THSA part numbers, serial numbers, and flight cycles on certain THSAs; and repetitive replacement of certain THSAs. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective August 26, 2016.

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

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3993.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3993; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 7, 2016 (81 FR 11690) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of partial loss of NBB efficiency on the THSA. The NPRM proposed to require an inspection to determine THSA part numbers, serial numbers, and flight cycles on certain THSAs; and repetitive replacement for certain THSAs. We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes; Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R, F4-600R series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes (collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes); and Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During endurance qualification tests on a Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer Actuator (THSA) concerning another aeroplane type, a partial loss of the no-back brake (NBB) efficiency was experienced. Investigation results concluded that this partial loss of braking efficiency in some specific aerodynamic load conditions was due to polishing and auto-contamination of the NBB carbon friction disks.

    Due to design similarity on the A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 fleet, the same tests were initiated by the THSA manufacturer on certain type THSA, sampled from the field. Subject tests confirmed that THSA Part Number (P/N) 47142 series, as installed on the A300-600, A300-600ST and A310 fleet, are also affected by this partial loss of NBB efficiency.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, and in conjunction with the power gear not able to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could potentially lead to an uncommanded movement of the Horizontal Stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the removal from service of each affected THSA, with the intent of in-shop NBB carbon disk replacement.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3993.

    Comments

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

    Support for the NPRM

    The Airline Pilots Association International stated that it fully supports the intent of the NPRM.

    Requests To Revise Compliance Date

    Airbus, FedEx Express, and United Parcel Service requested that we revise the compliance date in paragraph (j)(3) of the proposed AD from February 1, 2018, to February 1, 2019. The commenters stated that this revision would match the MCAI.

    We agree with the commenters' request. This was a typographical error. Our intent was to match the MCAI. We have revised paragraph (j)(3) of this AD accordingly.

    Request To Allow Maintenance Records Review

    FedEx Express requested that we allow a review of the operator's maintenance records to determine the part number and serial number of the THSA specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD. FedEx Express stated that this review would accomplish the same intent as a physical inspection of the THSA.

    We agree with the commenter's request. We have revised paragraph (h)(1) of this AD to allow doing a review of airplane maintenance records in lieu of the THSA inspection if the part number and serial number of the THSA can be conclusively determined from that review.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for inspection and replacement of the THSA.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 152 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We also estimate that it would take about 27 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $590,000 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $90,028,840, or $592,295 per product.

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-15-01 Airbus: Amendment 39-18592. Docket No. FAA-2016-3993; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-065-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective August 26, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(6) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.

    (5) Airbus Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

    (6) Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of partial loss of no-back brake (NBB) efficiency on the trimmable horizontal stabilizer actuator (THSA). We are issuing this AD to prevent loss of THSA NBB efficiency, which, in conjunction with the inability of the power gear to keep the ball screw in its last commanded position, could lead to an uncommanded movement of the horizontal stabilizer, possibly resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Affected THSAs

    THSAs affected by the requirements of this AD have part numbers (P/Ns) 47142-403, 47142-413, 47142-414, and 47142-423.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    FAA AD 2011-15-08, Amendment 39-16755 (76 FR 42029, July 18, 2011), requires installation of three secondary retention plates for the gimbal bearings on the THSA upper primary attachment, which involved a THSA part number change from the -300 series to the -400 series.

    Note 2 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    The life limits specified in Part 4 of the airworthiness limitations section are still relevant for the affected THSA. This AD addresses a replacement limit for the NBB disks installed on the THSA, not the life limit for the THSA itself.

    (h) Inspection for Affected THSAs, Flight Cycles, and THSA Replacement

    Before each date and before exceeding the corresponding THSA flight-cycle limits specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD; and before exceeding the flight-cycle limit corresponding to each date as specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (1) Do an inspection of the THSA to determine the part number and serial number. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the part number and serial number of the THSA can be conclusively determined from that review.

    (2) Do an inspection of the airplane maintenance records to determine the flight cycles accumulated on each affected THSA since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later. If no maintenance records conclusively identifying the last NBB disk replacement are available, the flight cycles accumulated since first installation of the THSA on an airplane apply.

    (i) THSA Replacement

    By each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, for those affected THSAs having reached or exceeded the corresponding number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, replace the THSA with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015, as applicable.

    (j) Compliance Dates and THSA Flight-Cycle Limits

    Paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD specify compliance dates and THSA flight-cycle limits for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD.

    (1) As of 30 days after the effective date of this AD: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 30,000 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

    (2) As of February 1, 2017: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 20,000 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

    (3) As of February 1, 2019: The affected THSA flight-cycle limit is 14,600 flight cycles since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

    (k) Serviceable THSA Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable THSA is a unit identified in paragraph (k)(1) or (k)(2) of this AD.

    (1) A THSA identified in paragraph (g) of this AD that, as of each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, has not exceeded the flight-cycle limits specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD since first installation of the THSA on an airplane, or since the last NBB disk replacement, whichever is later.

    (2) A THSA with a different part number (e.g., a THSA that is not identified in paragraph (g) of this AD) that is not affected by the requirements of this AD.

    (l) THSA Replacements

    As of each date and before exceeding the flight-cycle limit corresponding to each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD: Replace each affected THSA with a serviceable unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015.

    (m) Parts Installation Limitation

    Before each date specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, an operator may install an affected THSA on an airplane, provided that the unit has not exceeded the corresponding number of flight cycles specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3) of this AD, since first installation on an airplane, or since last NBB replacement, whichever is later.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone: 425-227-2125; fax: 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

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

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

    (o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0081, dated May 7, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3993.

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A300-27-6070, dated February 17, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A310-27-2106, dated February 17, 2015.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 11, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17014 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 91 [Docket No.: FAA-2014-0225; Amdt. No. 91-331C] RIN 2120-AK78 Extension of the Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs); Technical Amendment AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 27, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a final rule extending the prohibition against certain flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) flight information regions (FIRs) by all United States (U.S.) air carriers; U.S. commercial operators; persons exercising the privileges of a U.S. airman certificate, except when such persons are operating a U.S.-registered aircraft for a foreign air carrier; and operators of U.S.-registered civil aircraft, except when such operators are foreign air carriers. The State Aviation Administration of Ukraine conducted and completed an airspace restructuring that altered the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Region (FIR) altitude structure specified in the final rule. To address the Ukraine airspace restructuring and provide additional clarity, this technical amendment specifically identifies the prohibited airspace in which Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 113, applies, with inclusive altitudes and lateral limitations (latitude and longitude coordinates).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective on July 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Filippell, Air Transportation Division, AFS-220, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-8166; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Good Cause for Immediate Adoption

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and comment procedures for rules when the agency for “good cause” finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under this section, an agency, upon finding good cause, may issue a final rule without seeking comment prior to the rulemaking.

    The FAA finds that good cause exists under APA section 553(b)(3)(B) for this technical amendment to published without public notice and comment because this amendment is limited to providing additional clarity concerning specific airspace subject to the existing SFAR restriction, by adding latitude and longitude coordinates in lieu of the names for the FIRs.

    In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires publication of a substantive rule must be made not less than 30 days before the effective date except when the agency finds good cause and publishes such justification with the rule.

    Good cause exists under section 553(d)(3) of the APA for this technical amendment to become effective on the date of its filing for public inspection. Section 553(d)(3) allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This rule merely provides additional clarity for the specific airspace subject to the existing restriction, by adding latitude and longitude coordinates in lieu of the names for the FIRs. In addition, the public interest is served by avoiding delay in the effective date of this technical amendment because clarity in the coverage of airspace subject to the rule is necessary to address the potential hazard to civil aviation that exists in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnepropetrovsk (UKDV) FIRs, as described in the FAA's final rule promulgating the SFAR. 80 FR 65621, 65622. For these reasons, the FAA finds good cause under APA section 553(d)(3) exists for this amendment to become effective on July 21, 2016.

    II. Background

    SFAR 113, § 91.1607, Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs) was published on December 29, 2014, and subsequently extended on October 27, 2015. As explained in the preamble accompanying the December 29, 2014 rule, the FAA first restricted flights over Simferopol (UKFV) by publishing the SFAR on April 25, 2014. On December 29, 2014, the FAA extended the scope of the airspace covered by the SFAR, based on increased safety concerns. The December 29, 2014, rule was extended on October 27, 2015. During this time period, the State Aviation Administration of Ukraine restructured the airspace. The new configuration altered both the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Region (FIR) altitude structures. In order to address the Ukraine airspace restructuring, this technical amendment specifically identifies the prohibited airspace in which SFAR 113, § 91.1607, applies, to provide inclusive altitudes and lateral limitations (latitude and longitude coordinates).

    III. Technical Amendment

    Consistent with the foregoing, the FAA clarifies the lateral limits of the prohibited airspace to include that area previously described as the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, which is defined as:

    465800N 0360000E-463500N 0364200E- 463424N 0372206E-452700N 0364100E- 452242N 0364100E-451824N 0363524E- 451442N 0363542E-451218N 0363200E- 450418N 0363418E-445612N 0363636E- 443100N 0364000E-424400N 0361600E- 424700N 0340000E-424800N 0320000E- 424800N 0310000E-424800N 0304500E- 434100N 0303200E-441000N 0302512E- 441500N 0302400E-444600N 0300900E- 445447N 0300448E-445230N 0302130E- 445848N 0303342E-451530N 0310642E- 452436N 0312500E-453828N 0315311E- 454436N 0320548E-455442N 0322700E- 460730N 0325430E-464600N 0325300E- 474400N 0330300E-472700N 0344800E- 470630N 0355500E-465800N 0360000E

    The prohibited airspace within the above lateral limits extends in altitude from the surface to unlimited.

    Additionally, prohibited airspace includes that area previously described as the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR, which is defined as:

    511400N 0342700E-504942N 0341300E- 502043N 0335720E-501246N 0335307E- 491848N 0333700E-485700N 0332200E- 484118N 0324431E-483620N 0324010E- 483128N 0323605E-482300N 0323900E- 480730N 0325324E-474600N 0325000E- 474400N 0330300E-472700N 0344800E- 470630N 0355500E-465800N 0360000E- 463500N 0364200E-463424N 0372206E- 463930N 0372518E-464700N 0373000E- 465900N 0382000E-470642N 0381324E- then along state boundary until point/-511400N 0342700E

    The prohibited airspace within the above lateral limits extends in altitude from the surface to unlimited.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 91

    Air traffic control, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Aviation safety, Freight, Ukraine.

    The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

    PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES 1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 1155, 40101, 40103, 40105, 40113, 40120, 44101, 44111, 44701, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44712, 44715, 44716, 44717, 44722, 46306, 46315, 46316, 46504, 46506-46507, 47122, 47508, 47528-47531, 47534, articles 12 and 29 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (61 Stat. 1180), (126 Stat. 11).

    2. In § 91.1607, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 91.1607 Special Federal Aviation Regulation No. 113—Prohibition Against Certain Flights in the Simferopol (UKFV) and Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) Flight Information Regions (FIRs).

    (b) Flight prohibition. Except as provided in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, no person described in paragraph (a) of this section may conduct flight operations in the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR or the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR.

    (1)(i) The lateral limits of the prohibited airspace includes that area currently described as the Simferopol (UKFV) FIR, which is defined as:

    465800N 0360000E-463500N 0364200E- 463424N 0372206E-452700N 0364100E- 452242N 0364100E-451824N 0363524E- 451442N 0363542E-451218N 0363200E- 450418N 0363418E-445612N 0363636E- 443100N 0364000E-424400N 0361600E- 424700N 0340000E-424800N 0320000E- 424800N 0310000E-424800N 0304500E- 434100N 0303200E-441000N 0302512E- 441500N 0302400E-444600N 0300900E- 445447N 0300448E-445230N 0302130E- 445848N 0303342E-451530N 0310642E- 452436N 0312500E-453828N 0315311E- 454436N 0320548E-455442N 0322700E- 460730N 0325430E-464600N 0325300E- 474400N 0330300E-472700N 0344800E- 470630N 0355500E-465800N 0360000E

    (ii) The prohibited airspace within the lateral limits extends in altitude from the surface to unlimited.

    (2)(i) The lateral limits of the prohibited airspace includes that area previously described as the Dnipropetrovsk (UKDV) FIR, which is defined as:

    511400N 0342700E-504942N 0341300E- 502043N 0335720E-501246N 0335307E- 491848N 0333700E-485700N 0332200E- 484118N 0324431E-483620N 0324010E- 483128N 0323605E-482300N 0323900E- 480730N 0325324E-474600N 0325000E- 474400N 0330300E-472700N 0344800E- 470630N 0355500E-465800N 0360000E- 463500N 0364200E-463424N 0372206E- 463930N 0372518E-464700N 0373000E- 465900N 0382000E-470642N 0381324E- then along state boundary until point/-511400N 0342700

    (ii) The prohibited airspace within the lateral limits extends in altitude from the surface to unlimited.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40101(d)(1), 40105(b)(1)(A), and 44701(a)(5), on July 14, 2016. Dale Bouffiou, Deputy Director, Office of Rulemaking.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17431 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [TD 9776] RIN 1545-BM74 Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final and temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains temporary regulations that provide guidance regarding the income inclusion rules under section 50(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that are applicable to a lessee of investment credit property when a lessor of such property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property. These temporary regulations also provide rules to coordinate the section 50(a) recapture rules with the section 50(d)(5) income inclusion rules. In addition, these temporary regulations provide rules regarding income inclusion upon a lease termination, lease disposition by a lessee, or disposition of a partner's or S corporation shareholder's entire interest in a lessee partnership or S corporation outside of the recapture period. Accordingly, these regulations will affect lessees of investment credit property when the lessor of such property makes an election to treat the lessee as having acquired the property and an investment credit is determined under section 46 with respect to such lessee. The text of these temporary regulations also serves as the text of the proposed regulations set forth in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These regulations are effective on July 22, 2016.

    Applicability Date: For date of applicability, see § 1.50-1T(f).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer A. Records, (202) 317-6853 (not a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    These temporary regulations amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) under section 50(d)(5) to provide the income inclusion rules applicable to a lessee of investment credit property when a lessor elects to treat the lessee as having acquired such property. Section 50(d)(5) provides that, for purposes of the investment credit, rules similar to former section 48(d) (as in effect prior to the enactment of Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat 1388 (November 5, 1990))) apply.

    Former section 48(d)(1) permitted a lessor of new section 38 property to elect to treat that property as having been acquired by the lessee for an amount equal to its fair market value (or, if the lessor and lessee were members of a controlled group of corporations, equal to the lessor's basis). Former section 48(d)(3) provided that if the lessor made the election provided in former section 48(d)(1) with respect to any such property, the lessee would be treated for all purposes of subpart E, part IV, subchapter A, Chapter 1, subtitle A, as having acquired such property. Section 50(a)(5)(A) replaced the term “section 38 property” with the term “investment credit property.”

    Under former section 48(q), if a credit was determined under section 46 with respect to section 38 property, the basis of the property was reduced by 50 percent of the amount of the credit determined (or 100 percent of the amount of the credit determined in the case of a credit for qualified rehabilitation expenditures). Former section 48(d)(5) provided specific rules coordinating the effect of the former section 48(d) election with the basis adjustment rules under former section 48(q). Because the lessee would have no basis in the property that the lessee was only deemed to have acquired pursuant to the election, former section 48(d)(5)(A) provided that the basis adjustment rules under former section 48(q) did not apply. Section 50(c) replaced former section 48(q) and provides the current basis adjustment rules.

    In lieu of a basis adjustment, former section 48(d)(5)(B) provided that the lessee was required to include ratably in gross income, over the shortest recovery period which could be applicable under section 168 with respect to the property, an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the credit allowable under section 38 to the lessee with respect to such property. In the case of the rehabilitation credit, former section 48(q)(3) provided that former section 48(d)(5)(B) was to be applied without the phrase “50 percent of.”

    Former section 48(d)(5)(C) provided that, in the case of a disposition of property to which former section 47 (the former recapture rules) applied, the income inclusion rules of former section 48(d)(5) applied in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. Section 50(a) replaced former section 47 and provides the current recapture rules.

    Explanation of Provisions A. Scope

    These temporary regulations provide the applicable rules that the Secretary has determined are similar to the rules of former section 48(d)(5). Thus, these temporary regulations are limited in scope to the income inclusion rules that apply when a lessor elects under § 1.48-4 of the Treasury Regulations to treat the lessee as having acquired investment credit property.

    B. In General

    Section 1.50-1T(b) provides the general rules for coordinating the basis adjustment rules under section 50(c) (the successor to former section 48(q)) with the rules under § 1.48-4 pursuant to which a lessor may elect to treat the lessee of investment credit property as having acquired such property for purposes of calculating the investment credit. Similar to the rule in former section 48(d)(5)(A), which provided that the basis adjustment rules under former section 48(q) did not apply when a § 1.48-4 election was made, § 1.50-1T(b)(1) provides that section 50(c) does not apply when the election is made. Thus, the lessor is not required to reduce its basis in the property by the amount of the investment credit determined under section 46 (or 50 percent of the amount of the credit in the case of the energy credit under section 48).

    Under § 1.50-1T(b)(2), in lieu of a basis adjustment, and similar to the rule contained in former section 48(d)(5)(B), a lessee must include in gross income an amount equal to the amount of the credit (or, in the case of the section 48 energy credit, 50 percent of the amount of the credit) determined under section 46. Generally, the lessee includes such amount ratably over the shortest recovery period applicable under the accelerated cost recovery system provided in section 168, beginning on the date the investment credit property is placed in service and continuing on each one year anniversary date thereafter until the end of the applicable recovery period. The amount required to be included by the lessee is not subject to any limitations under section 38(c) on the amount of the credit allowed based on the amount of the lessee's income tax.

    Because section 50(c) replaces the old basis adjustment rules under former section 48(q), the amount the lessee is required to include in gross income under these temporary regulations in § 1.50-1T(b)(2) corresponds to the current basis adjustment amounts required under section 50(c), rather than the former basis adjustment amounts provided in former section 48(q).

    C. Special Rule for Partnerships and S Corporations

    Section 1.50-1T(b)(3) provides that, in the case of a partnership (other than an electing large partnership) or an S corporation for which an election is made under § 1.48-4 to treat such entity as having acquired the investment credit property, each partner or S corporation shareholder that is the “ultimate credit claimant” is treated as the lessee for purposes of the income inclusion rules under § 1.50-1T(b)(2). The term ultimate credit claimant is defined in § 1.50-1T(b)(3)(ii) as any partner or S corporation shareholder that files (or that would file) Form 3468, “Investment Credit” (or its successor form), with such partner's or S corporation shareholder's income tax return to claim the investment credit determined under section 46 that results in the corresponding income inclusion under § 1.50-1T(b)(2). Each partner or S corporation shareholder that is the ultimate credit claimant must include in gross income the amount required under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) in proportion to the amount of the credit determined under section 46 (or 50 percent of the amount of the credit in the case of the energy credit under section 48) with respect to the partner or S corporation shareholder.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that, because the investment credit and any limitations on the credit itself are determined at the partner or S corporation shareholder level, it is appropriate that the income inclusion occurs at the partner or shareholder level. In the case of a partnership that actually owns the investment credit property, a partner in a partnership is treated as the taxpayer with respect to the partner's share of the basis of partnership investment credit property under § 1.46-3(f)(1) and separately computes the investment credit based on its share of the basis of the investment credit property. Similarly, in the case of a lessee partnership where the lessor makes an election under § 1.48-4 to treat the partnership as having acquired investment credit property, each partner in the lessee partnership is the taxpayer with respect to whom the investment credit is determined under section 46. Each partner in the lessee partnership will separately compute the investment credit based on each partner's share of the investment credit property. The credit is therefore computed at the partner level based on partner level limitations. Section 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii), which requires allocations with respect to the investment tax credit provided by section 38 to be made in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership, provides that allocations of cost or qualified investment (as opposed to the investment credit itself, which is not determined at the partnership level) made in accordance with § 1.46-3(f) shall be deemed to be made in accordance with the partners' interests in the partnership.

    Under similar principles, in the case of a lessor that makes an election under § 1.48-4 to treat an S corporation as having acquired investment credit property, each shareholder in the lessee S corporation is the taxpayer with respect to whom the investment credit is determined under section 46. The credit is therefore computed at the S corporation shareholder level based on shareholder level limitations.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that the burden of income inclusion should match the benefits of the allowable credit. Therefore, because the investment credit and any limitations on the credit are determined at the partner or shareholder level, these temporary regulations in § 1.50-1T(b)(3) provide that the gross income required to be ratably included under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) is not an item of partnership income for purposes of subchapter K or an item of S corporation income for purposes of subchapter S. Accordingly, the rules that would apply were such gross income an item of income under section 702 or section 1366, such as section 705(a) (providing for an increase in the partner's outside basis for items of income) or section 1367(a) (providing for an increase in the S corporation shareholder's stock basis for items of income) do not apply.

    The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware that some partnerships and S corporations have taken the position that this income is includible by the partnership or S corporation and that their partners or S corporation shareholders are entitled to increase their bases in their partnership interests or S corporation stock as a result of the income inclusion. The Treasury Department and the IRS believe that such basis increases are inconsistent with Congressional intent as they thwart the purpose of the income inclusion requirement in former section 48(d)(5)(B) and confer an unintended benefit upon partners and S corporation shareholders of lessee partnerships and S corporations that is not available to any other credit claimant.

    The investment credit rules operate to allow a taxpayer to claim the immediate benefit of the full amount of the allowable credit in exchange for the recoupment of that amount (or 50 percent of that amount in the case of the section 48 energy credit) over time. Where the taxpayer claiming the credit owns the investment credit property, the basis reduction provided in section 50(c) results in reduced cost recovery deductions over the life of the property or the realization of gain (or a reduction in the amount of loss realized) upon the disposition of the property. In the case of a lessor that elects under § 1.48-4 to treat the lessee of investment credit property as having acquired such property, § 1.50-1T(b)(2) instead requires the lessee to ratably include this amount in gross income over the life of the property.

    If that lessee is a partnership or an S corporation, however, some partnerships and S corporations contend that this income inclusion is treated as an item of partnership or S corporation income that entitles their partners or S corporation shareholders to a corresponding basis increase under section 705(a) or section 1367(a). As a result of the basis increase, these partners or S corporation shareholders claim a loss (or reduce the amount of gain realized) upon the disposition of their partnership interests or S corporation shares.

    As noted, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that the income inclusion is not properly treated as an item of partnership income or of S corporation income. Nonetheless, had the Treasury Department and the IRS determined otherwise, the Treasury Department and the IRS believe that in addition to being inconsistent with the purpose of section 48(d)(5)(B), allowing a basis increase for the income inclusion would also be inconsistent with the purpose of sections 705 and 1367. The income to be included is a notional amount, which has no current or future economic effect on the basis of assets held by a partnership or S corporation. In general, Congress intended for sections 705 and 1367 to preserve inside and outside basis parity for partnerships and S corporations so as to prevent any unintended tax benefit or detriment to the partners or shareholders. See H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. A225 (1954); S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. 384 (1954); H.R. Rep. No. 97-826, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. p. 17 (1982); S. Rep. No. 97-640, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 16, 18 (1982); and Rev. Rul. 96-11 (1996-1 CB 140). Ultimately, the Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that, under any approach, allowing partners and S corporation shareholders a basis increase to offset the income inclusion required by § 1.50-1T(b)(2) upon disposition of their partnership interests or S corporation shares is inappropriate, and that Congress did not intend to allow partners and S corporation shareholders the full benefit of the credit without any of the corresponding burden.

    D. Coordination With the Recapture Rules

    Section 1.50-1T(c) provides that if the investment credit recapture rules under section 50(a) are triggered (including if there is a lease termination), causing a recapture of the credit or a portion of the credit, an adjustment will be made to the lessee's (or, as applicable, the ultimate credit claimant's) gross income for any discrepancies between the total amount included in gross income under these temporary regulations in § 1.50-1T(b)(2) and the total credit allowable after recapture. The adjustment amount is taken into account in the taxable year in which the property is disposed of or otherwise ceases to be investment credit property.

    If the amount of the unrecaptured credit (that is, the allowable credit after taking into account the recapture amount), or 50 percent of the unrecaptured credit in the case of the energy credit, exceeds the amount previously included in gross income under § 1.50-1T(b)(2), the lessee's (or the ultimate credit claimant's) gross income is increased. The lessee (or the ultimate credit claimant) is required to include in gross income an amount equal to the excess of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured (or 50 percent of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured in the case of the energy credit) over the amount of the total increases in gross income previously made under § 1.50-1T(b)(2). This amount is in addition to the amounts previously included in gross income under § 1.50-1T(b)(2).

    If the income inclusion prior to recapture under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) exceeds the unrecaptured credit (that is, the allowable credit after taking into account the recapture amount), or 50 percent of the unrecaptured credit in the case of the energy credit, the lessee's (or the ultimate credit claimant's) gross income is reduced. The lessee's or ultimate credit claimant's gross income is reduced by an amount equal to the excess of the total increases in gross income previously made under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) over the amount of the credit that is not recaptured (50 percent of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured in the case of the energy credit).

    E. Election To Accelerate Income Inclusion Outside of the Recapture Period

    Section 1.50-1T(d)(1) provides that a lessee or an ultimate credit claimant may make an irrevocable election to include in gross income any remaining income required to be taken into account under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) in the taxable year in which the lease terminates or is otherwise disposed of. Similarly, § 1.50-1T(d)(1) provides that if an ultimate credit claimant disposes of its entire interest, either direct or indirect, in a partnership (other than an electing large partnership) or an S corporation, the ultimate credit claimant may make an irrevocable election to include in gross income any remaining income required to be taken into account under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) in the taxable year in which the ultimate credit claimant no longer owns a direct or indirect interest in the lessee of the investment credit property. The availability of this election allows a lessee or an ultimate credit claimant to account for any remaining required gross income inclusion in the taxable year in which it is exiting its investment.

    This election is available only outside of the section 50(a) recapture period, and only if the lessee or the ultimate credit claimant was not already required to accelerate the gross income required to be included under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) because of a recapture event during the recapture period. Additionally, a former partner or S corporation shareholder that owns no direct or indirect interest in the lessee partnership or S corporation may not elect to accelerate the gross income required to be included under § 1.50-1T(b)(2) at the time of a termination or disposition of the lease by the lessee partnership or S corporation. The appropriate time for a former partner or S corporation shareholder that is an ultimate credit claimant to elect income acceleration is the taxable year that it disposes of its entire interest in a lessee partnership or S corporation.

    Section 1.50-1T(d)(2) provides that the election to accelerate the income inclusion must be made by the due date (including any extension of time) of the lessee's return, or, in the case of a partnership or S corporation, by the due date (including any extension of time) of the ultimate credit claimant's return for the taxable year in which the relevant event occurs (for example, the lease termination, lease disposition, or disposition of the entire interest in the lessee partnership or S corporation). The election is made by including the remaining gross income required by these temporary regulations in the taxable year of the relevant event (for example, the lease termination, lease disposition, or disposition of the entire interest in the lessee partnership or S corporation).

    F. Applicability Date

    These temporary regulations apply with respect to investment credit property placed in service on or after the date that is 60 days after the date of filing of these regulations in the Federal Register. The temporary regulations should not be construed to create any inference concerning the proper interpretation of section 50(d)(5) prior to the effective date of the regulations.

    G. Rev. Proc. 2014-12

    Rev. Proc. 2014-12 (2014-3 IRB 415) establishes the requirements under which the IRS will not challenge partnership allocations of section 47 rehabilitation credits by a partnership to its partners. Section 3 states that Rev. Proc. 2014-12 does not address how a partnership is required to allocate the income inclusion required by section 50(d)(5). Furthermore, section 4.07 provides that, solely for purposes of determining whether a partnership meets the requirements of that section, the partnership's allocation to its partners of the income inclusion required by section 50(d)(5) shall not be taken into account.

    Because § 1.704-1(b)(4)(ii) provides that allocations of cost or qualified investment, and not the investment credit itself (which is not determined at the partnership level), made in accordance with § 1.46-3(f) shall be deemed to be made in accordance with the partners' interests in a partnership, this Treasury decision modifies Rev. Proc. 2014-12 by changing all references to allocations of section 47 rehabilitation credits to refer instead to allocations of qualified rehabilitation expenditures under section 47(c)(2). Additionally, because § 1.50-1T(b)(3) provides that the gross income required to be included under section 50(d)(5) is not an item of partnership income to which the rules of subchapter K apply, this Treasury decision modifies Rev. Proc. 2014-12 by deleting the sentences in section 3 and section 4.07 that refer to allocation by a partnership of the income inclusion required under section 50(d)(5).

    Effect on Other Documents

    Rev. Proc. 2014-12 (2014-3 IRB 415) is modified by: (1) Changing all references to allocations of section 47 rehabilitation credits to refer instead to allocations of qualified rehabilitation expenditures under section 47(c)(2); and (2) deleting the sentences in section 3 and section 4.07 that refer to allocation by a partnership of the income inclusion required under section 50(d)(5).

    Statement of Availability of IRS Documents

    Rev. Proc. 2014-12 (2014-3 IRB 415) is published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin (or Cumulative Bulletin) and is available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, or by visiting the IRS Web site at http://www.irs.gov.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It has also been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations. For applicability of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, please refer to the Special Analyses section of the preamble to the cross-referenced notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Proposed Rules section in this issue of the Federal Register. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these temporary regulations is Jennifer A. Records, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 1 is amended as follows:

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.50-1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.50-1 Lessee's income inclusion following election of lessor of investment credit property to treat lessee as acquirer.

    (a) through (f) [Reserved]. For further guidance, see § 1.50-1T(a) through (f).

    Par. 3. Section 1.50-1T is added to read as follows:
    § 1.50-1T Lessee's income inclusion following election of lessor of investment credit property to treat lessee as acquirer (temporary).

    (a) In general. Section 50(d)(5) provides that, for purposes of computing the investment credit, rules similar to the rules of former section 48(d) (relating to certain leased property) (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508, 104 Stat. 1388 (November 5, 1990))) apply. This section provides rules similar to the rules of former section 48(d)(5) that the Secretary has determined shall apply for purposes of determining the inclusion in gross income required when a lessor elects to treat a lessee as having acquired investment credit property.

    (b) Coordination with basis adjustment rules. In the case of any property with respect to which an election is made under § 1.48-4 by a lessor of investment credit property to treat the lessee as having acquired the property—

    (1) Basis adjustment. Section 50(c) does not apply with respect to such property.

    (2) Amount of credit included ratably in gross income—(i) In general. A lessee of the property must include ratably in gross income, over the shortest recovery period which could be applicable under section 168 with respect to that property, an amount equal to the amount of the credit determined under section 46 with respect to that property. The ratable income inclusion under this paragraph begins on the date the investment credit property is placed in service and continues on each one year anniversary date thereafter until the end of the applicable recovery period. The lessee will include in gross income the amount of its credit determined under section 46 regardless of limitations on the amount of the credit allowed under section 38(c) based on the amount of the lessee's income tax.

    (ii) Special rule for the energy credit. In the case of any energy credit determined under section 48(a), paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section applies only to the extent of 50 percent of the amount of the credit determined under section 46.

    (3) Special rule for partnerships and S corporations—(i) In general. For purposes of paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if the lessee of the property is a partnership (other than an electing large partnership) or an S corporation, the gross income includible under such paragraph is not an item of partnership income to which the rules of subchapter K of Chapter 1, subtitle A of the Code apply or an item of S corporation income to which the rules of subchapter S of Chapter 1, subtitle A of the Code apply. Any partner or S corporation shareholder that is an ultimate credit claimant (as defined in paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of this section) is treated as a lessee that must include in gross income the amounts required under paragraph (b)(2) of this section in proportion to the credit determined under section 46 with respect to such partner or S corporation shareholder.

    (ii) Definition of ultimate credit claimant. For purposes of this section, the term ultimate credit claimant means any partner or S corporation shareholder that files (or that would file) Form 3468, “Investment Credit”, with such partner's or S corporation shareholder's income tax return to claim an investment credit determined under section 46 with respect to such partner or S corporation shareholder.

    (c) Coordination with the recapture rules—(1) In general. If section 50(a) requires an increase in the lessee's or the ultimate credit claimant's tax or a reduction in the carryback or carryover of an unused credit (or both) as a result of an early disposition (including a lease termination), etc., of leased property for which an election had been made under § 1.48-4, the lessee or the ultimate credit claimant is required to include in gross income an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured over the total increases in gross income previously made under paragraph (b)(2) of this section with respect to the property. Such amount is in addition to the amounts the lessee or the ultimate credit claimant previously included in gross income under paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

    (2) Income inclusion exceeds unrecaptured credit. If section 50(a) requires an increase in the lessee's or ultimate credit claimant's tax or a reduction in the carryback or carryover of an unused credit (or both) as a result of an early disposition (including a lease termination), etc., of leased property for which an election had been made under § 1.48-4, the lessee's or the ultimate credit claimant's gross income shall be reduced by an amount equal to the excess, if any, of the total increases in gross income previously included under paragraph (b)(2) of this section over the amount of the credit that is not recaptured.

    (3) Special rule for the energy credit. In the case of any energy credit determined under section 48(a), paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section apply by substituting the phrase “50 percent of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured” for the phrase “the amount of the credit that is not recaptured.”

    (4) Timing of income inclusion or reduction following recapture. Any adjustment required by paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section is taken into account in the taxable year in which the property is disposed of or otherwise ceases to be investment credit property.

    (d) Election to accelerate income inclusion outside of the recapture period—(1) In general. If after the recapture period described in section 50(a), but prior to the expiration of the recovery period described in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, there is a lease termination, the lessee otherwise disposes of the lease, or a partner or S corporation shareholder that is an ultimate credit claimant disposes of its entire interest, either direct or indirect, in a lessee partnership (other than an electing large partnership) or S corporation, the lessee, or, in the case of a partnership or S corporation, the ultimate credit claimant may irrevocably elect to take into account the remaining amount required to be included in gross income under this section in the taxable year of the disposition or termination.

    (2) Exceptions. The election provided under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is not available to—

    (i) Lessees or ultimate credit claimants required by paragraph (c) of this section to account for the remaining amount required to be included in gross income after accounting for recapture in the taxable year in which the property was disposed of or otherwise ceased to be investment credit property under section 50(a); or

    (ii) Former partners or S corporation shareholders that own no interest, either direct or indirect, in a lessee partnership or S corporation at the time of a lease termination or disposition.

    (3) Manner and time for making election. The election under paragraph (d)(1) of this section is made by including the remaining amount required to be included under this section in gross income in the taxable year of the lease termination or disposition or the disposition of the ultimate credit claimant's entire interest, either direct or indirect, in a partnership or S corporation. The election must be made on or before the due date (including any extension of time) of the lessee's income tax return, or, in the case of a partnership or S corporation, the ultimate credit claimant's income tax return for the taxable year in which the lease termination or disposition or the disposition of the ultimate credit claimant's entire interest, either direct or indirect, in a partnership or S corporation occurs.

    (e) Examples. The provisions of this section may be illustrated by the following examples:

    Example 1.

    X, a calendar year C corporation, leases nonresidential real property from Y. The property is placed in service on July 1, 2016. Y elects under § 1.48-4 to treat X as having acquired the property. X's investment credit determined under section 46 for 2016 with respect to such property is $9,750. The shortest recovery period that could be available to the property under section 168 is 39 years. Because Y has elected to treat X as having acquired the property, Y does not reduce its basis in the property under section 50(c). Instead, X, the lessee of the property, must include ratably in gross income over 39 years an amount equal to the credit determined under section 46 with respect to such property. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, X's increase in gross income for each of the 39 years beginning with 2016 is $250 ($9,750/39 year recovery period).

    Example 2.

    The facts are the same as in Example 1 of this paragraph (e). except that instead of nonresidential real property, X leases from Y solar energy equipment for which an energy credit under section 48 is determined under section 46. X's investment credit determined under section 46 for 2016 with respect to the property is $9,750. The shortest recovery period that could be available to the property under section 168 is 5 years. X, the lessee of the property, must include ratably in gross income over 5 years an amount equal to 50% of the credit determined under section 46 with respect to such property. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, X's increase in gross income for each of the 5 years beginning with 2016 is $975 ($4,875/5 year recovery period).

    Example 3.

    A and B, calendar year taxpayers, form a partnership, the AB partnership, that leases nonresidential real property from Y. The property is placed in service on July 1, 2016. Y elects under § 1.48-4 to treat the AB partnership as having acquired the property. A's investment credit determined under section 46 for 2016 is $3,900 and B's investment credit determined under section 46 for 2016 is $7,800 with respect to the property. The shortest recovery period that could be available to the property under section 168 is 39 years. Because Y has elected to treat the AB partnership as having acquired the property, Y does not reduce its basis in the building under section 50(c). Instead, A and B, the ultimate credit claimants, must include the amount of the credit determined with respect to A and B under section 46 ratably in gross income over 39 years, the shortest recovery period available with respect to such property. Therefore, A and B must include ratably in gross income over 39 years under paragraph (b)(2) of this section an amount equal to $3,900 and $7,800, respectively. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, A's increase in gross income for each of the 39 years beginning with 2016 is $100 ($3,900/39 year recovery period) and B's is $200 ($7,800/39 year recovery period). Because the gross income A and B are required to include under paragraph (b)(2) of this section is not an item of partnership income, the rules under subchapter K applicable to items of partnership income do not apply with respect to such income. In particular, A and B are not entitled to an increase in the outside basis of their partnership interests under section 705(a) and are not entitled to an increase in their capital accounts under section 704(b).

    Example 4.

    The facts are the same as in Example 3 of this paragraph (e), except that on January 1, 2019, the lease between AB partnership and Y terminates (Y retains ownership of the property), which is a recapture event under section 50(a). A's and B's income tax for 2019 is increased under section 50(a) by $2,340 and $4,680, respectively (60% of $3,900 and $7,800, respectively, assuming that the aggregate decrease in the credits allowed under section 38 was the full amount of the investment credits determined as to A and B under section 46). Therefore, the amount of the unrecaptured credit as to A and B is $1,560 and $3,120, respectively (40% of $3,900 and $7,800, respectively). The amounts that A and B previously included in gross income under paragraph (b)(2) of this section are $300 ($100 for each of 2016, 2017, and 2018) and $600 ($200 for each of 2016, 2017, and 2018), respectively. A and B are required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to include in gross income an amount equal to the excess of the credit that is not recaptured ($1,560 and $3,120, respectively) over the total increases in gross income previously made under paragraph (b)(2) of this section with respect to the property ($300 and $600, respectively). Therefore, A and B must include in gross income $1,260 and $2,520, respectively, in the taxable year of the lease termination (2019) in addition to the recapture amounts described above.

    Example 5.

    (i) The facts are the same as in Example 4 of this paragraph (e), except that instead of nonresidential real property, the AB partnership leases from Y solar energy equipment for which an energy credit under section 48 is determined under section 46. Because the shortest recovery period that could be available to the property under section 168 is 5 years, A and B are required under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section to include ratably in gross income over 5 years an amount equal to 50% of the credit determined under section 46 with respect to such property (50% of $3,900/5, or $390, per year for A, and 50% of $7,800/5, or $780, per year for B).

    (ii) The January 1, 2019 lease termination requires A's and B's income tax for 2019 to be increased under section 50(a) by $2,340 and $4,680, respectively (60% of $3,900 and $7,800, respectively). Therefore, the amount of the unrecaptured credit as to A and B is $1,560 and $3,120, respectively (40% of $3,900 and $7,800, respectively). Under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, the amounts A and B previously included in gross income are $1,170 ($390 for each of 2016, 2017, and 2018) and $2,340 ($780 for each of 2016, 2017, and 2018), respectively. A and B are entitled to a reduction in gross income under paragraph (c)(2) of this section equal to the excess of the total increases in gross income made under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section ($1,170 and $2,340, respectively) over 50% of the amount of the credit that is not recaptured ($780 and $1,560, respectively). Therefore, A and B are entitled to a reduction in gross income in the amount of $390 and $780, respectively, in the taxable year of the lease termination (2019).

    Example 6.

    (i) The facts are the same as in Example 3 of this paragraph (e), except that on December 1, 2021, A sells its entire interest to C, and on January 1, 2022, the lease between AB partnership and Y terminates. At the time of the lease termination, B is still a partner in the AB partnership. There is no recapture event under section 50(a) because both the lease termination and the disposition of A's interest in the partnership occurred outside of the recapture period.

    (ii) At the time that A sold its interest in the AB partnership to C, A had previously included $500 ($100 for each of 2016-2020) in gross income under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, A must continue to include the remaining $3,400 (including $100 in 2021) in gross income ratably over the remaining portion of the applicable recovery period of 39 years. Alternatively, under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, A may irrevocably elect to include the remaining $3,400 in gross income in the taxable year that A sold its entire interest in the AB partnership to C (2021). Pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section, A cannot make this election in the taxable year of the lease termination (2022).

    (iii) At the time of the lease termination, B had previously included $1,200 ($200 for each of 2016-2021) in gross income under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. Under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, B must continue to include the remaining $6,600 required in gross income ratably over the remaining portion of the applicable recovery period of 39 years. Alternatively, under paragraph (d)(1) of this section, B may irrevocably elect to include the remaining $6,600 in gross income in the taxable year of the lease termination (2022).

    (f) Applicability date. This section applies to property placed in service on or after September 19, 2016.

    (g) Expiration date. The applicability of this section will expire on or before July 19, 2019.

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: June 1, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2016-16563 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG 115) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 22, 2016 and is applicable beginning June 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG 115) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead lights; Annex I, paragraph 3(c), pertaining to placement of task lights not less than two meters from the fore and aft centerline of the ship in the athwartship direction; and Annex I, paragraph 2(f)(ii), pertaining to the vertical placement of task lights. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

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

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table Four, paragraph 15, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG 115); and b. In Table Five, by adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS RAFAEL PERALTA (DDG 115).
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table Four

    15. * * *

    Vessel Number Horizontal
  • distance
  • from the
  • fore and aft
  • centerline of
  • the vessel
  • in the
  • athwartship
  • direction
  • *    *    *    *    * USS RAFAEL PERALTA DDG 115 1.88 *    *    *    *    *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights not
  • over all
  • other lights
  • and
  • obstructions.
  • Annex I,
  • sec. 2(f)
  • Forward
  • masthead
  • light not in
  • forward
  • quarter of
  • ship. Annex
  • I, sec. 3(a)
  • After
  • masthead
  • light less
  • than 1/2
  • ship's
  • length aft
  • of forward
  • masthead
  • light. Annex
  • I, sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage
  • horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS RAFAEL PERALTA DDG 115 X X X 14.5 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: June 27, 2016. C.J. Spain, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Acting. Dated: July 12, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17028 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy 32 CFR Part 706 Certifications and Exemptions Under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is amending its certifications and exemptions under the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate General (DAJAG) (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has determined that USS LITTLE ROCK (LCS 9) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship. The intended effect of this rule is to warn mariners in waters where 72 COLREGS apply.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 22, 2016 and is applicable beginning July 6, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    This amendment provides notice that the DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law), under authority delegated by the Secretary of the Navy, has certified that USS LITTLE ROCK (LCS 9) is a vessel of the Navy which, due to its special construction and purpose, cannot fully comply with the following specific provisions of 72 COLREGS without interfering with its special function as a naval ship: Annex I paragraph 2(a)(i), pertaining to the height of the forward masthead light above the hull; Annex I, paragraph 3(a), pertaining to the location of the forward masthead light in the forward quarter of the ship, and the horizontal distance between the forward and after masthead light. The DAJAG (Admiralty and Maritime Law) has also certified that the lights involved are located in closest possible compliance with the applicable 72 COLREGS requirements.

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

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), and Vessels.

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1605.

    2. Section 706.2 is amended by: a. In Table One, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS LITTLE ROCK (LCS 9); and b. In Table Five, adding, in alpha numerical order, by vessel number, an entry for USS LITTLE ROCK (LCS 9).
    § 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 33 U.S.C. 1605. Table One Vessel Number Distance in meters of
  • forward masthead
  • light below minimum
  • required height.
  • § 2(a)(i) Annex I
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS LITTLE ROCK LCS 9 6.0 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Table Five Vessel Number Masthead
  • lights not
  • over all
  • other lights
  • and
  • obstructions.
  • Annex I,
  • sec. 2(f)
  • Forward
  • masthead
  • light not in
  • forward
  • quarter of
  • ship. Annex
  • I, sec. 3(a)
  • After mast-
  • head light less than 1/2 ship's length aft of forward masthead light. Annex I,
  • sec. 3(a)
  • Percentage
  • horizontal
  • separation
  • attained
  • *         *         *         *         *         *         * USS LITTLE ROCK LCS 9 X X 23 *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Approved: July 6, 2016. C.J. Spain, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), Acting. Dated: July 12, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17351 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0306; A-1-FRL-9949-32-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; RI; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This SIP revision includes fifteen revised Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations. These regulations have been previously approved into the Rhode Island SIP and the revisions to these regulations currently being approved are mainly administrative in nature, but also include technical corrections and a few substantive changes to several of the rules. In addition, EPA is promulgating a correction to the Rhode Island SIP to remove Rhode Island's odor regulation because it was previously erroneously approved into the SIP. The intended effect of this action is to approve Rhode Island's fifteen revised regulations into the Rhode Island SIP and to correct the Rhode Island SIP by removing Rhode Island's odor regulation. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    This direct final rule will be effective September 20, 2016, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 22, 2016. If adverse comments are received, 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-R01-OAR-2015-0306 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:

    Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, fax 617-918-0656, 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 and Purpose II. Correction to Rhode Island's SIP III. Rhode Island's SIP Revision IV. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision V. Final Action VI. Incorporation by Reference VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background and Purpose

    On September 22, 2008, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RI DEM) submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This SIP revision includes fifteen revised Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations, with the revisions mainly being administrative in nature, but several rules also included technical corrections and four rules included additional changes. In addition, in a letter dated May 24, 2016, Rhode Island requested that EPA remove Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 17 “Odors” from the existing SIP, a revision to which was initially included in Rhode Island's September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. Also, on March 25, 2015, Rhode Island submitted a separate SIP revision with revised versions of three regulations that were part of the September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. These three revisions consisted of minor technical corrections. In a letter dated May 25, 2016, Rhode Island submitted another letter, withdrawing from its SIP revision several provisions of the fifteen regulations included in the original September 22, 2008 SIP submittal.1

    1 In a letter dated May 25, 2016, Rhode Island submitted revised versions of each of these regulations to withdraw certain provisions from the September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. Rhode Island withdrew “director discretion” provisions from Rhode Island APC Regulation No. 3 and No. 12, and air toxics provisions from Rhode Island APC Regulation No. 7. Rhode Island also withdrew the “Application” section from the General Provisions of all fifteen regulations. In addition, the September 22, 2008 SIP submittal did not include “halogenated organic compound” applicability provisions in APC Regulation No. 15, No. 19, No. 21, No. 26, No. 30, No. 32, and No. 35.

    Rhode Island's new “Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation” was also included in the September 22, 2008 SIP revision. However, an updated version of that regulation (effective in the state of Rhode Island on September 29, 2010) was subsequently submitted by RI DEM on March 25, 2011, and was approved by EPA on March 1, 2012. See 77 FR 14691.

    In addition, by letters dated June 27, 2014, March 28, 2016, and May 24, 2016, Rhode Island withdrew seventeen of the regulations originally included in the September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. Consequently, we are taking action only on the following revised regulations from Rhode Island's September 22, 2008 submittal: Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation No. 1 “Visible Emissions,” No. 3 “Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes,” No. 4 “Open Fires,” No. 6 “Continuous Emissions Monitors,” No. 7 “Emissions of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Person or Property,” No. 12 “Incinerators,” No. 14 “Record Keeping and Reporting,” No. 15 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions,” No. 19 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations,” No. 21 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Printing Operations,” No. 26 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products,” No. 27 “Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions,” No. 30 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Automobile Refinishing Operations,” No. 32 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Loading Operations,” and No. 35 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Product Manufacturing Operations.” All of these regulations were effective in the State of Rhode Island on July 19, 2007.

    See section II of this document for details about the correction to Rhode Island's SIP to remove the odor regulation. See section III for details about the rule changes we are taking action on, which were contained in Rhode Island's September 22, 2008 SIP revision. See section IV for a summary of EPA's evaluation of the State's amended September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment(s) on a particular amendment, paragraph, or section of Rhode Island's SIP revision and if that amendment, paragraph, or section is severable from the remainder of the regulation in question, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the regulation that are not the subject of the adverse comment(s).

    II. Correction to Rhode Island's SIP

    A revision to APC Regulation No. 17 “Odors” was initially included in Rhode Island's September 22, 2008 SIP submittal. However, in a letter dated May 24, 2016, Rhode Island withdrew that revision from its SIP submittal and also requested that EPA remove Rhode Island's already existing Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 17 “Odors” from the SIP. EPA has determined that Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 17 “Odors,” which was originally approved into the SIP in 1981, does not have reasonable connection to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and related air quality goals of the Clean Air Act and thus is not properly part of the SIP. Consequently, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(6), EPA is correcting the erroneous approval of Rhode Island's odor regulation into the SIP. Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides that “[w]henever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation, classification or reclassification was in error, the Administrator may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise any such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and the public.” It should be noted that Section 110(k)(6) has been used by EPA to delete improperly approved odor provisions from the Wyoming SIP and the New York SIP. See 61 FR 47058 and 63 FR 65557.

    III. Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    For ten of the fifteen regulations included in Rhode Island's amended September 22, 2008 SIP submittal, Rhode Island removed common definitions from each of those individual regulations and recodified them in Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation. As noted above, the “Air Pollution Control General Definitions Regulation” with those added definitions was approved into the SIP on March 1, 2012. In addition, for all of the fifteen regulations included in Rhode Island's amended September 22, 2008 SIP submittal, Rhode Island added General Provisions to each of the regulations. These General Provisions state the purpose of the rule, cite the authority pursuant to which the regulations were promulgated, and provide the effective date of the regulation.

    On March 25, 2015, Rhode Island amended the September 22, 2008 SIP submittal by submitting revised versions of Air Pollution Control Regulations No. 15, No. 26, and No. 32, including minor technical corrections. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 15 was revised to correct the numbering of subsections 15.4.10(g) and (h) and was revised to correct the references to these sections in subsections 15.2.4(b) and 15.2.5(b). Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 26 was revised in subsection 26.6.2 to correct a cross reference to another subsection. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 32 was revised to correct a typographical error in subsection 32.1.1 and to correct the symbol for degrees in subsection 32.4.3(f).

    In addition to the changes noted above, in the amended September 22, 2008 SIP submittal, the following eight regulations added a Table of Contents in each regulation: Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 15, No. 19, No. 21, No. 26, No. 27, No. 30, No. 32, and No. 35. Furthermore, APC Regulation No. 4, No. 7, No. 12, and No. 14 included additional changes. The following discussion provides a summary of the changes to these four regulations.

    Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 4 “Open Fires” was approved into the SIP in 1981. See 46 FR 25446. The currently approved standard prohibits burning of any material in an open fire at a solid waste management facility or in connection with any salvage, industrial, commercial or institutional operation. Rhode Island added a definition for hazardous waste disposal facility to mean real and personal property acquired, constructed or operated for the purpose of the disposal of hazardous waste, and added an explicit prohibition for open burning at hazardous wastes disposal facilities. In addition, Rhode Island added a provision allowing the RI DEM Air Director to approve open burning of solid or liquid fuels or structures for the purpose of instruction and training of municipal, volunteer and industrial firefighters in the method of fighting fires when conducted under the direct control and supervision of qualified instructors. The rule also added a provision allowing the Director to approve the combustion of material if no alternative means of disposal is available, and so long as the burning is conducted during periods of good ventilation, without causing a nuisance, and using smoke minimizing starters if smoke starters are used. Alternative disposal methods may include chipping, cutting for forest products, landfilling, piling for protective cover for wildlife and others. EPA concluded that sufficient, concrete bounds and conditions were placed on the Director's ability to approve alternative means of combusting material, such that the Director's discretion in this particular instance is approvable under the CAA.

    Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 7 “Emissions of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Person or Property” was approved into the SIP in 1981. See 46 FR 25446. The standard prohibits emissions of any contaminant that may be injurious to human, plant or animal life, or cause damage to property or which unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 7 was revised to include criteria for determining compliance with the standard for new sources or modifications. In the issuance of any approval under Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 9 “Air Pollution Control Permits” the criteria for determining compliance with regard to the APC Regulation No. 7 standards will be based on compliance with the primary and secondary NAAQS.

    Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulation No. 12 “Incinerators” was approved into the SIP in 1982. See 47 FR 17816. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 12 was amended to exclude new hospital, medical, and infectious waste incinerators subject to sections 39.3-39.10 of Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 39. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 39 was approved by EPA as part of a State Plan required by sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. See 66 FR 21092.

    Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 14, Recordkeeping and Reporting, was approved into the SIP in 1999. See 64 FR 67495. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 14 was revised to require emission statements to be submitted by April 15 of each year instead of “within 45 days of the end of the calendar year.”

    IV. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    We have reviewed the regulations included in Rhode Island's amended September 22, 2008 SIP submittal and have found that all of the regulations currently pending before EPA from that submittal had previously been approved into the Rhode Island SIP (without the revisions included in the amended September 22, 2008 submission).2 The changes to Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 4 “Open Fires” to allow open burning for the instruction and training of firefighters or where there are no alternatives to open burning available, are practical and properly limited exceptions to the general prohibition against open fires. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 7 “Emissions of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Person or Property” was strengthened by adding criteria for determining compliance with the standard for new and modified sources. Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 12 “Incinerators” now excludes incinerators more appropriately regulated by Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 39 as part of an EPA approved State Plan under sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act. Lastly, the change to the date for submissions in Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 14 “Record Keeping and Reporting” is minor in nature and has no bearing on air quality. As described above, the revisions to the majority of those regulations submitted as part of the amended September 22, 2008 submittal are primarily administrative in nature and also include certain minor technical corrections, as well as a few substantive changes we find acceptable to several of the rules. Therefore, EPA is approving the revised regulations into the Rhode Island SIP.

    2 It should be noted that the only newly adopted regulation included in Rhode Island's September 22, 2008 SIP submittal was the “General Definitions” regulation. An updated version of that regulation was approved by EPA on March 13, 2012. See 77 FR 14691. Therefore, the definitions regulation was one of the rules that Rhode Island withdrew in its March 28, 2016 letter.

    V. Final Action

    EPA is removing Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 17 “Odors” from the approved Rhode Island SIP pursuant to Section 110(k)(6) of the Act. In addition, EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP, the following revised Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations, effective in the state of Rhode Island on July 19, 2007:

    No. 1 “Visible Emissions” (except section 1.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 3 “Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes” (except section 3.4.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in section 3.3(a), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 4 “Open Fires” (except section 4.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 6 “Continuous Emissions Monitors” (except section 6.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 7 “Emissions of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Person or Property” (except section 7.5.3 of the General Provisions and the air toxics provisions in sections 7.4.1(b), (c), and (d), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 12 “Incinerators” (except section 12.8.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in sections 12.5(a) and (c), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 14 “Record Keeping and Reporting” (except section 14.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 15 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions” (except section 15.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 15.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 19 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations” (except section 19.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 19.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 21 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Printing Operations” (except section 21.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 21.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 26 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products” (except section 26.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 26.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 27 “Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions” (except section 27.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision) No. 30 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Automobile Refinishing Operations” (except section 30.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 30.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 32 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Loading Operations” (except section 32.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 32.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision) No. 35 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Product Manufacturing Operations” (except section 35.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 35.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision)

    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 20, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by August 22, 2016.

    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 20, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if 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, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    VI. 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 Rhode Island's Air Pollution Control Regulations No. 1 “Visible Emissions” (except section 1.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 3 “Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes” (except section 3.4.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in section 3.3(a), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 4 “Open Fires” (except section 4.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 6 “Continuous Emissions Monitors” (except section 6.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 7 “Emissions of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Person or Property” (except section 7.5.3 of the General Provisions and the air toxics provisions in sections 7.4.1(b), (c), and (d), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 12 “Incinerators” (except section 12.8.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in sections 12.5(a) and (c), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 14 “Record Keeping and Reporting” (except section 14.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 15 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions” (except section 15.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 15.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), No. 19 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations” (except section 19.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 19.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), No. 21 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Printing Operations” (except section 21.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 21.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), No. 26 “Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products” (except section 26.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 26.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), No. 27 “Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions” (except section 27.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision), No. 30 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Automobile Refinishing Operations” (except section 30.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 30.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), No. 32 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Loading Operations” (except section 32.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 32.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), and No. 35 “Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Product Manufacturing Operations” (except section 35.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 35.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision), described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

    VII. 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 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 action:

    • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    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. EPA will submit a report containing this action 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 20, 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 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.

    Dated: July 5, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 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 OO—Rhode Island 2. In § 52.2070, paragraph (c), the table is amended by removing the entry for state citation Air Pollution Control Regulation 17; and by revising entries to state citations for Air Pollution Control Regulations 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 26, 27, 30, 32, and 35 to read as follows:
    § 52.2070 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanations *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 1 Visible Emissions 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 1 is approved with the exception of section 1.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 3 Particulate Emissions from Industrial Processes 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 3 is approved with the exception of section 3.4.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in section 3.3(a), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. Air Pollution Control Regulation 4 Open Fires 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 4 is approved with the exception of section 4.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 6 Continuous Emission Monitors 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 6 is approved with the exception of section 6.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. Air Pollution Control Regulation 7 Emission of Air Contaminants Detrimental to Persons or Property 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 7 is approved with the exception of section 7.5.3 of the General Provisions and the air toxics provisions in sections 7.4.1(b), (c), and (d), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 12 Incinerators 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 12 is approved with the exception of section 12.8.3 of the General Provisions and the “director discretion” provisions in sections 12.5(a) and (c), which were formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 14 Recordkeeping and Reporting 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 14 is approved with the exception of section 14.4.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. Air Pollution Control Regulation 15 Control of Organic Solvent Emissions 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 15 is approved with the exception of section 15.5.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 15.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 19 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Surface Coating Operations 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 19 is approved with the exception of section 19.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 19.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. Air Pollution Control Regulation 21 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Printing Operations 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 21 is approved with the exception of section 21.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 21.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 26 Control of Organic Solvent Emissions from Manufacturers of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 26 is approved with the exception of section 26.8.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 26.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. Air Pollution Control Regulation 27 Control of Nitrogen Oxide Emissions 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 27 is approved with the exception of section 27.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 30 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Automobile Refinishing Operations 7/19/2007 All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 30 is approved with the exception of section 30.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 30.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 32 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Marine Vessel Loading Operations 7/19/2007 All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 32 is approved with the exception of section 32.7.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 32.2.2 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Air Pollution Control Regulation 35 Control of Volatile Organic Compounds and Volatile Hazardous Air Pollutants from Wood Product Manufacturing Operations 7/19/2007 7/22/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] All of Air Pollution Control Regulation 35 is approved with the exception of section 35.9.3 of the General Provisions which was formally withdrawn from consideration as part of the SIP revision, and section 35.2.3 which was not submitted as part of the SIP revision. *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-17184 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 170 Health Information Technology Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria and Certification Programs for Health Information Technology CFR Correction In Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1 to 199, revised as of October 1, 2015, on page 1235, in § 170.102, add, in alphabetical order, the definition “Day or Days means a calendar day or calendar days.” [FR Doc. 2016-17365 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 365, 381, 383, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, and 396 [Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0091] RIN 2126-AB89 Amendments To Implement Certain Provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act or “FAST Act” AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) adopts, as final, certain regulations required by the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) enacted on December 4, 2015. The statutory changes went into effect on October 1, 2015, retroactively, and require that FMCSA make conforming changes to its regulations to ensure they are current and consistent with the statutory requirements. Adoption of these rules is a nondiscretionary, ministerial action that FMCSA may take without issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and receiving public comment, in accordance with the good cause exception available to Federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

    DATES:

    This final rule is effective July 22, 2016. Petitions for Reconsideration must be received by the Agency no later than August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Petitions for reconsideration must be submitted to: Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathryn Sinniger, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; by telephone at (202) 493-0908, or by electronic mail at [email protected]. If you have questions regarding the docket, call Docket Services, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Executive Summary A. Purpose and Summary of the Major Provisions

    This rule makes nondiscretionary, ministerial changes to FMCSA regulations that are required by the FAST Act (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, December 4, 2015). The FAST Act made several notable changes to the authorities implemented by requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For example, it exempts welding trucks used in the construction and maintenance of pipelines from FMCSA's regulations. It excepts drivers of ready-mixed concrete trucks and hi-rail vehicles, as well as drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) transporting livestock and bees, from some of the hours of service (HOS) requirements in 49 CFR part 395. It also extends the length of the time (from 2 years to 5 years) that an exemption or renewal of an exemption may provide relief from the regulations.

    A full explanation of all changes made in this rule is included below in section III. Fast Act Provisions Implemented by this Rulemaking. A copy of the FAST Act has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking for reference.

    B. Benefits and Costs

    The economic impact of this rule's provisions, considered both individually and in the aggregate, does not rise to the level of economic significance, and a cost-benefit analysis is therefore not required.

    II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking A. FAST Act

    This rule is based on the FAST Act. Certain provisions of the FAST Act made mandatory, non-discretionary changes to FMCSA programs. The majority of these statutory changes went into effect on October 1, 2015, while others will go into effect on October 1, 2016.1 This rule makes only those changes that went into effect on October 1, 2015, that can be implemented without prior notice and opportunity for comment as addressed in section II(B) below. Publication of today's rule triggers the 3-year period during which the States are required to adopt compatible provisions under FMCSA's Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP). 49 CFR 350.331(d), 350.335(b), and part 355, appendix A.

    1See FAST Act section 1003 (establishing October 1, 2015, as the effective date for all provisions in Division A of the Act, covering Surface Transportation) (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1322, December 4, 2015) and section 5101 (establishing October 1, 2016 as the effective for the changes made in that section) (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1514, December 4, 2015).

    At a later date, before October 1, 2016, the Agency will issue another final rule to implement additional ministerial requirements that will become effective on October 1, 2016.2 The Agency also expects that there will be rulemakings required to address additional provisions of the FAST Act, where Congress either provided the Agency with some discretion regarding implementation, or specifically required that notice and comment rulemaking procedures be followed.

    2 See FAST Act section 5101 (Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1514, December 4, 2015), which includes the amendments that become effective on October 1, 2016.

    It is necessary to make conforming changes to ensure that FMCSA's regulations are current and consistent with the applicable statutes. The provisions implemented in this final rule are from the following sections of the FAST Act, which impacted Title 49, United States Code (U.S.C.):

    1. Section 5206 Applications.

    2. Section 5507 Electronic Logging Device Requirements.

    3. Section 5518 Covered Farm Vehicles.

    4. Section 5519 Operators of Hi-Rail Vehicles.

    5. Section 5521 Ready Mix Concrete Delivery Vehicles.

    6. Section 5522 Transportation of Construction Materials and Equipment.

    7. Section 5524 Exemptions from Requirements for Certain Welding Trucks Used in Pipeline Industry.

    8. Section 7208 Hazardous Materials Endorsement Exemption.

    FMCSA is authorized to implement these statutory provisions by delegation from the Secretary of Transportation in 49 CFR 1.87.

    B. Administrative Procedure Act

    Generally, agencies may promulgate final rules only after issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing an opportunity for public comment under procedures required by the APA [5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c)]. Section 553(b)(3)(B) allows an exception from these requirements when notice and public comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” FMCSA finds that prior notice and an opportunity for comment are unnecessary because the changes adopted in this final rule are statutorily mandated, and the Agency is performing a nondiscretionary, ministerial act. For these same reasons, the rule will be effective upon publication, as these statutory changes went into effect on October 1, 2015 [5 U.S.C. 553(d)].

    C. FAST Act Waiver of Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking/Negotiated Rulemaking

    FMCSA is aware of the regulatory reform requirements imposed by section 5202 of the FAST Act concerning public participation in rulemaking (49 U.S.C. 31136(g)). These requirements pertain to certain major rules, but because this final rule is not major, they are not applicable. In any event, the Agency finds that, for the reasons stated below, publication of an advance notice of proposed rulemaking under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)(A), or a negotiated rulemaking under 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(1)(B), is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest in accordance with the waiver provision in 49 U.S.C. 31136(g)(3).

    III. Fast Act Provisions Implemented by This Rulemaking

    This section describes those portions of the FAST Act that require FMCSA to make conforming changes to the regulations, which are also listed here. These regulatory changes are non-discretionary; in other words, the FAST Act provided all of the necessary content of the regulations. As noted in the executive summary, there are additional regulatory changes that will be required by the FAST Act, but those either have a later effective date, will require FMCSA to exercise some degree of discretion, or are required to be subject to notice and comment.

    FMCSA has included here a table of affected CFR sections, which will cross-reference corresponding requirements of the FAST Act. This table will make it easier for the reader to move back and forth between the revised regulations and the corresponding section(s) of the FAST Act.

    Table of CFR Sections Affected CFR section FAST Act section 365.101(j) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 381.300(b) 5206(a)(3) [129 Stat. 1312, 1537]. 381.317 (new) 5206(a)(3) [129 Stat. 1312, 1537]. 383.3(i) (new) 7208 [129 Stat. 1312, 1593]. 390.38 (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 390.39(b)(1) 5518 [129 Stat. 1312, 1558]. 391.2(e) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 392.1(b) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 393.1(e) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 395.1(e) 5521 [129 Stat. 1312, 1559]. 395.1(t) (new) 5206(b)(1)(A) [129 Stat. 1312, 1537]. 395.1(u) (new) 5206(b)(1)(B) [129 Stat. 1312, 1537]. 395.1(v) (new) 5206(b)(1)(C) [129 Stat. 1312, 1537]. 395.1(w) (new) 5519 [129 Stat. 1312, 1558]. 395.1(x) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. 395.2 5206(b)(1)(A), 5206(b)(1)(C), 5519, 5522 [129 Stat. 1312, 1537, 1558,1559]. 395.8 5507 [129 Stat. 1312, 1553]. 396.1(d) (new) 5524 [129 Stat. 1312, 1560]. Section 5206 Applications

    Previously, 49 U.S.C. 31315(b) allowed an exemption from a regulation for no longer than 2 years from its approval date, and allowed an exemption to be renewed upon application to the Secretary for subsequent periods of no more than 2 years. Section 5206(a)(3) of the FAST Act amends section 31315(b) to allow an exemption to be granted for no longer than 5 years and to be renewed, upon request, for subsequent periods no longer than 5 years, if the Secretary finds that such an exemption would likely achieve an equivalent, or greater, level of safety. This rulemaking changes § 381.300(b) to allow exemptions for up to 5 years that may be renewed for subsequent periods of up to 5 years.

    Section 5206(a)(3) of the FAST Act also added subsection (b)(3) to 49 U.S.C. 31315 to permit an applicant whose application for exemption has been denied to resubmit the application addressing the reason for denial. FMCSA adds a new § 381.317 describing this process.

    Section 5206(b)(1) of the FAST Act made permanent three existing exemptions from the 30-minute rest break requirements in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii). The first was granted to the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (80 FR 17819, April 2, 2015). In this rulemaking, FMCSA adds new § 395.1(t) allowing a driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle to use time spent waiting with the vehicle at a job site or terminal to meet the requirement for a 30-minute rest break. The driver may not perform any other work during this time waiting. FMCSA also adds a definition of “ready mix concrete delivery vehicle” to § 395.2, to reflect the definition in related section 5521 of the FAST Act, Ready Mix Concrete Delivery Vehicles, which is discussed below.

    The second exemption, also from the requirements in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii), was granted to the California Farm Bureau Federation (80 FR 35425, June 19, 2015). In this rule, FMCSA adds new § 395.1(u) that provides that the 30-minute rest break requirements do not apply to a driver transporting bees in interstate commerce if there are bees on the vehicle.

    The third exemption from the 30-minute rest break was granted to the Agricultural and Food Transporters Conference (AFTC) of the American Trucking Associations (80 FR 33584, June 12, 2015). In this rulemaking, FMCSA implements this requirement of the Act by adding new § 395.1(v) that provides that the 30-minute rest break requirements do not apply to a driver transporting livestock while the livestock are on the vehicle. FMCSA also adds a definition of livestock to § 395.2, to reflect the classification in the regulatory exemption developed in response to the AFTC petition.

    Section 5507 Electronic Logging Device Requirements

    Section 5507 of the FAST Act amends 49 U.S.C. 31137(b) to provide an exception for motor carriers transporting a motor home or recreation vehicle trailer in a driveaway-towaway operation, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5. Under this provision, a motor carrier could comply with the HOS requirements by using either a paper record of duty status form or an electronic logging device. FMCSA changes § 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A) by adding this new exception.

    Section 5518 Covered Farm Vehicles

    Previously, section 32934(b)(1) of the Moving Ahead for Progress for the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830, July 6, 2012; 49 U.S.C. 31136 note) provided that Federal transportation funding to a State could not be terminated, limited, or interfered with because the State exempts a covered farm vehicle, including its operator, from “any State requirement relating to the operation of that vehicle.” The term “covered farm vehicle” is defined in section 32924(c) of MAP-21. Section 5518 of the FAST Act amends section 32934(b)(1) of MAP-21 to specify that the requirements are those in section 32934(a) or any other minimum standard provided by a State relating to the operation of that vehicle. The specific requirements outlined in section 32934(a) of MAP-21 exempt a covered farm vehicle and its driver from any requirement relating to (1) operating with a commercial driver's license (CDL) or drug and alcohol testing established under 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; (2) medical certificates established under 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III, or 49 U.S.C. chapter 313; and (3) HOS and vehicle inspection, repair, and maintenance established under 49 U.S.C. chapter 311, subchapter III, or 49 U.S.C. chapter 315. The Agency revises § 390.39(b)(1) to reflect these changes, which should clarify which exemptions found in State laws for covered farm vehicles may not be taken into consideration during Federal grants management.

    Section 5519 Operators of Hi-Rail Vehicles

    For the CMV driver of a hi-rail vehicle who is subject to the HOS regulations in 49 CFR part 395, section 5519 of the FAST Act provides that the maximum on-duty time under § 395.3 shall not include certain time in transportation to or from a duty assignment. Time in transportation, to or from a duty assignment, will not be included in the 14 hours on-duty time under § 395.3(a)(2) if (1) it does not exceed 2 hours per calendar day or a total of 30 hours per calendar month, and (2) the motor carrier fully and accurately accounts for this time in the records it maintains and makes such records available to FMCSA or the Federal Railroad Administration upon request. Section 5519(b) defines “hi-rail vehicle” as “an internal rail flaw detection vehicle equipped with flange hi-rails.”

    FMCSA adds a new paragraph (w) to § 395.1 to reflect this exception. In addition, FMCSA adds a definition of hi-rail vehicle to § 395.2.

    Section 5521 Ready Mix Concrete Delivery Vehicles

    Section 5521 of the FAST Act amends 49 U.S.C. 31502 by adding a new subsection (f) that exempts drivers of ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicles from keeping records of duty status under certain circumstances. The driver of the ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle must (1) operate within a 100-mile radius of the normal work reporting location; (2) return to the work reporting location and be released from work within 14 consecutive hours; (3) have at least 10 hours off duty following each 14 hours on duty; and (4) not exceed 11 hours of driving time following 10 consecutive hours off duty. The motor carrier that employs the driver must keep accurate time records. This change essentially allows the driver of a ready-mixed concrete truck to use the short-haul exception in § 395.1(e)(1), but with a 14-hour on-duty period. Section 5521 also adds a definition of “driver of a ready mixed concrete delivery vehicle.”

    FMCSA revises § 395.1(e)(1) to reflect new 49 U.S.C. 31502(f)(1). The Agency also adds a new definition of “ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle” to § 395.2. “Driver” is already defined in § 390.5.

    Section 5522 Transportation of Construction Materials and Equipment

    Section 5522 of the FAST Act amends section 229(e)(4) of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, as transferred and amended (49 U.S.C. 31136 note), which is the definition of transportation of construction materials and equipment. That definition provided that, for a driver who transports construction materials and equipment within a 50 air mile radius of the normal work reporting location of the driver, any period of 7 or 8 consecutive days may end with the beginning of any off-duty period of 24 or more successive hours. The FAST Act increases this to a 75 air mile radius. The Act also allows a State to establish a different air mile radius limitation if such limitation is between 50 and 75 air miles and applies only to movements that take place entirely within the State. FMCSA changes the definition of transportation of construction materials and equipment in § 395.2 to conform to this change.

    Section 5524 Exemptions From Requirements for Certain Welding Trucks Used in Pipeline Industry

    Section 5524 of the FAST Act defines a welding truck used in the pipeline industry as a pick-up style truck, owned by a welder, equipped with a welding rig that is used in the construction or maintenance of pipelines, and that has a gross vehicle weight and combination weight rating and weight of 15,000 pounds or less. Section 5524 exempts the operator of such a vehicle and the operator's employer from any requirement relating to: (1) Registration as a motor carrier, including obtaining and displaying a U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) number (49 U.S.C. chapters 139 and 311); (2) driver qualifications (49 U.S.C. chapter 311); (3) driving a CMV (49 U.S.C. chapter 311); (4) parts and accessories and inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs (49 U.S.C. chapter 311); and HOS of drivers, including maximum driving and on duty time (49 U.S.C. chapter 315). To reflect this section of the FAST Act, FMCSA adds new § 390.38 that excepts welding trucks, equipped with a welding rig used in the construction and maintenance of pipelines, from the requirements in 49 CFR parts 365, 390, 391, 392, 393, 395, and 396. The new § 390.38 also defines “pipeline welding trucks” to conform to the FAST Act.

    The Agency also adds specific exemptions in each of the parts listed in new § 390.38, to ensure that the exemption is clear. These new exemptions are found at: §§ 365.101(j) (exemption from requirement to apply for operating authority in part 365); 391.2 (e) (exemption from minimum qualifications for CMV drivers in part 391); 392.1 (b) (exemption from CMV operating rules in part 392); 393.1(e) (exemption from parts and accessories requirements in part 393); 395.1(x) (exemption from the HOS rules in part 395); and 396.1(d) (exemption from inspection, repair, and maintenance requirements in part 396).

    Section 7208 Hazardous Materials Endorsement Exemption

    Section 7208 of the FAST Act provides that the Secretary allow a State, at its discretion, to waive the requirement for a holder of a Class A CDL to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement to transport 1,000 gallons or less of diesel fuel. A State may waive the requirement if the license holder is (1) acting within the scope of the license holder's employment as an employee of a custom harvester operation, agrichemical business, farm retail outlet and supplier, or livestock feeder; and (2) is operating a service vehicle that is transporting diesel in a quantity of 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less and that is clearly marked with a “flammable” or “combustible” placard, as appropriate. FMCSA adds a new paragraph (i) to § 383.3 to reflect this exemption. Note that if a State exercises this discretion, a driver may still be required to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement if they travel to a State that has not opted to waive the requirement.

    IV. This Final Rule

    This rule adopts as final certain regulations required by the FAST Act. These statutory changes went into effect retroactively on October 1, 2015. Because adoption of these rules is a nondiscretionary, ministerial action, FMCSA did not issue an NPRM or receive public comment.

    V. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Part 365

    In § 365.101, paragraph (j) is added to exempt pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 365.

    B. Part 381

    In § 381.300, paragraph (b) is revised, changing the timeframe from 2 years to 5 years.

    Section 381.317 is added to allow an application for exemption to be resubmitted if it has been denied.

    C. Part 383

    In § 383.3, a new paragraph (i) is added to provide that a State may waive the requirement that a driver obtain a hazardous materials endorsement to transport diesel fuel under certain circumstances.

    D. Part 390

    FMCSA adds new § 390.38 to exempt pipeline welding trucks from certain requirements of the FMCSRs. Paragraph (a) describes those parts of the FMCSRs from which the pipeline welding truck is exempt. Paragraph (b) provides a definition of “pipeline welding truck.”

    In § 390.39, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to reflect changes in the statutes concerning exemptions found in State laws for covered farm vehicles.

    E. Part 391

    In § 391.2, paragraph (e) is added to exempt drivers of pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 391.

    F. Part 392

    In § 392.1, the existing text is designated as paragraph (a), and a paragraph (b) is added to exempt drivers of pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 392.

    G. Part 393

    In § 393.1, paragraph (e) is added to exempt pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 393.

    H. Part 395

    FMCSA makes a number of changes to § 395.1 to exempt certain operations from aspects of the hours of service rules. Paragraph (e)(1) is changed to provide that drivers of ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicles who are on duty for 14 consecutive hours may be exempt from the requirements of § 395.8.

    Section 395.1(t) is added to allow the driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle to use 30-minutes or more of time spent waiting with the vehicle to meet the requirement for the 30-minute rest break in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii). Paragraphs (u) and (v) are added to exempt drivers engaged in the interstate transportation of bees or livestock, respectively, from the requirement for a 30-minute rest break. FMCSA adds paragraph (w) to provide that on-duty time for the driver of a hi-rail vehicle does not include time in transportation to or from a duty assignment under certain circumstances. Paragraph (x) exempts drivers of pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 395.

    The definitions in § 395.2 are changed to conform to the changes in the statutes. FMCSA adds definitions of “hi-rail vehicle,” “livestock,” and “ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle.” FMCSA changes the definition of “transportation of construction material and equipment” to increase the air mile radius to the normal work reporting location. The definition is also changed to allow the States to establish a different air mile radius limitation upon notice to the Administrator.

    Section 395.8(a) is changed to allow a motor carrier to require the driver transporting a motor home or recreation vehicle trailer, in a driveaway-towaway operation, to record his or her records of duty status manually.

    I. Part 396

    In § 396.1, paragraph (d) is added to exempt pipeline welding trucks from the rules of part 396.

    VI. Rulemaking Analyses Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined this final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979). As explained above, this final rule is strictly ministerial in that it incorporates nondiscretionary statutory requirements. These statutory changes went into effect retroactively on October 1, 2015. The regulatory changes included in this rule are necessary to make FMCSA's regulations consistent with the FAST Act and their economic impact will not exceed the $100 million annual threshold. Any costs associated with this action are attributable to the non-discretionary statutory provisions. This final rule is not expected to generate substantial congressional or public interest. Therefore, a full regulatory impact analysis has not been conducted nor has there been a review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    Although a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary because of the low economic impact of this rulemaking, FMCSA analyzed the cost impact of the FAST Act provisions implemented by this final rule. This rule's provisions generally provided exemptions to FMCSA regulations and should ease the economic burden on regulated entities. The impacts of these provisions should be small and affect a small number of individuals and businesses.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA is not required to prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis under 5 U.S.C. 604(a) for this final rule because the Agency has not issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prior to this action. FMCSA has determined that it has good cause to adopt the rule without notice and comment.

    Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Kathryn Sinniger, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the SBA's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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 $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this final rule will not result in such an expenditure, the Agency does discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), nor does it revise any existing approved collections of information.

    E.O. 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “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.”

    FMCSA has determined that this rule would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism summary impact statement.

    E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988 to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    E.O. 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, this regulatory action does not pose an environmental or safety risk that could disproportionately affect children.

    E.O. 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have takings implications.

    Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII), therefore the Agency finds that there will be no impact on the privacy of individuals.

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

    E.O. 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this action.

    E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. FMCSA determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that E.O. because it is not economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

    E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

    National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    National Environmental Policy Act and Clean Air Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.) and FMCSA's NEPA Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts, Order 5610.1 (FMCSA Order), March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680). FMCSA's Order states that “[w]here FMCSA has no discretion to withhold or condition an action if the action is taken in accordance with specific statutory criteria and FMCSA lacks control and responsibility over the effects of an action, that action is not subject to this Order.” Id. at chapter 1(D). Because Congress specifies the Agency's precise action here, thus leaving the Agency no discretion over such action, and since the Agency lacks jurisdiction and therefore control and responsibility over the effects of this action, this rulemaking falls under chapter 1(D). Therefore, no further analysis is considered.

    In addition to the NEPA requirements to examine impacts on air quality, the Clean Air Act (CAA) as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.) also requires FMCSA to analyze the potential impact of its actions on air quality and to ensure that FMCSA actions conform to State and local air quality implementation plans. This non-discretionary action is expected to fall within the CAA de minimis standards and is not subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's General Conformity Rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93).

    Additionally, FMCSA evaluated the effects of this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12898 and determined that there are no environmental justice issues associated with its provisions nor any collective environmental impacts resulting from its promulgation. Environmental justice issues would be raised if there were a “disproportionate” and “high and adverse impact” on minority or low-income populations. This final rule is exempt from analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule simply makes ministerial, mandatory changes and would not result in high and adverse environmental impacts.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 365

    Administrative practice and procedure, Brokers, Buses, Freight forwarders, Maritime carriers, Mexico, Motor Carriers, Moving of household goods.

    49 CFR Part 381

    Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 390

    Highway safety, Intermodal transportation, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 391

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Drug testing, Highway safety, Motor Carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Safety, Transportation.

    49 CFR Part 392

    Alcohol abuse, Drug abuse, Highway safety, Motor carriers.

    49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    49 CFR Part 395

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated in this preamble, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III as set forth below:

    PART 365—RULES GOVERNING APPLICATIONS FOR OPERATING AUTHORITY 1. The authority citation for part 365 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 553 and 559; 49 U.S.C. 13101, 13301, 13901-13906, 14708, 31138, and 31144; sec. 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Amend § 365.101 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
    § 365.101 Applications governed by these rules.

    (j) The rules in this part do not apply to “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    PART 381—WAIVERS, EXEMPTIONS, AND PILOT PROGRAMS 3. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    4. Amend § 381.300 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 381.300 What is an exemption?

    (b) An exemption provides the person or class of persons with relief from the regulations for up to 5 years, and may be renewed, upon request, for subsequent 5-year periods.

    5. Add § 381.317 to read as follows:
    § 381.317 May I resubmit my application for exemption if it is denied?

    If the Administrator denies your application for exemption and you can reasonably address the reasons for denial, you may resubmit your application following the procedures in § 381.310.

    PART 383—COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE STANDARDS; REQUIREMENTS AND PENALTIES 6. The authority citation for part 383 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 521, 31136, 31301 et seq., and 31502; secs. 214 and 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 1012(b) of Pub. L. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272, 297; sec. 4140 of Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1746; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 7208 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1593; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    7. Amend § 383.3 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
    § 383.3 Applicability.

    (i) Hazardous materials endorsement exemption for certain drivers transporting diesel. A State may waive the requirement for a holder of a Class A commercial driver's license to obtain a hazardous materials endorsement under this part, if the license holder is:

    (1) Acting within the scope of the license holder's employment, and within the State of domicile (or another State with a hazardous materials endorsement exemption) as an employee of a custom harvester operation, agrichemical business, farm retail outlet and supplier, or livestock feeder; and

    (2) Operating a service vehicle that is:

    (i) Transporting diesel in a quantity of 3,785 liters (1,000 gallons) or less; and

    (ii) Clearly marked with a “flammable” or “combustible” placard, as appropriate.

    PART 390—FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY REGULATIONS; GENERAL 8. The authority citation for part 390 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31132, 31133, 31134, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31151, 31502; sec. 114, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677-1678; sec. 212, 217, Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1766, 1767; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4114 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743-1744); sec. 4136, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1745; sec. 32101(d) and 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 778, 830; sec. 2, Pub. L. 113-125, 128 Stat. 1388; sec. 5403(d), 5518, 5524, Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1548, 1558, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.81, 1.81a and 1.87.

    9. Add § 390.38 to read as follows:
    § 390.38 Exemptions for pipeline welding trucks.

    (a) Federal requirements. A pipeline welding truck, as defined in paragraph (b) of this section, including the individuals operating such vehicle and the employer of such individual, is exempt from the following:

    (1) Any requirement relating to registration as a motor carrier, including the requirement to obtain and display a Department of Transportation number, in 49 CFR part 365 or 390.

    (2) Any requirement relating to driver qualifications in 49 CFR part 391.

    (3) Any requirement relating to driving of commercial motor vehicles in 49 CFR part 392.

    (4) Any requirement relating to parts and accessories and inspection, repair, and maintenance of commercial motor vehicles in 49 CFR parts 393 and 396.

    (5) Any requirement relating to hours of service of drivers, including maximum driving and on duty time, found in 49 CFR part 395.

    (b) Definition. “Pipeline welding truck” means a motor vehicle that is travelling in the State in which the vehicle is registered or another State, is owned by a welder, is a pick-up style truck, is equipped with a welding rig that is used in the construction or maintenance of pipelines, and has a gross vehicle weight and combination weight rating and weight of 15,000 pounds or less.

    10. Amend § 390.39 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
    § 390.39 Exemptions for “covered farm vehicles.”

    (b) State requirements—(1) In general. Federal transportation funding to a State may not be terminated, limited, or otherwise interfered with as a result of the State exempting a covered farm vehicle, including the individual operating that vehicle, from—

    (i) A requirement described in paragraph (a) of this section; or

    (ii) Any other minimum standard provided by a State relating to the operation of that vehicle.

    PART 391—QUALIFICATIONS OF DRIVERS AND LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLE (LCV) DRIVER INSTRUCTORS 11. The authority citation for part 391 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 508, 31133, 31136, 31149, and 31502; sec. 4007(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 2152; sec. 114 of Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1677; sec. 215 of Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748, 1767; sec. 32934 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    12. Revise § 391.2 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 391.2 General exceptions.

    (e) Pipeline welding trucks. The rules in this part do not apply to drivers of “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    PART 392—DRIVING OF COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLES 13. The authority citation for part 392 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 13902, 31136, 31151, 31502; Section 112 of Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676 (1994), as amended by sec. 32509 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 805 (2012); sec. 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    14. Revise § 392.1 by designating the existing text as paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 392.1 Scope of the rules in this part.

    (b) The rules in this part do not apply to drivers of “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    PART 393—PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION 15. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); sec. 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    16. Revise § 393.1 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 393.1 Scope of the rules in this part.

    (e) The rules in this part do not apply to “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    PART 395—HOURS OF SERVICE OF DRIVERS 17. The authority citation for part 395 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31137, and 31502; sec. 113, Pub. L. 103-311, 108 Stat. 1673, 1676; sec. 229, Pub. L. 106-159 (as transferred by sec. 4115 and amended by secs. 4130-4132, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1726, 1743, 1744); sec. 4133, Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1744; sec. 108, Pub. L. 110-432, 122 Stat. 4860-4866; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5206(b) of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1537; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    18. Amend § 395.1 by revising paragraph (e)(1) and adding paragraphs (t), (u), (v), (w), and (x), to read as follows:
    § 395.1 Scope of rules in this part.

    (e) Short-haul operations—(1) 100 air-mile radius driver. A driver is exempt from the requirements of § 395.8 if:

    (i) The driver operates within a 100 air-mile radius of the normal work reporting location;

    (ii)(A) The driver, except a driver-salesperson or a driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle, returns to the work reporting location and is released from work within 12 consecutive hours;

    (B) The driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle returns to the work reporting location and is released from work within 14 consecutive hours;

    (iii)(A) A property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver, except the driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle, has at least 10 consecutive hours off duty separating each 12 hours on duty;

    (B) A driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle has at least 10 consecutive hours off duty separating each 14 hours on duty;

    (C) A passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver has at least 8 consecutive hours off duty separating each 12 hours on duty;

    (iv)(A) A property-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver, except the driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle, does not exceed the maximum driving time specified in § 395.3(a)(3) following 10 consecutive hours off duty; or

    (B) A driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle does not exceed 11 hours maximum driving time following 10 consecutive hours off duty; or

    (C) A passenger-carrying commercial motor vehicle driver does not exceed 10 hours maximum driving time following 8 consecutive hours off duty; and

    (v) The motor carrier that employs the driver maintains and retains for a period of 6 months accurate and true time records showing:

    (A) The time the driver reports for duty each day;

    (B) The total number of hours the driver is on duty each day;

    (C) The time the driver is released from duty each day; and

    (D) The total time for the preceding 7 days in accordance with § 395.8(j)(2) for drivers used for the first time or intermittently.

    (t) Ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle. A driver of a ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle subject to the requirement for a 30-minute rest break in § 395.3(a)(3)(ii) may use 30-minutes or more of time spent while waiting with the commercial motor vehicle at a job site or terminal to meet the requirement for the 30-minute rest break, providing the driver performs no other work during the break.

    (u) Transport of commercial bees. The provisions of § 395.3(a)(3)(ii), requiring a 30-minute rest break, do not apply to a driver engaged in the interstate transportation of bees by commercial motor vehicle as long as the bees are on the vehicle.

    (v) Transport of livestock. The provisions of § 395.3(a)(3)(ii), requiring a 30-minute rest break, do not apply to a driver engaged in the interstate transportation of livestock by commercial motor vehicle while the livestock are on the vehicle.

    (w) Hi-rail vehicles. For the driver of a hi-rail vehicle, the maximum on duty time under § 395.3 shall not include time in transportation to or from a duty assignment if such time in transportation—

    (1) Does not exceed 2 hours per calendar day or a total of 30 hours per calendar month; and

    (2) Is fully and accurately accounted for in records to be maintained by the motor carrier and such records are made available upon request of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration or the Federal Railroad Administration.

    (x) Pipeline welding trucks. The rules in this part do not apply to drivers of “pipeline welding trucks,” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    19. Amend § 395.2 by revising the first sentence in the definition of “Transportation of construction materials and equipment” and by adding definitions of “Hi-rail vehicle,” “Livestock,” and “Ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle,” in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
    § 395.2 Definitions.

    Hi-rail vehicle means an internal rail flaw detection vehicle equipped with flange hi-rails.

    Livestock means cattle, elk, reindeer, bison, horses, deer, sheep, goats, swine, poultry (including egg-producing poultry), fish used for food, and other animals designated by the Secretary of Agriculture that are part of a foundation herd (including dairy producing cattle) or offspring; or are purchased as part of a normal operation and not to obtain additional benefits under the Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Act of 1988, as amended.

    Ready-mixed concrete delivery vehicle means a vehicle designed to deliver ready-mixed concrete on a daily basis and equipped with a mechanism under which the vehicle's propulsion engine provides the power to operate a mixer drum to agitate and mix the product en route to the delivery site.

    Transportation of construction material and equipment means the transportation of construction and pavement materials, construction equipment, and construction maintenance vehicles, by a driver to or from an active construction site (a construction site between mobilization of equipment and materials to the site to the final completion of the construction project) within a 75 air mile radius of the normal work reporting location of the driver, except that a State, upon notice to the Administrator, may establish a different air mile radius limitation for purposes of this definition if such limitation is between 50 and 75 air miles and applies only to movements that take place entirely within the State. * * *

    20. Amend § 395.8 by revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(A) to read as follows.
    § 395.8 Driver's record of duty status.

    (a)(1) * * *

    (iii)(A) A motor carrier may require a driver to record the driver's duty status manually in accordance with this section, rather than require the use of an ELD, if the driver is operating a commercial motor vehicle:

    (1) In a manner requiring completion of a record of duty status on not more than 8 days within any 30-day period;

    (2) In a driveaway-towaway operation in which the vehicle being driven is part of the shipment being delivered;

    (3) In a driveaway-towaway operation in which the vehicle being transported is a motor home or a recreation vehicle trailer; or

    (4) That was manufactured before model year 2000.

    PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE 21. The authority citation for part 396 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; sec. 5524 of Pub. L. 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1560; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    22. Revise § 396.1 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 396.1 Scope.

    (d) The rules in this part do not apply to “pipeline welding trucks” as defined in 49 CFR 390.38(b).

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87: July 14, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17114 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Parts 393 and 396 and Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0176] RIN 2126-AB81 Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; General Amendments AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) in response to several petitions for rulemaking from the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) and the American Trucking Associations (ATA), and two safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Specifically, the Agency adds a definition of “major tread groove” and an illustration to indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying a major tread groove; revises the rear license plate lamp requirement to eliminate the requirement for an operable rear license plate lamp on vehicles when there is no rear license plate present; amends the regulations regarding tires to prohibit the operation of a vehicle with speed-restricted tires at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire; provides specific requirements regarding when violations or defects noted on an inspection report must be corrected; amends two appendixes to the FMCSRs to include provisions for the inspection of antilock braking systems (ABS) and automatic brake adjusters, speed-restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages; amends the periodic inspection rules to eliminate the option for a motor carrier to satisfy the annual inspection requirement through a violation-free roadside inspection; and amends the inspector qualification requirements as a result of the amendments to the periodic inspection rules. In addition, the Agency eliminates introductory regulatory text from an appendix to the FMCSRs because the discussion of the differences between the North American Standard Inspection out-of-service criteria and FMCSA's periodic inspection criteria is unnecessary.

    DATES:

    The rule is effective July 22, 2016.

    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted to the FMCSA Administrator no later than August 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone: 202-366-5370; [email protected]

    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone (202) 366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Rulemaking Documents A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2015-0176 to read background documents and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT accepts comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy.

    II. Executive Summary

    FMCSA is responsible for regulations to ensure that all commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) are systematically inspected, repaired, and maintained and that all parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs are in safe and proper operating condition at all times. In response to several petitions for rulemaking from CVSA and ATA and two safety recommendations from the NTSB, FMCSA amends various provisions in parts 393 and 396 of the FMCSRs. The amendments generally do not involve the establishment of new or more stringent requirements, but instead clarify existing requirements to increase consistency of enforcement activities, and therefore the economic impact of these changes is negligible.

    Specifically, the Agency (1) adds a definition of “major tread groove” in § 393.5 and an illustration in § 393.75 to indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying a major tread groove; (2) revises the rear license plate lamp requirement to eliminate the requirement in Table 1 of § 393.11 for vehicles to have an operable rear license plate lamp when there is no rear license plate present; (3) amends the regulations regarding tires to prohibit the operation of a vehicle with speed-restricted tires at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire; (4) clarifies § 396.9 regarding when violations or defects noted on a roadside inspection report need to be corrected; (5) amends Appendix G to the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” to include provisions for the inspection of ABS and automatic brake adjusters, speed-restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages; (6) amends § 396.17(f) and removes § 396.23(a) to eliminate the option for a motor carrier to meet the periodic inspection requirements through roadside inspections; and (7) amends § 396.19(b) regarding inspector qualifications as a result of the amendments to § 396.17(f) described above. In addition, the Agency eliminates as unnecessary a portion of Appendix G to the FMCSRs that describes the differences between the out-of-service criteria and FMCSA's annual inspection requirement. Elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register, FMCSA amends certain regulatory guidance to ensure consistency between the FMCSRs, as amended by this final rule, and the published guidance.

    III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This rulemaking is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935 [1935 Act] and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 [1984 Act].

    The 1935 Act, as amended, provides that “[t]he Secretary of Transportation may prescribe requirements for—(1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier; and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of, and standards of equipment of, a private motor carrier, when needed to promote safety of operation” (49 U.S.C. 31502(b)).

    This final rule amends the FMCSRs in response to several petitions for rulemaking. The adoption and enforcement of such rules is specifically authorized by the 1935 Act. This rulemaking rests squarely on that authority.

    The 1984 Act provides concurrent authority to regulate drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. It requires the Secretary to “prescribe regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety.” The regulations shall prescribe minimum safety standards for CMVs. At a minimum, the regulations shall ensure that: (1) CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely; (3) the physical condition of operators of CMVs is adequate to enable them to operate vehicles safely; (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the physical condition of the operators; and (5) drivers are not coerced by motor carriers, shippers, receivers, or transportation intermediaries to operate a vehicle in violation of a regulation promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 31136 or 49 U.S.C. chapters 51 or 313 (49 U.S.C. 31136(a)).

    This final rule concerns (1) parts and accessories necessary for the safe operation of CMVs, and (2) the inspection, repair, and maintenance of CMVs. It is based primarily on section 31136(a)(1) and (2), and secondarily on section 31136(a)(4). This rulemaking ensures that CMVs are maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely by requiring certain vehicle components, systems, and equipment to meet minimum standards such that the mechanical condition of the vehicle is not likely to cause a crash or breakdown. Section 31136(a)(3) is not applicable because this rulemaking does not deal with driver qualification standards. Because the amendments are primarily technical changes that clarify existing requirements and improve enforcement consistency, FMCSA believes they will be welcomed by motor carriers and drivers alike and that coercion to violate them will not be an issue.

    Before prescribing any such regulations, FMCSA must consider the “costs and benefits” of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and 31502(d)). As discussed in greater detail in the “Regulatory Analyses” section, FMCSA determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action. The economic impact is negligible because the amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but rather the clarification of existing requirements. As such, the costs of the final rule do not approach the $100 million annual threshold for economic significance.

    IV. Background

    On October 7, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register titled Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance; General Amendments (80 FR 60592). FMCSA received 16 comments on the NPRM.

    V. Summary of the NPRM

    FMCSA proposed to amend § 393.5 to define “major tread groove” as “The space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a tire that contains a tread wear indicator or wear bar. (In most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper sidewall/shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)” In addition, FMCSA proposed adding an illustration to § 393.75 to indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars signifying a major tread groove. FMCSA agreed that uniformity and consistency in enforcement and maintenance is critical. By including a definition of “major tread groove” in § 393.5—a term that is currently included in the regulatory text of § 393.75(b) and (c), but not specifically defined—and a corresponding illustration in § 393.75, the Agency expects increased consistency in the application and citation of § 393.75 during roadside inspections.

    FMCSA proposed to amend Footnote 11 to Table 1 of § 393.11 to indicate that “No rear license plate lamp is required on truck tractors registered in States that do not require tractors to display a rear license plate.” As noted in both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108 and the FMCSRs, the only function of the rear license plate lamp is to illuminate the rear license plate. FMCSA agreed with ATA that if a truck tractor is not required to display a rear license plate, then there is no corresponding safety need for a functioning rear license plate light.

    FMCSA proposed to amend Appendix G to include a review of ABS and automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators to maintain consistency between part 393 and Appendix G. FMCSA agreed that the failure of a motor carrier to properly maintain an important safety technology such as ABS should result in the vehicle failing the periodic inspection. Although CVSA did not mention automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators in its petition to amend Appendix G, FMCSA proposed changes in Appendix G relating to these brake components to ensure that vehicles may not pass the periodic inspection without this important safety equipment.

    To clarify the intent of § 396.9(d)(2), FMCSA proposed to amend that section by including a specific cross reference to § 396.11(a)(3). Section 396.11(a)(3) makes it clear that all defects and deficiencies discovered by or reported to a driver—including those identified during a roadside inspection conducted under the authority of § 396.9—must be corrected (or a certification must be provided stating that repair is unnecessary) before a vehicle is operated each day. However, the Agency agreed that the language of § 396.9(d)(2) is not as explicit as it could be, and could lead to uncertainty and/or inconsistency in both the enforcement community and the motor carrier industry regarding when violations and defects noted on roadside inspection reports need to be corrected.

    FMCSA proposed to amend § 396.17(f) to remove the words “roadside or” from the current regulatory text. The proposed amendment would eliminate any uncertainties and make clear that a roadside inspection is not equivalent to the periodic/annual inspection required under § 396.17. FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to allow carriers relief from this responsibility by using a roadside inspection conducted by enforcement officials to meet the periodic inspection requirement. Motor carriers will now be responsible for ensuring the completion of a periodic inspection irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed, and amending the regulations will require them to do so at least once every 12 months, irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed during that period.

    In light of the proposed amendments to § 396.17(f), and to further decrease the possibility of confusion regarding differing requirements of the roadside inspection program and the periodic/annual inspection program, FMCSA proposed to delete the section at the end of Appendix G titled “Comparison of Appendix G, and the new North American Uniform Driver-Vehicle Inspection Procedure (North American Commercial Vehicle Critical Safety Inspection Items and Out-Of-Service Criteria). . .”

    Consistent with the proposed amendments to § 396.17, FMCSA also proposed to amend § 396.19(b) by deleting language regarding a “random roadside inspection program.”

    FMCSA proposed to add language to section 10 of Appendix G that would prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires on CMVs subject to the FMCSRs unless the use of such tires is specifically designated by the motor carrier. FMCSA agreed that speed-restricted tires should not be used on CMVs operating on highways in excess of 55 mph for extended periods of time.

    FMCSA proposed to add a new section to Appendix G that would require an examination of motorcoach seats during the conduct of a periodic inspection in accordance with § 396.17 to ensure that they are securely attached to the vehicle structure. However, given the wide range of seat anchorage designs, coupled with the lack of testing requirements specifically for seat anchorage strength in the FMVSSs, it is not practicable for FMCSA to develop a detailed methodology for the inspection of motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages.

    VI. Comment Response

    In response to the NPRM, the Agency received 16 comments from two motor carriers (Capitol Bus Lines and Southern Company), eight organizations (the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), the American Bus Association (ABA), ATA, CVSA, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA)), the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA), and the Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (TSEI), and six individuals (Steve Bixler, Jim Bramm, Richard Crawford, Richard Pingel, Robert Spoon, and Miles Verhoef).

    Discussion of Issues Section 393.5, Definition of “Major Tread Groove.”

    Comments: RMA supported adding a definition for “major tread groove,” but recommended that “major tread groove” be defined as “the full depth space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a tire that repeats along the circumference and/or at an angle across the tread area and contains a tread wear indicator. (In most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper sidewall or shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)” In addition, RMA noted that new tire tread designs feature tread grooves that are “hidden” on a new tire, but that appear and deepen and/or widen as the tire tread wears. RMA states that in most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the tire's upper sidewall/shoulder, but that those markings are voluntary and not required by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that the definition proposed in the NPRM is sufficiently clear. The language provided by RMA added complexity without clarifying the language proposed by FMCSA. While the preamble to the NPRM stated that an illustration would be added to § 393.75 to indicate the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying a major tread groove, and FMCSA included a proposed illustration in the preamble, the illustration inadvertently was not included in the proposed regulatory changes. FMCSA did not receive any comments regarding the illustration, and adds it to § 393.75 as discussed in the NPRM. We anticipate that inclusion of the illustration will further enhance clarity of the regulatory language.

    Table 1 to § 393.11, License Plate Lights

    Comments: Jim Bramm, CVSA, and NADA recommended that the exception for vehicles not required to have a rear license plate light be extended to apply to all types of CMVs, and not be limited to truck tractors as proposed in the NPRM. Mr. Bramm stated “Our company's corporate office is located in Wisconsin and the majority of our commercial motor vehicles are registered in this state. When registering a vehicle for an apportioned plate you have the ability in this state to not only register truck tractors but other types of commercial vehicles such as dump trucks and pickup trucks. Wisconsin law states only 1 plate will be issued for apportioned registered vehicles and that plate is to be affixed to the front. Therefore I believe the wording should remain as petitioned by the ATA so that the regulation would apply to any commercial vehicle not just truck tractors.”

    OOIDA stated “. . . state inspectors do not have the authority to write up violations of rules that their state has not adopted. Therefore, inspectors from states that do not require rear license plates (or illumination) do not have the authority to find violations for failing to illuminate a license plate. Nor may such enforcement officials use their observation of lack of a license plate (or illumination) as probable cause to stop a truck for inspection. They only have the authority to use probable cause that there is a violation of their own state law.” In addition, OOIDA noted that FMCSA “should consider what role the requirement for a license plate light plays in highway safety. The requirements for conspicuity systems clearly address night time visibility in a manner which far exceeds a license plate light. The role of a license plate light in vehicle safety should be explained and justified by FMCSA or dropped from the requirements.”

    FMCSA Response: FMVSS No. 108, “Lamps, reflective devices, and associated equipment” (incorporated by reference in section 393.11 of the FMCSRs), specifies comprehensive requirements to enhance the conspicuity of all motor vehicles, including CMVs, on the public roads so that their presence is perceived and their signals understood, both in daylight and in darkness or other conditions of reduced visibility. While NHTSA has required license plate lamps on all vehicles since 1968, license plate lamps are not intended to enhance safety in a manner similar to the other required lamps and conspicuity treatments, and eliminating the requirement for a rear license plate lamp when no license plate is required will not reduce safety to the motoring public.

    FMCSA agrees with the commenters that any regulatory changes to the requirements for license plate lamps should apply to all CMVs, and not just truck tractors as proposed in the NPRM. However, if adopted, the proposed regulatory changes would have required roadside enforcement officials in each State to know the license plate display requirements of every other State. FMCSA believes that enforcement of the license plate lamp requirement can be simplified—without compromising safety—by requiring an operable rear license plate lamp only when there is a license plate present at the time of inspection. FMCSA believes that this approach will simplify enforcement and avoid enforcement confusion and inconsistency that would likely result from the State-by-State approach outlined in the NPRM. FMCSA does not expect drivers and/or motor carriers to remove license plates to avoid citations in the event that a rear license plate lamp is missing or inoperative, and if they do, they will be subject to the more severe penalties associated with not displaying a license plate when required by law.

    In response to OOIDA's concerns about the authority of an inspector to enforce regulations adopted by another State that the inspector's state has not similarly adopted, FMCSA notes that under the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), each State is required to adopt regulations that are compatible with the FMCSRs within 3 years as a condition of receiving Federal grant funding. As such, each State will be required to adopt a regulation consistent with today's final rule requiring an operable rear license plate lamp only when there is a rear license plate present, eliminating the possibility of inconsistent State regulations.

    Appendix G to the FMCSRs—ABS

    Comments: CVSA supports the proposed language adding ABS to Appendix G but recommended a number of additions, corrections, and clarifications. First, CVSA states that the effective date for ABS regarding hydraulic-braked vehicles should be September 1, 1999, and not March 1, 1999, as stated in the NPRM. CVSA notes that while NHTSA originally proposed a March 1, 1999, compliance date, NHTSA later granted a petition extending the deadline to September 1, 1999. Second, CVSA recommends the addition of a second footnote to clarify that certain power units have two ABS malfunction indicators—one for the power unit and one for the towed unit(s)—and that both need to be fully functional. Third, CVSA notes that ABS powered by a backup power source (i.e., the backup power from the brake lamp circuit) is not compliant with FMVSS No. 121. As such, CVSA recommends that subparagraph (2) of the proposed Appendix G requirements for ABS be amended to specifically state “ABS malfunction indicator that does not illuminate when power is first applied to the ABS controller (ECU) during initial power up.” Fourth, CVSA recommends adding two subparagraphs under the proposed ABS requirements in Appendix G to address FMVSS No. 121 requirements that (1) a power unit manufactured with ABS supply continuous power to the trailer, and (2) the stoplight switch power the trailer ABS system if the continuous power from the towing vehicle is interrupted.

    CVSA agrees with FMCSA's proposal to add requirements for automatic brake adjusters to Appendix G, but noted that FMCSA failed to include proposed regulatory text for automatic brake adjusters in the NPRM. In its comments, CVSA (1) provided suggested language for inclusion in Appendix G, and (2) recommended use of the term “self-adjusting brake adjusters” as opposed to “automatic brake adjusters.”

    CVSA and Southern Company opposed the need to include requirements for brake adjustment indicators in Appendix G. CVSA states “. . . the requirement is not necessary or practical. If all brakes are in proper adjustment during the inspection, the indicators (pushrod markings) will not be visible and checking for their presence would require disassembly of or a major adjustment/readjustment of the brakes, which is not advisable. To our knowledge, the likelihood of finding a vehicle without pushrod markings is extremely low.” Southern Company states that “Over the last 20 years the industry has adopted automatic slack adjusters, alleviating the concerns which lead to the brake adjustment indicators,” and “This technology [brake adjustment indicators] has proven to be ineffective. After a very short time frame, the tape or plastic wears off and is no longer visible,” and “Manufacturers no longer install the brake adjustment indicator.”

    FMCSA Response: CVSA is correct in noting that NHTSA had extended the compliance date for ABS on hydraulic-braked vehicles from March 1, 1999, to September 1, 1999, but that action was limited to an extension of the malfunction indicator lamp requirement in S5.3.3(b) of FMVSS No. 105 (64 FR 9446, February 26, 1999)—and not for the general requirement to equip hydraulic-braked vehicles with ABS. As such, all hydraulic-braked vehicles were still expected to be equipped with ABS effective March 1, 1999. As subparagraphs (1)—(3) under the ABS section in Appendix G refer specifically to the malfunction indicator, FMCSA amends footnote (1) to that section to reflect the September 1, 1999, compliance date for hydraulic-braked vehicles. In addition, FMCSA clarifies that footnote (1) applies only to subparagraphs (1)—(3) of the ABS section, and not to subparagraph (4) which addresses “other missing or inoperative ABS components.” Further, FMCSA agrees with CVSA's other largely editorial recommended changes to the ABS section in Appendix G and adopts those changes as suggested.

    Automatic brake adjusters automatically maintain proper brake adjustment, thus eliminating the need for frequent inspection and manual adjustment of the brakes. CVSA correctly notes that while FMCSA discussed the intent to include requirements for automatic brake adjusters in Appendix G in the preamble to the NPRM, the Agency did not provide corresponding proposed regulatory text in the NPRM. The omission of proposed regulatory text in the NPRM was inadvertent. The language recommended by CVSA in its comments is accurate and complete, and properly complements the requirements for automatic brake adjusters in FMVSS Nos. 105 and 121 that need to be included in Appendix G. FMCSA amends Appendix G to include requirements for automatic brake adjusters as suggested. With respect to CVSA's recommendation to use the term “self-adjusting brake adjusters” as opposed to “automatic brake adjusters,” FMCSA retains the terminology “automatic brake adjusters” to maintain consistency with existing regulatory language in both the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs.

    FMCSA discussed its intent to add requirements in Appendix G for brake adjustment indicators in the preamble to the NPRM, but did not provide corresponding proposed regulatory text. Brake adjustment indicators can improve brake adjustment by increasing the convenience of checking brake adjusters and their proper functioning. A brake adjustment indicator can reduce the time needed to assess brake adjustment status by providing a visible indication of pushrod stroke as opposed to physically measuring the push rod length before and during brake application.

    While brake adjustment indicators can simplify brake inspection, CVSA is correct in noting that if brakes are in proper adjustment during an inspection, the indicators will not be visible. In this case, an inspector would have to either disassemble the brake (unhook the clevis from the slack adjuster and pull out the pushrod), or back the brakes off until they are out of adjustment to confirm that the indicators are present. Further, although both the FMVSSs and the FMCSRs require brake adjustment indicators, FMCSA understands that virtually all evaluations of brake adjustment—both during roadside inspections and periodic inspections—are made by physically measuring pushrod length before and during brake application, and that very few inspections rely solely on brake adjustment indicators. Based on the above, FMCSA has not included any specific requirements for brake adjustment indicators in Appendix G.

    Section 396.9, Inspection of Motor Vehicles and Intermodal Equipment in Operation

    Comments: FMCSA did not receive any comments on§ 396.9(d)(2) and amends as proposed.

    FMCSA also requested comments regarding whether the current 15-day requirement in § 396.9(d)(3) for motor carriers to certify that all violations have been corrected by completing and returning the roadside inspection form to the issuing agency remains appropriate, or whether a different time period should be considered. CVSA, OOIDA, and Advocates stated that the 15-day requirement is appropriate. ABA and Capitol Bus Lines noted that, in limited circumstances, the 15-day requirement may not be sufficient when replacement parts are not readily available to conduct repairs, either because the parts need to be ordered from a different country or because the replacement parts are no longer available for older buses.

    FMCSA Response: FMCSA believes that, in most cases, repairs can be made and certification of those repairs can be sent within the current 15-day time period specified in the FMCSRs. In instances where a motor carrier can demonstrate that extenuating circumstances (such as those described in the ABA and Capitol Bus Lines comments) preclude repairs from being completed and certified within the 15-day time period specified, FMCSA will address those circumstances on a case-by-case basis. However, FMCSA does not believe that the 15-day requirement in § 396.9(d)(3) for motor carriers to certify that all violations have been corrected by completing and returning the roadside inspection form to the issuing agency needs to be amended at this time.

    Section 396.17, Periodic Inspection

    CVSA agreed with the proposed changes, but also recommended additional changes to § 396.17 to make it clear that inspections conducted by FMCSA inspectors, investigators, and safety auditors are not equivalent to required periodic inspections. Capitol Bus Lines and ABA commented that, while several States permit motor carriers to self-certify the conduct and completion of the annual inspections required under § 396.17, other States that have implemented mandatory annual inspection programs refuse to accept the “self-certified” annual inspections conducted by the motor carrier as “legitimate annual inspections.” ATA commented that “The basis for . . . this rule change appears to be . . . a change in agency philosophy rather than . . . data or factual evidence. ATA has great difficulty supporting a national policy change of this magnitude without factual evidence showing an enhanced safety benefit from this change.”

    Four members of OOIDA—Steve Bixler, Richard Pingel, Robert Spoon, and Miles Verhoef—submitted nearly identical comments stating that (1) they “have never seen a copy of how roadside truck inspections are supposed to be conducted;” (2) they “have never seen a copy of CVSA's out of service criteria;” (3) “If FMCSA were to publish roadside inspection and out-of-service criteria standards and procedures, it would help me know what parts of my equipment FMCSA and CVSA think I should focus on in between my periodic inspections;” and (4) “It is my right under the Constitution to be told the scope of any government search of me or my truck.”

    OOIDA stated that, “Where the Notice begins to discuss roadside inspection standards and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance's out-of-service criteria however, the Notice is woefully deficient in informing the public what exactly these standards are. It appears that CVSA has proposed, and FMCSA consented, to proposals that remove all references to roadside inspections and the content of the out-of-service criteria in the rules. Without making those standards public, FMCSA has not given the public an adequate opportunity to comment on its proposal. If there is any imperative upon FMCSA to deal with roadside inspections and the out-of-service criteria differently than it does now, that imperative is to give the regulated public notice of their contents and scope.” OOIDA also asked numerous, more specific questions relating to the general concerns noted above.

    FMCSA Response: Today, the overwhelming majority of the approximately 3.5 million roadside inspections of CMVs performed annually in the United States are conducted by State personnel using funding provided under the MCSAP.

    The scope of a roadside inspection conducted under the North American Standard (NAS) Inspection is quite comprehensive, and covers both (1) critical vehicle inspection items (brake systems; cargo securement; coupling devices; driveline/driveshaft; exhaust systems; frames; fuel systems; lighting devices; steering mechanisms; suspensions; tires; van and open-top trailer bodies; wheels, rims and hubs; windshield wipers; and emergency exits, electrical cables and systems in engine and battery compartments; and seating on passenger-carrying vehicles), and (2) other parts and accessories required under part 393.

    However, while a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS Inspection is far-reaching, there are certain limitations to roadside procedures that prevent inspectors from properly examining all of the items in Appendix G. These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following:

    Brake linings and pads and brake drums or rotors: Inspectors cannot remove wheels or dust shields; only visible components can be examined at roadside.

    Hydraulic brakes: Inspectors cannot disassemble components; only visible components can be examined at roadside.

    Fifth wheels, pintle hooks: Combination vehicles are not typically decoupled to view upper and lower fifth wheel assemblies and other coupler assemblies; only visible components can be examined at roadside.

    Tires: Low boy, car hauler, and other low profile or tight clearance vehicles, and dual tire sets have limited access to the entire tire circumference without wheel removal; only visible components can be examined at roadside.

    Wheels and rims: Dual wheel sets may have limited access to inside wheel visibility; only visible components can be examined at roadside.

    Because not every element of Appendix G is reviewed/inspected during a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS Inspection, most roadside inspections do not meet the periodic (annual) inspection requirements under § 396.17. For this reason, FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to allow motor carriers to use roadside inspections conducted by enforcement officials to satisfy the annual inspection requirements in § 396.17(f). Motor carriers or their agents will now be required to complete a periodic inspection of every CMV under its control in accordance with Appendix G at least once every 12 months, irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed, unless the vehicle is subject to a mandatory State inspection program in accordance with § 396.23(b)(1) which has been determined to be as effective as the requirements of § 396.17.

    Section 396.23, Equivalent to periodic inspection, currently outlines two options that are deemed to be equivalent to the periodic inspections required under § 396.17—a roadside inspection program of a State or other jurisdiction, or a mandatory State inspection program which has been determined to be as effective as the Federal requirements. FMCSA did not propose any amendments to § 396.23 in the NPRM. However, and given the amendments to § 396.17(f) discussed above, it is also necessary to remove § 396.23(a) to ensure that the FMCSRs are consistent regarding the determination that a roadside inspection will no longer be considered as meeting the periodic inspection requirements of § 396.17.

    In response to the specific comments to the October 2015 NPRM:

    FMCSA agrees that inspections conducted by FMCSA inspectors, investigators, and safety auditors are not equivalent to required periodic inspections, and corresponding changes have been made to § 396.17, as suggested by CVSA.

    In response to the comments from Capitol Bus Lines and ABA, FMCSA notes that if a motor carrier is located in a State that permits motor carriers to self-certify the conduct and completion of the annual inspections required under § 396.17, section 210 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (49 U.S.C. 31142) establishes the principle that State inspections meeting federally approved criteria must be recognized by every other State. If, as Capitol Bus Lines and ABA contend, States that have implemented mandatory annual inspection programs refuse to accept the “self-certified” annual inspections conducted by motor carriers in other States as legitimate annual inspections, aggrieved motor carriers are encouraged to contact the FMCSA Division Administrator in their State for assistance. FMCSA notes that States may require additional inspections as a condition of issuing some type of permit or license, but additional inspections cannot be required otherwise.

    While ATA argued that FMCSA failed to provide “factual evidence” to show an “enhanced safety benefit” of the proposed change, FMCSA has clearly shown that current roadside inspections conducted under the NAS Inspection do not examine every component listed in Appendix G. As such, roadside inspections conducted using the NAS Inspection procedures cannot be considered as meeting the annual inspection requirements of § 396.17. While FMCSA does not track the number of motor carriers that use a violation-free roadside inspection to meet the periodic inspection requirement or the number of roadside inspections so used, the Agency has reason to believe these numbers are small. Roadside inspections are not “scheduled” inspections, and a motor carrier therefore cannot plan to defer its periodic inspections until roadside inspections are conducted. OOIDA also commented that it “is not aware of any truck owners who have used a roadside inspection to comply with the periodic inspection requirement.” Given that the estimated number of roadside inspections used to meet the periodic inspection requirement is very small, today's rule will not significantly affect carriers who relied on such inspections in the past, nor will the number of motor carrier inspection personnel and facilities now needed to perform Appendix G periodic inspections be significantly increased. Eliminating the possibility that roadside inspections can be used as equivalent to periodic inspections in the future will only enhance safety.

    In response to the comments from OOIDA members Bixler, Pingel, Spoon, and Verhoef, FMCSA reiterates that all parts and accessories specified in part 393, as well as any additional parts and accessories as allowed by § 393.3, are required to be in safe and proper operating condition at all times. As such, any and all components of a CMV are subject to examination during a roadside inspection, regardless of whether those components are included in any inspection procedure or the CVSA Out-of-Service Criteria (OOSC). Importantly, the amendments made in today's rule do not have anything to do with the OOSC, which are simply a set of enforcement tolerances used by inspectors in determining whether violations discovered during an inspection pose such serious safety risks that they must be corrected immediately before the vehicle is allowed to continue. OOIDA's tangential argument that the scope of a search—its characterization of roadside inspections—“must be widely published in advance so that the regulated parties have notice of it” and that the CVSA OOSC do not meet that standard, is misguided. The Federal courts have long recognized that “[t]he CVSA's OOSC are not themselves federal rules subject to our review . . . Rather, the OOSC merely interpret the standards set forth in existing federal and state laws and regulations. . . . [T]he federal regulations are the binding legal norms and the operation of a commercial vehicle that falls below the regulatory criteria is unlawful.” National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. v. Federal Highway Administration, 170 F.3d 203, 207-208 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original). The FMCSRs adopted through notice and comment rulemaking provide motor carriers and drivers the constitutionally required notice of their legal obligations.

    Similar to the discussion above, the questions posed by OOIDA regarding roadside inspections, specific inspection procedures, and the CVSA OOSC are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The amendments made by this rule eliminate the possibility that a roadside inspection can be considered equivalent to an annual inspection, for the simple reason that not every element required to be examined during an annual inspection as identified in Appendix G to the FMCSRs is examined during a roadside inspection conducted under the NAS Inspection.

    Section 396.19, Inspector Qualifications

    Comments: FMCSA did not receive any comments on § 396.19(b) and amends as proposed.

    Speed-Restricted Tires

    Comments: In its comments, Southern Company states:

    The utility industry uses speed rated tires on their CMVs for on/off road work. Tires with a lug tread pattern design are typically speed rated and used extensively in the following industries; Utility, Municipalities, Refuse, Logging, Livestock, Farming, Construction, and by Carriers which routinely encounter snow.

    Based on review of the proposed changes to Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III—Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards, Section 10. Tires, the intent of the FMCSA was to eliminate speed rated tires for motorcoach CMVs.

    SOCO recommends that the FMCSA clarify their proposed language on the modification of the current regulations to prohibit the use of speed rated tires specifically on motorcoach CMVs only.

    ABA supported FMCSA's intent to address speed-restricted tires in Appendix G, but stated that “absent a requirement for labeling maximum speeds on all tires, it will be difficult for the law enforcement community to easily determine whether tires on a vehicle in use, are appropriate.” ABA recommended that FMCSA provide additional guidance regarding (1) the intended meaning of “extended periods of time,” (2) how a carrier would designate the appropriate use of speed-restricted tires, and (3) when/where such designation would need to be produced for the purposes of compliance.

    RMA supported the proposed amendments to Appendix G. In addition, RMA noted that amendments to (1) FMVSS No. 119 to require all tires to be labeled with a maximum speed rating, and (2) FMVSS No. 120 to include such information on a required label, would “greatly improve the ability of consumers, fleets, tire service personnel, [and] State and Federal inspection personnel to correctly identify appropriate tires for a given vehicle and vehicle operation.”

    FMCSA Response: Vehicles should be equipped with tires that have the proper speed rating for the vehicle's intended use, because operating a vehicle at speeds that exceed the specified tire speed rating could lead to heat build-up in a tire and cause premature or sudden tire failure. This potential safety issue could have significant consequences, especially in passenger carrier operations, and FMCSA believes that regulatory measures are necessary to ensure—to the extent practicable—that speed-restricted tires are properly installed in accordance with a vehicle's intended use.

    Although the October 2003 crash in Tallulah, LA, involved a motorcoach, the NTSB Safety Recommendation was not specific only to motorcoach tires, but advised the Agency to “address a tire's speed rating to ensure that it is appropriate for a vehicle's intended use.” As noted above, tires labeled with a specific speed restriction/limit should not be operated at speeds that exceed that specified limit, as doing so could lead to heat build-up and cause premature or sudden tire failure. As such, FMCSA believes that any regulatory requirements regarding speed-restricted tires should apply to all CMVs, and not to just motorcoaches as suggested by Southern Company.

    The NPRM proposed to amend Appendix G to prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires on CMVs unless the use of such tires is specifically designated by the motor carrier. FMCSA believes that amending only the periodic (annual) inspection requirements in Appendix G—without a corresponding amendment to § 393.75, “Tires”—will not fully address the potential safety problem of using speed-restricted tires on vehicles that operate at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire as specified by the tire manufacturer. By including requirements relating to the appropriate use of speed-restricted tires in both § 393.75 and Appendix G, potential safety issues associated with the improper use of speed-restricted tires can be identified at any time and not just during periodic inspections conducted once a year. However, and because FMVSS No. 119 currently requires only tires that are speed-restricted to 55 mph or less to be labeled on the sidewall of the tire, it is not practicable to apply requirements to all tires (to include those that are rated for above 55 mph) as inspectors would have no way of easily determining the design maximum speed capability of the tire for the specified maximum load rating and corresponding inflation pressure.

    Based on the above, FMCSA adopts new language in § 393.75 to prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires labeled for 55 mph or less in accordance with S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 on vehicles that operate at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire. In addition, FMCSA amends Appendix G as proposed in the NPRM to prohibit the use of speed-restricted tires unless specifically designated by the motor carrier. This will require every CMV to be examined for the possible improper use of speed-restricted tires at least once a year.

    Given that not all tires are currently required to be marked with a maximum speed rating, FMCSA understands ABA's concerns regarding how a motor carrier will adequately “designate the appropriate use of speed-restricted tires” as proposed in the NPRM. NHTSA estimates that speed-restricted tires comprise less than 2 percent of the heavy truck tires, and, as Southern Company notes, these are typically used on utility, refuse, logging, livestock, farming, construction, and similar vehicles that are more often operated in heavy mixed-use service (on/off road operations in lower speed applications). Inspectors conducting roadside inspections will rarely encounter speed-restricted tires, and can generally expect that regional and long haul trucks and motorcoaches should not be equipped with speed-restricted tires. By including a requirement in Appendix G that prohibits the use of speed-restricted tires on vehicles “unless designated by the motor carrier,” motor carrier or other personnel conducting periodic inspections of the limited number of vehicles with speed-restricted tires will be prompted to confirm with the motor carrier that the use of such tires is appropriate for the specific vehicle. FMCSA retains the amendment to Appendix G as proposed in the NPRM.

    Motorcoach Seat Anchorage Strength

    Comments: Capitol Bus Lines agrees that seat anchor points should be inspected, and believes that “most reputable motorcoach operators check [the anchor points] as part of their `best practices.'” However, Capitol Bus Lines also noted that “to add this item to Appendix G with no guidance as to the inspection criteria puts an undue burden on carrier maintenance personnel as to the inspection standard. The lack of guidance can also result in different interpretations as to what is acceptable between operator and enforcement personnel. It would seem appropriate that for this item to be included in Appendix G, some minimum guidance must be provided for clarity and for the benefit of both operator and enforcement personnel.” ABA commented that “. . . an alternative . . . may be to make a more complimentary change to Appendix G in line with the requirements of § 393.93, and develop a proposal to look for the presence of, and evidence of well maintained, seat belt assemblies at all driver and passenger seating positions, as appropriate.”

    FMCSA Response: As noted in the NPRM, the wide range of seat anchorage designs, coupled with the lack of testing requirements specifically for seat anchorage strength in the FMVSSs, makes it impracticable for FMCSA to develop a detailed methodology for the inspection of motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages. FMCSA adopts the amendment as proposed in the NPRM.

    VII. Today's Final Rule

    Today's final rule codifies changes to parts 393 and 396 by adding a definition of “major tread groove” and an illustration to show the location of tread wear indicators or wear bars on a tire signifying a major tread groove; revising the rear license plate lamp requirement to eliminate the requirement for an operable rear license plate lamp on vehicles when there is no rear license plate present; prohibiting the operation of a vehicle with speed-restricted tires at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire; providing specific requirements regarding when violations or defects noted on an inspection report must be corrected; amending Appendix G to the FMCSRs, “Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards,” to include provisions for the inspection of antilock braking systems (ABS) and automatic brake adjusters, speed-restricted tires, and motorcoach passenger seat mounting anchorages; amending the periodic inspection rules to eliminate the option for a motor carrier to satisfy the periodic inspection requirement through use of a violation-free roadside inspection; and amending the inspector qualification requirements as a result of the amendments to the periodic inspection rules. In addition, the Agency eliminates introductory regulatory text from Appendix G to the FMCSRs.

    VIII. Section-by-Section Analysis A. Part 393—Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation Section 393.5 (Definitions)

    FMCSA modifies this section by adding a definition of “major tread groove.”

    Section 393.11 (Lamps and Reflective Devices)

    FMCSA modifies Footnote 11 to Table 1 of § 393.11 dealing with rear license plates lights.

    Section 393.75 (Tires)

    FMCSA adds a new paragraph (f) dealing with speed-restricted tires and tread wear indicators and an illustration of a tread wear indicator.

    B. Part 396—Inspection, Repair and Maintenance Section 396.9 (Inspection of Motor Vehicles and Intermodal Equipment in Operation)

    FMCSA amends paragraph (d)(2) dealing with correction of violations of defects.

    Section 396.17 (Periodic Inspection)

    FMCSA amends paragraph (f) to bar roadside inspections from serving as annual inspections.

    Section 396.19 (Inspector Qualifications)

    FMCSA amends paragraph (b) to make it consistent with amended § 396.17.

    Section 396.23 (Equivalent to Periodic Inspection)

    FMCSA removes § 396.23(a) to make it consistent with § 396.17, and renumbers the remainder of the section accordingly.

    Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III (Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards)

    FMCSA amends Appendix G by adding sections 1.l and 1.m, revising section 10.c, adding section 14, and eliminating introductory regulatory text, as explained in detail above.

    Amendments to Existing Regulatory Guidance

    Elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register, FMCSA amends certain regulatory guidance to ensure consistency between the FMCSRs, as amended by this final rule, and the published guidance.

    IX. Regulatory Analyses A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May 22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this final rule under that Order.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their regulatory actions on small business and other small entities and to minimize any significant economic impact. The term “small entities” encompasses small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.1 Accordingly, DOT policy requires an analysis of the impact of all regulations on small entities and mandates that agencies strive to lessen any adverse effects on these businesses.

    1 Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), see National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulatory-flexibility/601.html.

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA) (Title II, Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857, March 29, 1996), this final rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because the amendments generally do not involve the adoption of new or more stringent requirements, but, instead, the clarification of existing requirements. Therefore, there is no disproportionate burden to small entities.

    Consequently, I certify that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the SBREFA, FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this final rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on themselves. If the final rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Mike Huntley, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of the rule.

    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's 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 FMCSA, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). DOT has a policy ensuring the rights of small entities to regulatory enforcement fairness and an explicit policy against retaliation for exercising these rights.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    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, taken together, or by the private sector, of $155 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2014 levels) or more in any 1 year. This final rule would not result in such an expenditure.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule calls for no new collection of information and is therefore not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

    F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of Executive Order 13132 if it has “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.” FMCSA has determined that this final rule does not have substantial direct effects on or costs to States, nor does it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation.

    G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

    H. Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies issuing “economically significant” rules, if the regulation also concerns an environmental health or safety risk that an agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, to include an evaluation of the regulation's environmental health and safety effects on children. The Agency determined this final rule is not economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on children is required. In any event, this regulatory action could not present an environmental or safety risk that would disproportionately affect children.

    I. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    FMCSA has reviewed this final rule in accordance with Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications.

    J. Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447, 118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will affect the privacy of individuals.

    The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency which receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.

    The E-Government Act of 2002, Public Law 107-347, § 208, 116 Stat. 2899, 2921 (Dec. 17, 2002), requires Federal agencies to conduct a PIA for new or substantially changed technology that collects, maintains, or disseminates information in an identifiable form.

    This rule does not require a PIA because it does not require the collection of personally identifiable information (PII).

    K. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this program.

    L. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this final rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under E.O. 13211.

    M. Executive Order 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

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

    N. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices) are standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. This final rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    O. Environment (National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this final rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1 (69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004), Appendix 2, paragraphs 6(z)(aa) and 6(z)(bb). The Categorical Exclusion (CE) in paragraph 6(z)(aa) covers regulations requiring motor carriers, their officers, drivers, agents, representatives, and employees directly in control of CMVs to inspect, repair, and provide maintenance for every CMV used on a public road. The CE in paragraph 6(z)(bb) covers regulations concerning vehicle operation safety standards (e.g., regulations requiring: certain motor carriers to use approved equipment which is required to be installed such as an ignition cut-off switch, or carried on board, such as a fire extinguisher, and/or stricter blood alcohol concentration (BAC) standards for drivers, etc.), equipment approval, and/or equipment carriage requirements (e.g., fire extinguishers and flares). The CE determination is available for inspection or copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.

    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of criteria pollutants.

    Under E.O. 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations), each Federal agency must identify and address, as appropriate, “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations” in the United States, its possessions, and territories. FMCSA has determined that this rule will have no environmental justice effects, nor would its promulgation have any collective environmental impact.

    List of Subjects 49 CFR Part 393

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety.

    49 CFR Part 396

    Highway safety, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons stated above, FMCSA amends 49 CFR chapter III, subchapter B, as follows:

    PART 393—PARTS AND ACCESSORIES NECESSARY FOR SAFE OPERATION 1. The authority citation for part 393 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 1041(b) of Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.87.

    2. Amend § 393.5 to add a definition for “Major tread groove” in alphabetical order to read as follows:
    § 393.5 Definitions.

    Major tread groove is the space between two adjacent tread ribs or lugs on a tire that contains a tread wear indicator or wear bar. (In most cases, the locations of tread wear indicators are designated on the upper sidewall/shoulder of the tire on original tread tires.)

    3. In § 393.11, revise Footnote 11 of Table 1 to read as follows:
    § 393.11 Lamps and reflective devices. Table 1 of § 393.11—Required Lamps and Reflectors on Commercial Motor Vehicles

    Footnote—11 To be illuminated when headlamps are illuminated. No rear license plate lamp is required on vehicles that do display a rear license plate.

    4. In § 393.75: a. Redesignate paragraphs (f) through (h) as paragraphs (g) through (i) and in redesignated paragraph (g) remove “paragraph (g)” and add in its place “paragraph (h)”; b. Add a new paragraph (f) and add Figure 23—“Location of Tread Wear Indicators or Wear Bars Signifying a Major Tread Groove” immediately following new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
    § 393.75 Tires.

    (f) No motor vehicle may be operated with speed-restricted tires labeled with a maximum speed of 55 mph or less in accordance with S6.5(e) of FMVSS No. 119 at speeds that exceed the rated limit of the tire.

    ER22JY16.007
    PART 396—INSPECTION, REPAIR, AND MAINTENANCE 5. The authority citation for part 396 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, 31151, and 31502; sec. 32934, Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, 830; and 49 CFR 1.87.

    6. Revise § 396.9(d)(2) to read as follows:
    § 396.9 Inspection of motor vehicles and intermodal equipment in operation.

    (d) * * *

    (2) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers shall examine the report. Violations or defects noted thereon shall be corrected in accordance with § 396.11(a)(3). Repairs of items of intermodal equipment placed out-of-service are also to be documented in the maintenance records for such equipment.

    7. Revise § 396.17(f) to read as follows:
    § 396.17 Periodic inspection.

    (f) Vehicles passing periodic inspections performed under the auspices of any State government or equivalent jurisdiction, meeting the minimum standards contained in appendix G of this subchapter, will be considered to have met the requirements of an annual inspection for a period of 12 months commencing from the last day of the month in which the inspection was performed.

    8. Revise § 396.19(b) to read as follows:
    § 396.19 Inspector qualifications.

    (b) Motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers must retain evidence of that individual's qualifications under this section. They must retain this evidence for the period during which that individual is performing annual motor vehicle inspections for the motor carrier or intermodal equipment provider, and for one year thereafter. However, motor carriers and intermodal equipment providers do not have to maintain documentation of inspector qualifications for those inspections performed as part of a State periodic inspection program.

    § 396.23 [Amended]
    9. In § 396.23, remove paragraph (a) and redesignate paragraph (b) as paragraph (a) and reserve a new paragraph (b). 10. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III by: a. Adding Section 1.l and footnotes 1 and 2; b. Adding Section 1.m; b. Adding Section 10.c; c. Adding Section 14; and d. Removing “Comparison of Appendix G, and the New North American Uniform Driver Vehicle Inspection Procedure (North American Commercial Vehicle Critical Safety Inspection Items and Out-Of-Service Criteria),” including the introductory text and paragraphs 1.-13.

    The additions read as follows:

    Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III—Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards 1. Brake System

    l. Antilock Brake System1

    1 Power units manufactured after March 1, 2001, have two ABS malfunction indicators, one for the power unit and one for the units that they tow. Both malfunction indicators are required to be fully functional.

    (1) Missing ABS malfunction indicator components (i.e., bulb, wiring, etc.).

    (2) ABS malfunction indicator that does not illuminate when power is first applied to the ABS controller (ECU) during initial power up.

    (3) ABS malfunction indicator that stays illuminated while power is continuously applied to the ABS controller (ECU).

    (4) ABS malfunction indicator lamp on a trailer or dolly does not cycle when electrical power is applied:

    (a) Only to the vehicle's constant ABS power circuit, or

    (b) Only to the vehicle.2

    2 This section is applicable to tractors with air brakes built on or after March 1, 1997, and all other vehicles with air brakes built on or after March 1, 1998. This section is also applicable to vehicles over 10,000 lbs. GVWR with hydraulic brakes built on or after March 1, 1999.

    (5) With its brakes released and its ignition switch in the normal run position, power unit does not provide continuous electrical power to the ABS on any vehicle it is equipped to tow.

    (6) Other missing or inoperative ABS components.

    m. Automatic Brake Adjusters

    (1) Failure to maintain a brake within the brake stroke limit specified by the vehicle manufacturer.

    (2) Any automatic brake adjuster that has been replaced with a manual adjuster.

    (3) Damaged, loose, or missing components.

    (4) Any brake that is found to be out of adjustment on initial inspection must be evaluated to determine why the automatic brake adjuster is not functioning properly and the problem must be corrected in order for the vehicle to pass the inspection. It is not acceptable to manually adjust automatic brake adjusters without first correcting the underlying problem. For example, there may be other components within the braking system that are distressed or out of specification (i.e., broken welds, loose mounting hardware, cracked brake drums, worn bushings, etc.) that would require immediate attention.

    10. Tires

    c. Installation of speed-restricted tires unless specifically designated by motor carrier.

    14. Motorcoach Seats

    a. Any passenger seat that is not securely fastened to the vehicle structure.

    b. [Reserved]

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.87. July 14, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17364 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration 49 CFR Part 396 [Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0176] RIN 2126-AB81 Amendments to Regulatory Guidance Concerning Periodic Inspection of Commercial Motor Vehicles AGENCY:

    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Amendment of regulatory guidance.

    SUMMARY:

    FMCSA amends regulatory guidance, previously published in the Federal Register, regarding the periodic inspection of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register, FMCSA amends the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to, among other things, eliminate the option for a motor carrier to satisfy the periodic (annual) inspection requirement through a violation-free roadside inspection. As a result of this amendment to the FMCSRs, certain regulatory guidance is amended to ensure consistency between the FMCSRs and the published guidance.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This regulatory guidance is effective July 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Mike Huntley, Vehicle and Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, telephone: 202-366-5370; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 17, 1993, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1 published “Regulatory Guidance for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations” at 58 FR 60734. The publication included interpretations of 49 CFR 396.17, a rule that requires all CMVs to be inspected at least once every 12 months in accordance with Appendix G to the FMCSRs (“Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards”), and 49 CFR 396.23, a rule that identifies alternative inspections that are considered equivalent to the annual inspection required under 49 CFR 396.17. The Agency interpreted the regulations to permit a roadside inspection to be considered as equivalent to the annual inspection. The regulatory guidance was republished on April 4, 1997, at 62 FR 16370.

    1 The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 [Pub. L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1748 (December 9, 1999)] established the FMCSA in the Department of Transportation. On January 4, 2000, the Office of the Secretary published a final rule delegating to the FMCSA Administrator the motor carrier safety functions required by MCSIA, which included certain motor carrier safety functions previously delegated to the FHWA (65 FR 200).

    A final rule issued by FMCSA, published elsewhere in today's issue of the Federal Register, amends 49 CFR 396.17(f) and removes 49 CFR 396.23(a) to eliminate the option for a motor carrier to meet the periodic inspection requirements through roadside inspections.

    Because not every element of Appendix G is reviewed/inspected during a roadside inspection conducted under the North American Standard Inspection, most roadside inspections do not meet the periodic (annual) inspection requirements under 49 CFR 396.17. For this reason, FMCSA does not believe it is appropriate to continue to allow motor carriers to use roadside inspections conducted by enforcement officials to satisfy the annual inspection requirements in 49 CFR 396.17(f). Motor carriers or their agents will now be required to complete a periodic inspection of every CMV under their control in accordance with Appendix G at least once every 12 months, irrespective of whether a roadside inspection is performed, unless the vehicle is subject to a mandatory State inspection program in accordance with 49 CFR 396.23 which has been determined to be as effective as the requirements of 49 CFR 396.17.

    Given the amendments to 49 CFR 396.17(f) discussed above, the final rule also removes 49 CFR 396.23(a), which currently permits a roadside inspection program of a State or other jurisdiction to be considered as meeting the periodic inspection requirements of 49 CFR 396.17.

    As a result of the final rule, and to maintain consistency between the amended FMCSRs and the published regulatory guidance, two regulatory guidance questions/answers are amended as follows:

    Section 396.17, Question 1

    Question 1: Some of a motor carrier's vehicles are registered in a State with a mandated inspection program which has been determined to be as effective as the Federal periodic inspection program, but these vehicles are not used in that State. Is the motor carrier required to make sure the vehicles are inspected under that State's program in order to meet the Federal periodic inspection requirements?

    Guidance: If the State requires all vehicles registered in the State to be inspected through its mandatory program, then the motor carrier must use the State program to satisfy the Federal requirements. If, however, the State inspection program includes an exception or exemption for vehicles which are registered in the State but domiciled outside of the State, then the motor carrier may meet the Federal requirements through a self-inspection, a third party inspection, or a periodic inspection performed in any State with a program that the Federal Motor Carrier Administration (FMCSA) determines is comparable to, or as effective as, the part 396 requirements.

    Section 396.23, Question 1

    Question 1: Can a violation-free Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) Level I or Level V inspection be used to satisfy the periodic inspection requirements of § 396.17?

    Guidance: No, a CVSA Level I or Level V inspection is not equivalent to the Federal periodic inspection requirements.

    Issued on July 14, 2016. T.F. Scott Darling, III, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17362 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 160222132-6585-02] RIN 0648-BF77 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment 17A AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues regulations to implement Amendment 17A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Shrimp Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule extends the current Gulf commercial shrimp permit moratorium for 10 more years. The intent of this final rule and Amendment 17A is to protect federally managed Gulf shrimp stocks while promoting catch efficiency, economic efficiency, and stability in the fishery.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Electronic copies of Amendment 17A, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/gulf_fisheries/shrimp/2016/am17a/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Gerhart, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The shrimp fishery in the Gulf is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

    On April 5, 2016, NMFS published a notice of availability for Amendment 17A and requested public comment (81 FR 19547). On April 14, 2016, NMFS published a proposed rule for Amendment 17A and requested public comment (81 FR 22042). The proposed rule and Amendment 17A outline the rationale for the actions contained in this final rule. A summary of the action implemented by Amendment 17A and this final rule is provided below.

    Management Measure Contained in This Final Rule

    This final rule extends the Gulf shrimp Federal permit moratorium until October 26, 2026. Through Amendment 13 to the FMP, the Council established a 10-year moratorium on the issuance of new Federal commercial shrimp vessel permits (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). The moratorium on permits indirectly controls shrimping effort in Federal waters and thereby bycatch levels of juvenile red snapper and sea turtles. The final rule implementing the moratorium became effective October 26, 2006, and the moratorium permits became effective in March 2007. Extending the moratorium for an additional 10 years until October 26, 2026, is expected to maintain the biological, social, and economic benefits to the shrimp fishery achieved under the moratorium permit over the past 10 years.

    Comments and Responses

    NMFS received a total of 831 submissions from the public on Amendment 17A and the proposed rule. Of these submissions, 702 expressed general support for an extension of the permit moratorium. Some comments within the submissions addressed issues beyond the scope of Amendment 17A or the proposed rule, such as prohibiting shrimp trawling to reduce the impact on sea turtles and other marine life and modifying the requirements for turtle excluder devices and observers. From the submissions, NMFS has identified six issues related to Amendment 17A and the proposed rule. These comments and NMFS' respective responses are summarized below.

    Comment 1: Extending the permit moratorium would protect and expand gains in the shrimp fishery by limiting potential exploitation. Gulf shrimp landings have only slightly declined during the past 10 years and catch per day has increased.

    Response: NMFS agrees that continuing the moratorium would constrain effort and protect economic gains from higher catch rates. Returning the fishery to open access could undo any positive effects of the moratorium.

    Removing the moratorium would allow an unlimited number of new entrants into the commercial shrimp fishery and could have negative effects if the fishery then became overcapitalized. Overcapitalization or effort increases could lead to increases in sea turtle and red snapper bycatch and could result in additional requirements to reduce bycatch.

    Before the moratorium was implemented, increasing fuel costs, decreasing shrimp prices, and increasing foreign shrimp imports were all contributing to the overcapitalization of the commercial shrimp fleet. Since implementation of the moratorium, the catch per unit effort for the offshore shrimp fishery increased and has remained relatively constant. Additional effort in the fishery could negate, or at least lessen, profitability for the Gulf shrimp fleet as a whole.

    Comment 2: There is no need for continuing the moratorium because of the decreasing number of valid permits over last 10 years.

    Response: NMFS disagrees that the moratorium should be allowed to expire. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that extending the moratorium for an additional 10 years will continue stability for the fishery. As explained in the response to Comment 1, continuing the moratorium would constrain effort and protect economic gains from higher catch rates. The moratorium also indirectly controls effort and, therefore, bycatch levels of juvenile red snapper and sea turtles. Returning to an open access fishery would promote a return to less stable economic conditions.

    Comment 3: Continuing the permit moratorium will help protect sea turtles and other marine life.

    Response: NMFS agrees. In 2014, NMFS issued a biological opinion on the continued authorization of the Southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries in Federal waters on threatened and endangered species (including sea turtles) and designated critical habitat, in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The sea turtle effects analyses and incidental take statement in the opinion were based on the expectation that future total effort levels in the southeastern shrimp fisheries would remain at or below 2009 effort levels. An increase in shrimp effort greater than the 2009 level may require re-initiation of the Endangered Species Act consultation and further rulemaking to address any increased effects on sea turtles. Continuing the moratorium would cap effort and reduce the chance of exceeding the 2009 effort levels, thereby continuing to limit any adverse effects of the shrimp fishery on sea turtles and other marine life.

    Comment 4: Gulf shrimp permit holders who have lost their moratorium permit due to non-renewal should be allowed to re-apply for a shrimp permit.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. The purpose of the moratorium was to limit the number of permits available to fish for shrimp because the fishery was overcapitalized, as described in the response to Comment 1.

    The Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permit is renewable for up to 1 year from its date of expiration. NMFS sends a renewal letter and permit application to the permit holder 1 month prior to the permit's expiration date. After a year with no permit renewal, a permit is terminated and permanently removed from the permit pool. However, valid permits are fully transferable, which may allow someone who has lost a permit as a result of non-renewal to obtain a new permit.

    Comment 5: As a result of the moratorium, the current market price of permits is too high.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Based on the best available information, the current average price of a moratorium permit is approximately $5,000, and this price has been relatively constant since the moratorium was put in place. Thus, permits are not any more costly than they were 10 years ago, and in fact are likely less costly in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Moreover, as previously noted, average profitability in the fishery has improved in recent years. An economically efficient business desiring to enter the fishery would be expected to recoup this cost relatively quickly and, thus, NMFS does not consider the cost of obtaining a permit to be onerous for businesses wanting to enter the fishery.

    Comment 6: Permit holders who sub-lease shrimp moratorium permits should be required to forfeit the permits.

    Response: NMFS disagrees. Although shrimp moratorium permits are fully transferable and a permit may be transferred to a vessel that is leased, there is no mechanism to sub-lease a permit through NMFS. To the extent the commenter is stating that the permits should not be transferable, economic efficiency is promoted when resources are allowed to shift to their most valuable use. The full transferability of permits is expected to improve economic efficiency by allowing those who place the greatest economic value on these permits to buy them. Any restrictions on the transferability of permits would be expected to reduce economic efficiency in the fishery, contrary to the objectives of Amendment 17A and this final rule.

    Classification

    The Regional Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 17A, the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.

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

    The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this rule.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA) during the proposed rule stage that this rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NMFS did not receive any comments from SBA's Office of Advocacy or the public on the certification in the proposed rule. NMFS received two comments regarding the economic analysis of Amendment 17A and the proposed rule. One comment suggested that the current market price of moratorium permits is too high and the other comment stated that permit holders who sub-lease shrimp moratorium permits should be required to forfeit the permits. NMFS disagrees with these comments as explained in the responses to comments 5 and 6, above. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is repeated below.

    The current moratorium on Gulf shrimp permits became effective on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 56039, September 26, 2006). This final rule extends the current moratorium on Federal Gulf shrimp permits until October 26, 2026. The purpose of this rule is to maintain the biological, social, and economic benefits to the Gulf shrimp fishery achieved under the current moratorium. The objectives of this rule are to protect federally managed Gulf shrimp stocks, and promote catch efficiency, economic efficiency, and stability in the Gulf shrimp fishery.

    This final rule is expected to directly regulate businesses that possess Federal Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. As of September 21, 2015, there were 1,464 vessels with valid or renewable Gulf shrimp moratorium permits. Although some permits are thought to be held by businesses with the same or substantively the same individual owners, and thus would likely be considered affiliated, ownership data for Gulf shrimp permit holders is incomplete and thus it is not currently feasible to accurately determine whether businesses that have these permits are in fact affiliated. NMFS is currently making changes to its permit application forms so that such determinations can be accurately made for future regulatory actions in this fishery. As a result of the incomplete ownership data, for purposes of this analysis, NMFS assumes each vessel is independently owned by a single business, which will result in an overestimate of the actual number of businesses directly regulated by this final rule. Thus, NMFS estimates the number of businesses directly regulated by this final rule to be 1,464.

    Based on landings and economic data from 2013, which is the most current year for which complete economic data is available, all of these businesses are thought to be primarily engaged in shellfish harvesting activities (e.g., Gulf shrimp, South Atlantic shrimp, and Atlantic sea scallops fisheries). In 2013, the primary source of gross revenue for approximately 84 percent of these businesses was landings from one or more of these shellfish fisheries, while the other 16 percent did not have commercial landings in any fishery. A certain percentage of businesses with Gulf shrimp permits are usually inactive in the Gulf shrimp fishery in a given year, because of economic conditions in that fishery, other fisheries, or other industries (e.g., oil and gas) in which these businesses, their owners, and their crew sometimes participate. Some businesses may have also been inactive due to issues associated with the Deepwater Horizon MC252 event in 2010, and subsequent payouts from British Petroleum (BP). NMFS only possesses data on such payouts and other transfer payments for a sample of the permitted businesses, and thus cannot confirm the extent to which such payouts contributed to the lack of commercial harvesting activity by all of the inactive businesses. Given the lack of data to the contrary and because these businesses possess Gulf shrimp moratorium permits, for the purpose of this analysis, these 1,464 businesses are assumed to be primarily engaged in commercial shellfish harvesting.

    From 2011 through 2013, the greatest average annual gross revenue earned by a single business was approximately $2.48 million. On average, a business with a Gulf shrimp moratorium permit had an annual gross revenue of approximately $247,000, annual net revenue from operations (commercial fishing activities) of approximately $6,300, and an annual economic profit of approximately $37,000. All monetary estimates are in 2001 dollars. Average annual economic profit was greater between 2011 and 2013 compared to the 2006 through 2009 time period, and greater than net revenue from operations, partly because of non-fishing related income, mostly in the form of payouts from BP (i.e., transfer payments) due to the Deepwater Horizon MC252 event in 2010. Thus, although the average profit margin from 2011 through 2013 was nearly 15 percent of gross revenue, the average margin from operations was only about 2.6 percent. Though relatively small, this margin from operations is still greater than what these businesses earned between 2006 and 2009 when net revenue from operations was generally negative, on average.

    On December 29, 2015, NMFS issued a final rule establishing a small business size standard of $11 million in annual gross receipts for all businesses primarily engaged in the commercial fishing industry (NAICS 11411) for Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) compliance purposes only (80 FR 81194, December 29, 2015). The $11 million standard became effective on July 1, 2016, and is to be used in place of the SBA's current standards of $20.5 million, $5.5 million, and $7.5 million for the finfish (NAICS 114111), shellfish (NAICS 114112), and other marine fishing (NAICS 114119) sectors of the U.S. commercial fishing industry in all NMFS rules subject to the RFA after July 1, 2016. Id. at 81194.

    Pursuant to the RFA, and prior to July 1, 2016, a certification was developed for this regulatory action using SBA's size standards. NMFS has reviewed the analyses prepared for this regulatory action in light of the new size standard. All of the entities directly regulated by this regulatory action are shellfish commercial fishing businesses and were considered small under the SBA's size standards, and thus they all would continue to be considered small under the new standard. Thus, NMFS has determined that the new size standard does not affect analyses prepared for this regulatory action.

    Based on the information above, a reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce hereby reaffirms that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Because this final rule, if implemented, is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, a final regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.

    No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. This final rule will not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622

    Commercial, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf, Permits, Shrimp.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows:

    PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF OF MEXICO, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. In § 622.50, revise the introductory text of paragraph (b) to read as follows:
    § 622.50 Permits, permit moratorium, and endorsements.

    (b) Moratorium on commercial vessel permits for Gulf shrimp. The provisions of this paragraph (b) are applicable through October 26, 2026.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17272 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 141 Friday, July 22, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Camden, AL AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Camden, AL, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Camden Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room 12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527 or 202-366-9826. You must identify the Docket Number FAA-2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on 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. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2012-1308; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-44.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Camden, AL., providing the controlled airspace required to support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Camden Municipal Airport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of the airport would be established for IFR operations.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

    This proposal 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.

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment:

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO AL E5 Camden, AL [New] Camden Municipal Airport, AL (Lat. 31°58′47″ N., long. 87°20′21″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7.7-mile radius of Camden Municipal Airport Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17310 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Murray, KY AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Murray, KY, to accommodate new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations at the heliport.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Bldg Ground Floor Rm W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; Telephone: 1-800-647-5527, or 202-647-9826.You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2016-6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

    Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6775; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASO-9.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through 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 (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Murray, KY, providing the controlled airspace required to support the new Copter RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of the heliport would be established for IFR operations.

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

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASO KY E5 Murray, KY [New] Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport, KY (Lat. 36°36′27″ N., long. 88°18′36″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6-mile radius of Murray Calloway County Hospital Heliport. Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 15, 2016. Ryan W. Almasy, Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic Organization.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17311 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-102516-15] RIN 1545-BM65 Income Inclusion When Lessee Treated as Having Acquired Investment Credit Property AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

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

    SUMMARY:

    This document withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1985, and the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1987. In the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register, the Treasury Department and the IRS are issuing temporary regulations relating to the income inclusion rules under section 50(d)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that are applicable to a lessee of investment credit property when a lessor of such property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations.

    DATES:

    Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by October 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send submissions to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102516-15), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044. Submissions may be hand-delivered Monday through Friday between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-102516-15), Courier's Desk, Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, or sent electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (IRS REG-102516-15).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the regulations, Jennifer A. Records at (202) 317-6853; concerning submissions of comments and requests for a public hearing, Regina Johnson of the Publications and Regulations Branch at (202) 317-6901 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background and Explanation of Provisions

    On December 20, 1985, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (50 FR 51874-01) a notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-92-73) under sections 46, 47, 48, and 167 providing proposed rules related to the determination of the amount of taxpayer's qualified investment and recapture of the investment credit with respect to mass assets. On September 21, 1987, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (52 FR 35438-01) a notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-183-82) under sections 48, 196, 312, and 705 providing proposed rules related to the adjustment in the basis of property with respect to which a taxpayer claimed the investment credit. On April 27, 1993, the Treasury Department and the IRS withdrew (58 FR 25587-01) the proposed amendments to § 1.48-7 of the Income Tax Regulations that were published as part of the notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-183-82) published in the Federal Register (52 FR 35438-01) on September 21, 1987. Because of numerous statutory changes since the publication of those proposed regulations, the remainder of the proposed regulations (50 FR 51874-01 and 52 FR 35438-01) are withdrawn.

    Temporary regulations in the Rules and Regulations section of this issue of the Federal Register amend the Income Tax Regulations (26 CFR part 1) relating to section 50(d)(5). The temporary regulations provide rules regarding the income inclusion required under section 50(d)(5) of the Code by a lessee of investment credit property when a lessor of such property elects to treat the lessee as having acquired the property. The temporary regulations also provide rules to coordinate the section 50(a) recapture rules with the section 50(d)(5) income inclusion rules and rules regarding income inclusion upon a disposition or lease termination outside of the recapture period. The text of those regulations also serves as the text of these proposed regulations. The preamble to the temporary regulations explains the amendments.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required. It also has been determined that section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these regulations, and, because these regulations do not impose a collection of information on small entities, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) does not apply. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, these proposed regulations have been submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on their impact on small business.

    Comments and Requests for a Public Hearing

    Before these proposed regulations are adopted as final regulations, consideration will be given to any written (a signed original and eight (8) copies) or electronic comments that are submitted timely to the IRS. The Treasury Department and the IRS request comments on all aspects of these proposed regulations. Specifically, the Treasury Department and the IRS request comments regarding whether guidance is needed to address the applicability of the income inclusion rules under section 50(d)(5) to trusts, estates, and/or electing large partnerships. All comments will be available for public inspection and copying. A public hearing will be scheduled if requested in writing by any person that timely submits written comments. If a public hearing is scheduled, notice of the date, time, and place for the public hearing will be published in the Federal Register.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these regulations is Jennifer A. Records, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), IRS. However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 1

    Income taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-92-73) that was published in the Federal Register on December 20, 1985 (50 FR 51874-01), and the notice of proposed rulemaking (LR-183-82) that was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 1987 (52 FR 35438-01), are withdrawn.

    Proposed Amendments to the Regulations

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

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

    26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

    Par. 2. Section 1.50-1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.50-1 Lessee's income inclusion following election of lessor of investment credit property to treat lessee as acquirer.

    [The text of proposed amendment to § 1.50-1 is the same as the text of § 1.50-1T(a) through (f) published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register].

    John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16561 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 54 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employee Benefits Security Administration 29 CFR Part 2590 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 45 CFR Part 147 [CMS-9931-NC] Coverage for Contraceptive Services AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    This document is a request for information on whether there are alternative ways (other than those offered in current regulations) for eligible organizations that object to providing coverage for contraceptive services on religious grounds to obtain an accommodation, while still ensuring that women enrolled in the organizations' health plans have access to seamless coverage of the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives without cost sharing. This information is being solicited in light of the Supreme Court's opinion in Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016). The Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) invite public comments via this request for information.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    In commenting, please refer to file code CMS-9931-NC. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.

    You may submit comments in one of four ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):

    1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments on this regulation to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the “Submit a comment” instructions.

    2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-9931-NC, P.O. Box 8010, Baltimore, MD 21244-8010. Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.

    3. By express or overnight mail. You may send written comments to the following address ONLY: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: CMS-9931-NC, Mail Stop C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    4. By hand or courier. Alternatively, you may deliver (by hand or courier) your written comments ONLY to the following addresses prior to the close of the comment period:

    a. For delivery in Washington, DC—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, Room 445-G, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    (Because access to the interior of the Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not readily available to persons without Federal government identification, commenters are encouraged to leave their comments in the CMS drop slots located in the main lobby of the building. A stamp-in clock is available for persons wishing to retain a proof of filing by stamping in and retaining an extra copy of the comments being filed.)

    b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244-1850.

    If you intend to deliver your comments to the Baltimore address, call telephone number (410) 786-9994 in advance to schedule your arrival with one of our staff members.

    Comments erroneously mailed to the addresses indicated as appropriate for hand or courier delivery may be delayed and received after the comment period.

    For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Mlawsky, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, at (410) 786-1565.

    Elizabeth Schumacher or Suzanne Adelman, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of Labor, at (202) 693-8335.

    Karen Levin, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, at (202) 317-6846.

    Customer Service Information: Individuals interested in obtaining information from the Department of Labor concerning employment-based health coverage laws may call the EBSA Toll-Free Hotline at 1-866-444-EBSA (3272) or visit the Department of Labor's Web site (http://www.dol.gov/ebsa). In addition, information from HHS on private health insurance for consumers can be found on the CMS Web site (www.cciio.cms.gov), and information on health reform can be found at http://www.HealthCare.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Inspection of Public Comments: All comments received before the close of the comment period are available for viewing by the public, including any personally identifiable or confidential business information that is included in a comment. We post all comments received before the close of the comment period on the following Web site as soon as possible after they have been received: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the search instructions on that Web site to view public comments.

    Comments received timely will also be available for public inspection as they are received, generally beginning approximately 3 weeks after publication of a document, at the headquarters of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, Monday through Friday of each week from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. To schedule an appointment to view public comments, phone 1-800-743-3951.

    I. Background

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148) was enacted on March 23, 2010. The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152) was enacted on March 30, 2010. These statutes are collectively known as the Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act reorganizes, amends, and adds to the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) relating to group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets. The Affordable Care Act adds section 715(a)(1) to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and section 9815(a)(1) to the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to incorporate the provisions of part A of title XXVII of the PHS Act into ERISA and the Code, and to make those provisions applicable to group health plans and health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage in connection with group health plans. The sections of the PHS Act incorporated into ERISA and the Code are sections 2701 through 2728.

    Section 2713 of the PHS Act, as added by the Affordable Care Act and incorporated into ERISA and the Code, requires that non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage provide coverage of certain specified preventive services without cost sharing. These preventive services include preventive care and screenings for women provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). On August 1, 2011, the Departments amended regulations to cover women's preventive services provided for in HRSA guidelines,1 and HRSA adopted and released such guidelines, which were based on recommendations of the independent organization, the National Academy of Medicine (formerly Institute of Medicine). The preventive services identified in the HRSA guidelines include all Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity, as prescribed by a health care provider (collectively, contraceptive services).2

    1 26 CFR 54.9815-2713, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713, 45 CFR 147.130.

    2 The HRSA guidelines exclude services relating to a man's reproductive capacity, such as vasectomies and condoms.

    The Departments issued regulations that provide an accommodation for eligible organizations that object on religious grounds to providing coverage for contraceptive services.3 Under the accommodation, an eligible organization does not have to contract, arrange, pay, or provide a referral for contraceptive coverage. At the same time, the accommodation generally ensures that women enrolled in the health plan established by the eligible organization, like women enrolled in health plans maintained by other employers, receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly—that is, through the same issuers or third party administrators that provide or administer the rest of their health coverage, and without financial, logistical, or administrative obstacles.4 Minimizing such obstacles is essential to achieving the purpose of the Affordable Care Act's preventive services provision, which seeks to remove barriers to the use of preventive services and to ensure that women receive full and equal health coverage appropriate to their medical needs.

    3 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, 45 CFR 147.131.

    4 An accommodation is also available with respect to student health insurance coverage arranged by eligible organizations that are institutions of higher education. 45 CFR 147.131(f). For ease of use, this RFI refers only to “employers” with religious objections to the contraceptive-coverage requirement, but references to employers with respect to insured group health plans should also be considered to include institutions of higher education that are eligible organizations with respect to student health insurance coverage.

    Under the Departments' regulations, an eligible organization may invoke the accommodation by self-certifying its eligibility using a form provided by the Department of Labor, EBSA Form 700, and providing the form to its health insurance issuer (to the extent it has an insured plan) or third party administrator (to the extent it has a self-insured plan).5 Alternatively, instead of sending the self-certification form to its issuer or third party administrator, the regulations allow an eligible organization to invoke the accommodation by providing certain information to HHS, without using any particular form.6

    5 The EBSA form 700 is available at: https://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/preventiveserviceseligibleorganizationcertificationform.pdf

    6 A model notice to HHS that eligible organizations may, but are not required to, use is available at: http://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/Regulations-and-Guidance/index.html#Prevention.

    In Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016), the Supreme Court considered claims by a number of employers that, even with the accommodation provided in the regulations, the contraceptive-coverage requirement violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA). Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties. The Court's order noted that under the existing regulations, an objecting employer with an insured plan that seeks to invoke the accommodation by contacting its issuer must use a form of notice provided by the government.7 The Court directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing “whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to [the objecting employers'] employees, through [the employers'] insurance companies, without any such notice.” 8 After consideration of the supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the courts below and remanded Zubik and several other cases raising parallel RFRA challenges to the accommodation. 136 S. Ct. at 1560-1561. The Court emphasized that it “expresse[d] no view on the merits of the cases” and, in particular, that it did not “decide whether [the employers'] religious exercise has been substantially burdened, whether the Government has a compelling interest, or whether the current regulations are the least restrictive means of serving that interest.” Id. at 1560. The Court, however, stated that in light of what it viewed as “the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties” in their supplemental briefs, the parties “should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates [the objecting employers'] religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by [the employers'] health plans `receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.'” Id. (citation omitted).

    7Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 14-1418 et al., 2016 WL 1203818, at *2 (Mar. 29, 2016).

    8Id.

    As the government explained in its briefs in Zubik, the Departments continue to believe that the existing accommodation regulations are consistent with RFRA for two independent reasons. First, as eight of the nine courts of appeals to consider the issue have held, the accommodation does not substantially burden objecting employers' exercise of religion. Second, as some of those courts have also held, the accommodation is the least restrictive means of furthering the government's compelling interest in ensuring that women receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage. Nevertheless, the Departments also are committed to respecting the beliefs of religious employers that object to providing contraceptive coverage, and the Departments have consistently sought to accommodate religious objections to the contraceptive-coverage requirement even where not required to do so by RFRA. Consistent with that approach, the Departments are issuing this Request for Information (RFI) to determine, as contemplated by the Supreme Court's opinion in Zubik, whether modifications to the existing accommodation procedure could resolve the objections asserted by the plaintiffs in the pending RFRA cases while still ensuring that the affected women seamlessly receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.

    The Departments are using the RFI procedure because the issues addressed in the supplemental briefing in Zubik affect a wide variety of stakeholders, including many who are not parties to the cases that were before the Supreme Court. Other employers also have brought RFRA challenges to the accommodation, and their views may differ from the views held by the employers in Zubik and the consolidated cases. In addition, any change to the accommodation could have implications for the rights and obligations of issuers, third party administrators, and women enrolled in health plans established by objecting employers. RFIs are commonly used to solicit public comments on potential rulemaking in a transparent and open way. Information gathered through this RFI will be used to determine whether changes to the current regulations should be made and, if so, to inform the nature of those changes. The Departments welcome comments from all stakeholders. A principal purpose of this RFI is to determine whether there are modifications to the accommodation that would be available under current law and that could resolve the RFRA claims raised by organizations that object to the existing accommodation on religious grounds. The Departments invite all such organizations to submit comments, and request that their submissions include specific responses to the questions posed below.9

    9 Consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Zubik, the Departments seek to determine whether changes to the existing accommodation could resolve the pending RFRA claims brought by objecting employers. The Supreme Court separately specified that, while the RFRA litigation remains pending, “the Government may not impose taxes or penalties on [the plaintiffs] for failure to provide the . . . notice” required under the existing accommodation regulations. Zubik, 136 S. Ct. at 1561. At the same time, the Court also emphasized that “[n]othing in [its] opinion, or in the opinions or orders of the courts below, is to affect the ability of the Government to ensure that women covered by [plaintiffs'] health plans `obtain, without cost, the full range of FDA approved contraceptives.'” Id. at 1560-1561 (quoting Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806, 2807 (2014)). As such, those interim matters are not within the scope of this RFI.

    II. Solicitation of Comments A. Notification to Issuers Without Self-Certification

    In its request for supplemental briefing in Zubik, the Supreme Court asked the parties to address whether and how “contraceptive coverage may be obtained by [objecting employers'] employees through [the employers'] insurance companies, but in a way that does not require any involvement of [the employers] beyond their own decision to provide health insurance without contraceptive coverage to their employees.” 10 In particular, the Court posited “a situation in which [objecting employers] would contract to provide health insurance for their employees, and in the course of obtaining such insurance, inform their insurance company that they do not want their health plan to include contraceptive coverage of the type to which they object on religious grounds. [The employers] would have no legal obligation to provide such contraceptive coverage, would not pay for such coverage, and would not be required to submit any separate notice to their insurer, to the Federal government, or to their employees. At the same time, [the employers'] insurance compan[ies]—aware that [the employers] are not providing certain contraceptive coverage on religious grounds—would separately notify [the employers'] employees that the insurance company will provide cost-free contraceptive coverage, and that such coverage is not paid for by [the employers] and is not provided through [the employers'] health plan[s].” 11

    10Zubik, 2016 WL 1203818, at *2.

    11Id.

    In response, the government explained:

    For employers with insured plans, the Court described an arrangement very similar to the existing accommodation. The accommodation already relieves [employers with religious objections] of any obligation to provide contraceptive coverage and instead requires insurers to provide coverage separately. The only difference is the way the accommodation is invoked. Currently, an employer that chooses to opt out by notifying its insurer (rather than HHS) must use a written form self-certifying its religious objection and eligibility for the accommodation. The Court's order posited an alternative procedure in which the employer could opt out by asking an insurer for a policy that excluded contraceptives to which it objects. That request would not need to take any particular form, but the employer and the insurer would be in the same position as after a self-certification: The employer's obligation to provide contraceptive coverage would be extinguished, and the insurer would instead be required to provide the coverage separately.” Gov't Supp. Brief 2 (citation omitted); see id. 3-7.12

    12 The government's supplemental brief is available at https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/zubik-v-burwell-0. The government's supplemental reply brief is available at https://www.justice.gov/osg/brief/zubik-v-burwell-1.

    The government explained that because “[i]nsurers have an independent statutory obligation to provide contraceptive coverage,” “the accommodation for employers with insured plans could be modified to operate in the manner posited in the Court's order while still ensuring that the affected women receive contraceptive coverage seamlessly, together with the rest of their health coverage.” Id. at 14-15. The government also noted, however, that the current requirement of a written self-certification plays an important role in effectuating the accommodation, and therefore cautioned that such a modification could “impose real costs on the parties whose rights and duties are affected—including objecting employers.” Id. at 14; see id. at 8-11 (describing the function of the self-certification requirement).

    The Departments seek comments from all interested stakeholders, including all objecting employers, on the procedure for invoking the accommodation described above, including with respect to the following:

    1. The Departments ask objecting organizations with insured plans to indicate whether the alternative procedure described above would resolve their RFRA objections to the accommodation. If it would not resolve a particular organization's RFRA objection, the Departments ask the organization to indicate whether its RFRA objection could be resolved by any procedure(s) or system(s) in which the organization's issuer provides contraceptive coverage to the women enrolled in the organization's health plan, and, if so, describe the procedure(s) or system(s) with specificity.

    2. The Supreme Court's supplemental briefing order appears to contemplate that, in requesting insurance coverage that excludes contraceptive coverage, an employer would inform its issuer that it objects to providing contraceptive coverage “on religious grounds.” 13 The Departments ask objecting organizations to indicate whether they would have any RFRA objection to informing their issuers that they object to providing contraceptive coverage “on religious grounds,” or to a further requirement that the request by an eligible organization 14 to its issuer be made in writing, or to a further requirement that the request be made via a particular form.

    13Zubik, 2016 WL 1203818, at *2.

    14 An eligible organization, which may seek the accommodation based on its sincerely held religious objection to providing contraceptive coverage, is defined at 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a), 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a), and 45 CFR 147.131(b).

    3. The government's supplemental brief explained that eliminating the written notification requirement in the existing accommodation could impose additional burdens on objecting employers, issuers, and regulators. Gov't Supp. Br. 8-10, 14-15. The Departments seek comment on the extent of those burdens and what steps could be taken to mitigate them. The Departments ask health insurance issuers, as well as other commenters, to indicate whether it is feasible for issuers to implement the accommodation without the written notification requirement.

    4. What impact would the alternative procedure described above have on the ability of women enrolled in group health plans established by objecting employers to receive seamless coverage for contraceptive services?

    B. Other Approaches With Respect to Insured Plans Described in the Supplemental Briefing

    In their supplemental brief, the plaintiffs in Zubik and the consolidated cases proposed additional modifications to the existing accommodation for insured plans, beyond those described in the Supreme Court's supplemental briefing order and discussed above. As in the alternative described above, the Zubik plaintiffs proposed that when an eligible employer with an insured plan requests insurance coverage that excludes contraceptive coverage to which the employer objects on religious grounds, the employer's issuer should be required to provide the required coverage separately. However, the Zubik plaintiffs further proposed that the separate coverage provided by the issuer should differ from the separate coverage required under the existing accommodation in two respects. First, the Zubik plaintiffs proposed that the issuer be required to offer women the opportunity to enroll in contraceptive-only insurance policies, rather than the issuer providing separate direct payments for contraceptive services. Second, the Zubik plaintiffs proposed that the affected women should be required to take affirmative steps to enroll in those contraceptive-only policies, rather than being automatically eligible for payments by the issuer for contraceptive services. Pet. Supp. Br.3-12.15

    15 Petitioners' supplemental brief is available at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Non-profits-response-to-Zubik-order-4-12-16.pdf. Petitioners' supplemental reply brief is available at http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Zubik-order-non-profits-reply-brief-4-20-161.pdf.

    The Departments seek comments on this approach, including with respect to the following:

    1. The Departments ask objecting organizations with insured plans to indicate whether this alternative procedure would resolve their RFRA objections to the accommodation.

    2. What impact would this approach have on the ability of women enrolled in group health plans established by objecting employers to receive seamless coverage for contraceptive services?

    3. Is this approach feasible for health insurance issuers?

    4. Relying on the record developed in the prior rulemaking proceedings, the government's supplemental reply brief in Zubik explained that contraceptive-only insurance policies would be inconsistent with state laws regulating insurance and that an affirmative enrollment requirement would impose a barrier to access to preventive services. Gov't Supp. Reply Br. 3-6. The Departments seek further comment on those issues in this RFI.

    5. Are there alternative procedure(s) or systems (without relying on contraceptive-only policies or imposing an affirmative enrollment requirement) that would resolve objecting organizations' RFRA objection to the accommodation? If so, please describe the procedure(s) or system(s) with specificity.

    C. Self-Insured Plans

    The Supreme Court's supplemental briefing order in Zubik addressed only employers with “insured plans.” 16 In its supplemental brief, the government described the operation of the accommodation for self-insured plans and explained that an alternative process like the one the Court posited for insured plans could not work for the many employers with self-insured plans:

    16Zubik, 2016 WL 1203818, at *2.

    If an employer has a self-insured plan, the statutory obligation to provide contraceptive coverage falls only on the plan—there is no insurer with a preexisting duty to provide coverage. Accordingly, to relieve self-insured employers of any obligation to provide contraceptive coverage while still ensuring that the affected women receive coverage without the employer's involvement, the accommodation establishes a mechanism for the government to designate the employer's TPA as a `plan administrator' responsible for separately providing the required coverage under [ERISA]. That designation is made by the government, not the employer, and the employer does not fund, control, or have any other involvement with the separate portion of the ERISA plan administered by the TPA.

    The government's designation of the TPA must be reflected in a written plan instrument. To satisfy that requirement, the accommodation relies on either (1) a written designation sent by the government to the TPA, which requires the government to know the TPA's identity, or (2) the self-certification form, which the regulations treat as a plan instrument in which the government designates the TPA as a plan administrator. There is no mechanism for requiring TPAs to provide separate contraceptive coverage without a plan instrument; self-insured employers could not opt out of the contraceptive-coverage requirement by simply informing their TPAs that they do not want to provide coverage for contraceptives. Gov't Supp. Br. 16-17 (citations omitted).

    The Zubik plaintiffs also stated that an arrangement like the one posited in the Supreme Court's briefing order for insured plans could not work for self-insured plans. See Pet. Supp. Br. 16-17.

    Although the Departments have not identified any viable alternative to the existing accommodation for self-insured plans, they seek comment on any possible modifications to the accommodation for self-insured plans, including self-insured church plans that would resolve objecting organizations' RFRA objections while still providing seamless access to coverage, including with respect to the following:

    1. Are any reasonable alternative means available under existing law by which the Departments could ensure that women enrolled in self-insured plans maintained by objecting employers receive separate contraceptive coverage that is not contracted, arranged, paid, or referred for by the objecting organization but that is provided through the same third party administrators that administer the rest of their health benefits?

    2. The Departments ask objecting organizations with self-insured plans to indicate whether their RFRA objections to the existing accommodation could be resolved by any alternative procedure or system in which the objecting organization's third party administrator provides contraceptive coverage to the women enrolled in the organization's health plan, and, if so, to describe the procedure(s) or system(s) with specificity.

    III. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, it need not be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of July, 2016. Victoria A. Judson, Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury. Signed this 18th day of July, 2016. Robert J. Neis, Benefits Tax Counsel, Department of the Treasury. Signed this 18th day of July, 2016. Phyllis C. Borzi, Assistant Secretary, Employee Benefits Security Administration Department of Labor. Dated: July 14, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Approved: July 15, 2016. Sylvia M. Burwell, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17242 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0306; A-1-FRL-9949-31-Region 1] Air Plan Approval; Rhode Island; Correction, Administrative and Miscellaneous Revisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This SIP revision includes fifteen revised Rhode Island Air Pollution Control Regulations. These regulations have been previously approved into the Rhode Island SIP and the revisions to these regulations are mainly administrative in nature, but also include technical corrections and a few substantive changes to several of the rules. In addition, EPA is proposing a correction to the Rhode Island SIP to remove Rhode Island's odor regulation because it was previously erroneously approved into the SIP. The intended effect of this action is to propose to approve Rhode Island's fifteen revised regulations into the Rhode Island SIP and correct the Rhode Island SIP by removing Rhode Island's odor regulation. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-2015-0306 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:

    Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, fax 617-918-0656, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this action rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of the rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

    For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 5, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17183 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 141 Friday, July 22, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Information Collection Request; Registration Form To Request Electronic Access Code Information AGENCY:

    Office of the Chief Information Officer, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506), this notice announces and requests comments on the intention of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) to request approval for the continuation of and changes to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Registration Form to Request Electronic Access Code information collection to allow USDA customers to securely and confidently share data and receive services electronically. Authority for obtaining information from customers is included in the Freedom to E-File Act, the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-SIGN, the E-Government Act of 2002. Customer information is collected through the USDA eAuthentication Service (eAuth), located at https://www.eauth.usda.gov. The USDA eAuth service provides both public citizens as well as federal government employees with a secure single sign-on capability for USDA applications, management of user credentials, and verification of identity, authorization, and electronic signatures. USDA's eAuth Application service obtains customer information through an electronic self-registration process provided through the eAuth Web site. This voluntary online self-registration process and online identity proofing service (either in person at a USDA Service Center or online with national credit bureaus) enables USDA customers, as well as employees, to obtain accounts as authorized users that will provide single sign-on capability, self-registration, and account management to access USDA Web applications and services via the Internet.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received on or before September 20, 2016 to be assured of consideration.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for submitting comments.

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection to Adam Zeimet, 2150 Centre Avenue, Building A-Suite 350, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526. Fax comments should be sent to the attention of Adam Zeimet at fax number (970) 295-5528.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Zeimet by telephone at (970) 295-5678, or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the intention of USDA-OCIO-Client Technology Services-Identity Access Branch (Identity, Credential, and Access Management Program) to request approval for an existing collection.

    Title: USDA Registration Form to Request Electronic Access Code.

    OMB Number: 0503-0014.

    Expiration Date of Approval: 12/31/2016.

    Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The USDA OCIO has developed eAuthentication Application Services as a management and technical process that addresses user authentication and authorization prerequisites for providing services electronically. The process requires a one-time electronic self-registration to obtain an eAuth account for each USDA customer desiring access to on-line services or applications that require user authentication. USDA customers can self-register for an account at a Level of Assurance (LOA) 1 or 2 (and in the future LOA 3) as defined by OMB Memorandum M-04-04 and National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-63-2 (or superseding publications). Level of Assurance refers to a level of confidence in the user's claimed identity. An account at LOA 1 provides users with limited access to USDA Web site portals and applications that have minimal security requirements. An account at LOA 2 enables users to conduct official electronic business transactions via the Internet, enter into a contract with the USDA, and submit forms electronically via the Internet to USDA agencies. Due to the increased risk associated with these types of transactions, the identity of customers must be verified through a process called “identity proofing”, in addition to completing an electronic self-registration. Identity proofing can be accomplished for customers in two ways: (1) By visiting a local registrant authority at a USDA Service Center; or (2) Through an online identity proofing service implemented with an integration with a National Credit Bureau. The new on-line identity proofing service will provide registrants with a more efficient mechanism to have their identity proofed. The on-line identity proofing requires responses to at least four randomly selected identity questions that are verified by a national credit bureau identity proofing service in an automated interface. The USDA OCIO is also developing a solution to provide accounts for public citizens at LOA 3, which leverages the same self-registration and identity proofing, but also incorporates strong multi-factor authentication credentials for access to secure, high risk, or sensitive systems, if authorized. Once an account is activated, customers may use the associated credential to access USDA resources that are protected by eAuth.

    Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to take eight (8) minutes to complete the self-registration process for a LOA 1 account. LOA 2 (and in the future, LOA 3) account registration is estimated to be completed in one hour 40 minutes when travelling to a USDA Service Center to visit a local registration authority (expected to be approximately 30% of the registrants), or ten (10) minutes when using the on-line identity proofing service (expected to be approximately 70% of the registrants).

    Respondents: Individual USDA Customers.

    Estimated Number of Respondents per Level:

    • LOA 1 Account: 114,256. • LOA 2 Account: 17,848. ○ In Person ID Proofing (subset of LOA 2): 5,354. ○ Online\Remote ID Proofing (subset of LOA 2): 12,494.

    Estimated Total Number of Respondents: 132,104.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 26,239.8 hours.

    Comments are invited on (1) 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) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 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 the information on those who respond, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, technological or other forms of information technology collection methods. Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Mr. Zeimet by calling or emailing your request to the contact information above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section. All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 11, 2016. Jonathan Alboum, Chief Information Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-16817 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food Safety and Inspection Service [Docket No. FSIS-2016-0024] Codex Alimentarius Commission: Meeting of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food AGENCY:

    Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are sponsoring a public meeting on September 22, 2016. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft United States (U.S.) positions to be discussed at the 23rd Session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), taking place in Houston, Texas, October 17-21, 2016. The Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety and the FDA recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF and to address items on the agenda.

    DATES:

    The public meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 22, 2016, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will take place at the USDA, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 107-A, Washington, DC 20250.

    Documents related to the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF will be accessible via the Internet at the following address: http://www.codexalimentarius.org/meetings-reports/en/.

    Brandi Robinson, U.S. Delegate to the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF, invites U.S. interested parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address: [email protected]

    Call-In-Number

    If you wish to participate in the public meeting for the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF by conference call, please use the following call-in-number:

    Call-in-Number: 1-888-844-9904.

    The participant code will be posted on the following Web page: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/international-affairs/us-codex-alimentarius/public-meetings.

    Registration

    Attendees may register to attend the public meeting by emailing [email protected] by September 16, 2016. Early registration is encouraged as it will expedite entry into the building. The meeting will be held in a Federal building. Attendees should bring photo identification and plan for adequate time to pass through the security screening systems. Attendees who are not able to attend the meeting in person, but who wish to participate, may do so by phone.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE 23rd SESSION OF THE CCRVDF CONTACT:

    Brandi Robinson, ONADE International Coordinator, Center for Veterinary Medicine, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Place, HFV-100, Rockville, MD 20855. Telephone: (240) 402-0645, Email: [email protected]

    For Further Information About the Public Meeting Contact

    Kenneth Lowery, U.S. Codex Office, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., South Agriculture Building, Room 4861, Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 690-4042, Fax: (202) 720-3157, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    Codex was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.

    The CCRVDF is responsible for determining priorities for the consideration of residues of veterinary drugs in foods, recommending maximum levels of such substances, developing codes of practice as may be required, and considering methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of veterinary drug residues in foods.

    The Committee is hosted by the United States.

    Issues To Be Discussed at the Public Meeting

    The following items on the Agenda for the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF will be discussed during the public meeting:

    • Matters referred to the Committee by Codex or its subsidiary bodies;

    • Matters of interest arising from the FAO/WHO and from the 81st Meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA);

    • Report of the World Organisation for Animal Health activities, including the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products;

    • Proposed draft Risk Management Recommendations (RMR) for gentian violet at Step 3;

    • Proposed draft Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for ivermectin (cattle muscle) and lasalocid sodium (chicken, turkey, quail, and pheasant kidney, liver, muscle, skin and fat) at Step 4;

    • Proposed draft MRLs for ivermectin (cattle fat, kidney, muscle), teflubenzuron (salmon fillet, muscle) and zilpaterol hydrochloride (cattle fat, kidney, liver, muscle) at Step 3;

    • Discussion paper on the unintended presence of residues of veterinary drugs in food commodities resulting from the carry-over of drug residues into feed;

    • Discussion paper on the establishment of a rating system to establish priority for the CCRVDF work;

    • Global survey to provide information to the CCRVDF to move compounds from the database on countries' needs for MRLs to the JECFA Priority List (Report of Environmental Working Group) and Database on countries' needs for MRLs;

    • Draft priority list of veterinary drugs requiring evaluation or re-evaluation by JECFA; and

    • Other Business & Future Work.

    Each issue listed will be fully described in documents distributed, or to be distributed, by the Secretariat before the Meeting. Members of the public may access or request copies of these documents (see ADDRESSES).

    Public Meeting

    At the September 22, 2016, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to the U.S. Delegate for the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF, Brandi Robinson (see ADDRESSES). Written comments should state that they relate to the activities of the 23rd Session of the CCRVDF.

    Additional Public Notification

    Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.

    FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password protect their accounts.

    USDA Non-Discrimination Statement

    No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.

    How To File a Complaint of Discrimination

    To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your authorized representative.

    Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:

    Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.

    Fax: (202) 690-7442.

    Email: [email protected]

    Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Done at Washington, DC, on July 19, 2016. Paulo Almeida, U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17377 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Missoula Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Missoula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Frenchtown, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lolo/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 3, 2016, at 6 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Frenchtown Rural Fire Station 1, 16875 Marion Street, Frenchtown, Montana.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Ninemile Ranger District.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sari Lehl, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 406-626-5201 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for RAC project proposal presentations.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 1, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Sari Lehl, RAC Coordinator, Ninemile Ranger District, 20325 Remount Road, Huson, Montana 59846; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-626-5201.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: June 14, 2016. Erin Phelps, District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17361 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Ashley National Forest AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiating the assessment phase of the forest plan revision for the Ashley National Forest.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ashley National Forest (Forest), located in northeastern Utah and southwestern Wyoming, is initiating the first phase of the forest planning process pursuant to the National Forest System Land Management Planning rule (36 CFR part 219). This process will result in a revised forest land management plan (forest plan) which provides strategic direction for management of resources on the Ashley National Forest for the next ten to fifteen years. The first phase of the planning process involves assessing ecological, social and economic conditions and trends in the planning area and documenting the findings in an assessment report.

    The assessment phase is just beginning on the Ashley National Forest and interested parties are invited to contribute to the development of the assessment. The Forest will be hosting public meetings to explain the revision process and invite the public to share information relevant to the assessment, including sources of existing information and local knowledge of current conditions and trends in the natural resources, social values, and goods and services produced by lands within the Ashley National Forest.

    DATES:

    Public meetings to discuss development of the assessment will be held in July and August 2016. Dates, locations and agendas will be posted on the Forest Web site (www.fs.usda.gov/goto/AshleyForestPlan) and mailed to individuals and organizations on our mailing list. Another round of meetings is planned for November-December 2016, when a draft assessment is ready for public review. We expect to complete the assessment in the spring of 2017. Following completion of the assessment, the Forest will initiate procedures pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare and evaluate a revised forest plan.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written correspondence can be sent to: Ashley National Forest, Attn: Forest Plan, 355 N. Vernal Avenue, Vernal, UT 84078; or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathy Paulin, Forest Plan Revision Team Leader at the mailing address above; or call 435-781-5118. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. More information on our plan revision process is available on the Forest's planning Web site at www.fs.usda.gov/goto/AshleyForestPlan. You may also contact us by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop and periodically revise a forest plan. The procedures for doing this are in federal regulation (“Planning Rule,” 36 CFR 219) and in Forest Service directives. Forest plans provide strategic direction for managing forest resources for ten to fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time.

    Under the Planning Rule, an assessment of ecological, social, and economic conditions and trends in the planning area is the first phase of a 3-phase planning process (36 CFR 219.6). The second phase is guided, in part, by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It includes preparation of a draft revised forest plan, one or more alternatives to the draft plan, and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for public review and comment. This is followed by a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and draft decision. The draft decision is subject to the objection procedures of 36 CFR part 219, subpart B, before it can be finalized. The third stage of the process is monitoring and feedback, which is ongoing over the life of the revised forest plan.

    This notice announces the start of the Ashley National Forest's assessment process. The assessment will rapidly evaluate existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends and sustainability and their relationship to the current forest plan within the context of the broader landscape. The assessment does not include any decisions or require any actions on the ground. Its purpose is to provide a solid base of information that will be used to identify preliminary needs for change in the current forest plan, and to inform development of a revised plan.

    With this notice, the Ashley National Forest invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute to assessment development. The intent of public participation during this phase is to identify as much relevant information as possible to inform the plan revision process. We also encourage contributors to share their concerns and perceptions of risk to social, economic, and ecological systems in or connected to the planning area.

    As public engagement opportunities are scheduled, public announcements will be made and information will be posted on the Forest's Web site: www.fs.usda.gov/goto/AshleyForestPlan. To contribute information or ask to be added to our mailing list, please call 435-781-5118 or email [email protected]

    Responsible Official: The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Ashley National Forest is the Forest Supervisor, John R. Erickson, Ashley National Forest, 355 N. Vernal Avenue, Vernal, UT 84078.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. John R. Erickson, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17350 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 22, 2016, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office, Tuolumne Room, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California. A phone line will be available to attend the meeting via conference call; for the conference line information, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671 extension 321 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Vote on project proposals; and

    2. Make recommendations to the Forest Service from the Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties RAC.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to Attention: Beth Martinez at 209-533-1890.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17372 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tuolumne and Mariposa Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Sonora, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 15, 2016, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office, Tuolumne Room, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California. A phone line will be available to attend the meeting via conference call; for the conference line information, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 209-532-3671 extension 321 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is for project presentations.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by at least a week in advance to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Beth Martinez, RAC Coordinator, Stanislaus National Forest, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, California 95370; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to Attention: Beth Martinez at 209-533-1890.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Jeanne M. Higgins, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17373 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Gogebic Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gogebic Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Watersmeet, Michigan. The Committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvaAAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 24, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Watersmeet and Iron River Ranger District Office, E23979 US 2 East (Corner of US 2 and Hwy. 45), Watersmeet, Michigan.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Klaus, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 906-932-1330 ext. 328 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Identify new RAC committee members,

    2. Review and approve the RAC's operating guidelines,

    3. Elect a new chairperson, and

    4. Review and recommend projects for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 12, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Attention: Lisa Klaus, RAC Coordinator, Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office, E6248 US Hwy. 2, Ironwood, Michigan 49938; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 906-932-0122.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17357 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the New York Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a planning meeting of the New York Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 12:30 p.m. (EDT) on Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at the Midtown Conference Center of Sullivan & Cromwell, located at 535 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022. The purpose of the planning meeting is for staff to conduct an orientation for new and returning members and for the Advisory Committee to discuss project planning for its new appointment term.

    Persons needing accessibility services should contact the Eastern Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting. Please contact Evelyn Bohor at eroATisccr.gov.

    Members of the public are invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Monday, September 5, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Eastern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 20425, faxed to (202) 376-7548, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at eroATusccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Eastern Regional Office at (202) 376-7533.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at: https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=265 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Eastern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Eastern Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda
    I. Welcome and Introductions —Rollcall Planning Meeting —Discuss Project Planning II. Other Business Adjournment DATES:

    Wednesday, August 3, 2016 at 12:00 p.m. (EDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: Sullivan & Cromwell, Midtown Conference Center, 535 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ivy L. Davis, DFO, [email protected], 202-376-7533.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17354 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Alaska State Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting.

    DATES:

    Monday, August 1, 2016.

    Time:

    12:00 p.m.-1:00 p.m. (Alaska Time).

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a webinar meeting of the Alaska State Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held at 12:00 p.m. (Alaska Time) Monday, August 1, 2016 with the Alaska Division of Elections regarding the status of recent settlements on voting access for limited English proficient (LEP) persons, as well as the impact of recent pre-clearance changes to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: Toll-Free Phone Number: 888-523-1228; when prompted, please provide conference ID number: 4919191.

    Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. Callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number. Hearing-impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments within thirty (30) days of the meeting. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by Monday, August 29, 2016. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angela French-Bell, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at [email protected]

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=234. Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda for August 1, 2016 I. Introductory Remarks II. Discussion with Alaska Division of Elections III. Public Comment IV. Adjournment

    This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: Toll-Free Phone Number: 888-523-1228; when prompted, please provide conference ID number: 4919191.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela French-Bell, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 18, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17260 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Nevada State Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of public meeting.

    DATES:

    Friday, July 29, 2016.

    TIME:

    1:00 p.m.-2:30 p.m. (Pacific Time).

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Nevada Advisory Committee (Committee) to the Commission will be held on Friday, July 29, 2016, at the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation, 2800 East St. Louis Avenue, Conference Room C, Las Vegas, NV 89104. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 1:00 p.m. and adjourn at approximately 2:30 p.m. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to consider and discuss potential topics for their FY17 civil rights project.

    Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments within thirty (30) days of the meeting. The comments must be received in the Western Regional Office of the Commission by Monday, August 29, 2016. The address is Western Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Suite 2010, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Persons wishing to email their comments may do so by sending them to Angela French-Bell, Regional Director, Western Regional Office, at [email protected]

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and after the meeting at http://facadatabase.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=261.

    Please click on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Western Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Western Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda for July 29, 2016 I. Welcome II. Introductory Remarks III. Orientation IV. Discussion Regarding Potential FY17 Topics V. Public Comment VI. Adjournment
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Angela French-Bell, DFO, at (213) 894-3437 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 18, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17261 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [Docket No.: 160713610-6610-01] RIN 0625-XC020 Cost Recovery Fee Schedule for the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of implementation of a cost recovery program fee with request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25, the U.S. Department of Commerce's International Trade Administration (ITA) is implementing a cost recovery program fee to support the operation of the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework (Privacy Shield), which will require that U.S. organizations pay an annual fee to ITA in order to participate in the Privacy Shield. The cost recovery program will support the administration and supervision of the Privacy Shield program and support the provision of Privacy Shield-related services, including education and outreach. The Privacy Shield fee schedule will become effective on August 1, 2016, when ITA will begin accepting self-certifications. ITA also is providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the fee schedule. ITA will reassess the fee schedule after the first year of implementation and, in accordance with OMB Circular A-25, at least every two years thereafter.

    DATES:

    This fee schedule is effective August 1, 2016. Comments must be received by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by either of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.Regulations.gov. The identification number is ITA-2016-0007.

    • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery to Grace Harter, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Room 20001, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC and reference “Privacy Shield Fee Structure, ITA-2016-0007” in the subject line.

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

    Commerce Department will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only. Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/ITA-2016-0002.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information regarding the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework should be directed to David Ritchie or Grace Harter, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Room 20001, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC, tel. 202-482-4936 or 202-482-1512 or via email at [email protected] Additional information on ITA fees is available at trade.gov/fees.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Consistent with the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a025), federal agencies are responsible for implementing cost recovery program fees.

    The role of ITA is to strengthen the competitiveness of U.S. industry, promote trade and investment, and ensure fair trade through the rigorous enforcement of our trade laws and agreements. ITA works to promote privacy policy frameworks to facilitate the flow of data across borders to support international trade.

    The United States and the European Union (EU) share the goal of enhancing privacy protection but take different approaches to protecting personal data. Given those differences, the Department of Commerce (DOC) developed the Privacy Shield in consultation with the European Commission, as well as with industry and other stakeholders, to provide organizations in the United States with a reliable mechanism for personal data transfers to the United States from the European Union while ensuring the protection of the data as required by EU law.

    In July 2016, the European Commission approved the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework. The published Privacy Shield Principles are available at: [insert link]. The DOC has issued the Privacy Shield Principles under its statutory authority to foster, promote, and develop international commerce (15 U.S.C. 1512). ITA will administer and supervise the Privacy Shield, including by maintaining and making publicly available an authoritative list of U.S. organizations that have self-certified to the DOC. U.S. organizations submit information to ITA to self-certify their compliance with Privacy Shield. ITA will accept self-certification submissions beginning on August 1, 2016. At a future date, ITA will publish for public notice and comment information collections as described in the Privacy Shield Framework consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    U.S. organizations considering self-certifying to the Privacy Shield should review the Privacy Shield Framework. In summary, in order to enter the Privacy Shield, an organization must (a) be subject to the investigatory and enforcement powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Department of Transportation; (b) publicly declare its commitment to comply with the Principles through self-certification to the DOC; (c) publicly disclose its privacy policies in line with the Principles; and (d) fully implement them.

    Self-certification to the DOC is voluntary; however, an organization's failure to comply with the Principles after its self-certification is enforceable under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts in or affecting commerce (15 U.S.C. 45(a)) or other laws or regulations prohibiting such acts.

    ITA is implementing a cost recovery program to support the operation of the Privacy Shield, which will require U.S. organizations to pay an annual fee to ITA in order to participate in the program. The cost recovery program will support the administration and supervision of the Privacy Shield program and support the provision of Privacy Shield-related services, including education and outreach. The fee a given organization will be charged will be based on the organization's annual revenue:

    Fee Schedule:

    EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework Cost Recovery Program Organization's annual
  • revenue
  • Annual fee
    $0 to $5 million $250 Over $5 million to $25 million 650 Over $25 million to $500 million 1,000 Over $500 million to $5 billion 2,500 Over $5 billion 3,250

    Organizations will have additional direct costs associated with participating in the Privacy Shield. For example, Privacy Shield organizations must provide a readily available independent recourse mechanism to hear individual complaints at no cost to the individual. Furthermore, organizations will be required to pay contributions in connection with the arbitral model, as described in Annex I to the Principles.

    Method for Determining Fees

    ITA collects, retains, and expends user fees pursuant to delegated authority under the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act as authorized in its annual appropriations acts.

    The EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework was developed to provide organizations in the United States with a reliable mechanism for personal data transfers that underpin the trade and investment relationship between the United States and the EU.

    Fees are set taking into account the operational costs borne by ITA to administer and supervise the Privacy Shield program. The Privacy Shield program will require a significant commitment of resources and staff. The Privacy Shield Framework includes commitments from ITA to:

    • Maintain a Privacy Shield Web site;

    • verify self-certification requirements submitted by organizations to participate in the program;

    • expand efforts to follow up with organizations that have been removed from the Privacy Shield List;

    • search for and address false claims of participation;

    • conduct periodic compliance reviews and assessments of the program;

    • provide information regarding the program to targeted audiences;

    • increase cooperation with EU data protection authorities;

    • facilitate resolution of complaints about non-compliance;

    • hold annual meetings with the European Commission and other authorities to review the program, and

    • provide an update of laws relevant to Privacy Shield.

    In setting the Privacy Shield fee schedule, ITA determined that the services provided offer special benefits to an identifiable recipient beyond those that accrue to the general public. ITA calculated the actual cost of providing its services in order to provide a basis for setting each fee. Actual cost incorporates direct and indirect costs, including operations and maintenance, overhead, and charges for the use of capital facilities. ITA also took into account additional factors, including adequacy of cost recovery, affordability, and costs associated with alternative options available to U.S. organizations for the receipt of personal data from the EU.

    ITA is establishing a 5-tiered fee schedule that will promote the participation of small organizations in Privacy Shield. A multiple-tiered fee schedule allows ITA to offer the organizations with lower revenue a lower fee. In setting the 5 tiers, ITA considered, in conjunction with the factors mentioned above: (1) The Small Business Administration's guidance on identifying SMEs in various industries most likely to participate in the Privacy Shield, such as computer services, software and information services; (2) the likelihood that small companies would be expected to receive less personal data and thereby use fewer government resources; and (3) the likelihood that companies with higher revenue would have more customers whose data they process, which would use more government resources dedicated to administering and overseeing Privacy Shield. For example, if a company holds more data it could reasonably produce more questions and complaints from consumers and the European Union's Data Protection Authorities (DPAs). ITA has committed to facilitating the resolution of individual complaints and to communicating with the FTC and the DPAs regarding consumer complaints. Lastly, the fee increases between the tiers are based in part on projected program costs and estimated participation levels among companies within each tier.

    Conclusion

    Based on the information provided above, ITA believes that its Privacy Shield cost recovery fee schedule is consistent with the objective of OMB Circular A-25 to “promote efficient allocation of the nation's resources by establishing charges for special benefits provided to the recipient that are at least as great as the cost to the U.S. Government of providing the special benefits . . .” OMB Circular A-25(5)(b). ITA is providing the public with the opportunity to comment on the fee schedule, and it will consider these comments when it reassesses the fee schedule. ITA will reassess the fee schedule after the first year of implementation and, in accordance with OMB Circular A-25, at least every two years thereafter.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Edward M. Dean, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Services, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17508 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-912] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Determination Pursuant to a Final Court Decision AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 1, 2010, the United States Court of International Trade (“CIT”) sustained the remand redetermination made by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) pursuant to the CIT's remand of the final determination in the antidumping duty investigation on certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). This case arises out of the Department's final determination in the antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation on OTR tires from the PRC. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-The-Road-Tires from the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Partial Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 73 FR 40485 (July 15, 2008), as amended by Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Amended Final Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order, 73 FR 51624 (September 4, 2008) (collectively, “Final Determination”).

    The Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment (See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 10-112 (Ct. Int'l Trade October 1, 2010) (“GPX III”) in this case was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC on October 12, 2010. See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony, 75 FR 62504 (October 12, 2010) (“2010 Timken Notice”). As there is now a final and conclusive decision in this case, the Department is amending its final determination with respect to the antidumping duty rate calculated for the separate rate companies.

    DATES:

    Effective March 23, 2015.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Medley, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-4987.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In July 2008, the Department published a final determination in which it found that OTR tires from the PRC are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”).1 As part of the Final Determination, the Department calculated a margin for the separate-rate respondents of 12.91 percent.2 Starbright Tire Co., Ltd. (“Starbright”), its importer GPX International Tire Corporation (“GPX”), petitioners Titan Tire Corporation and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied and Industrial Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC (collectively, “Titan”), and domestic interested party Bridgestone Americas, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC (collectively, “Bridgestone”), each timely challenged various aspects of the Final Determination to the CIT. The antidumping duty case was then consolidated with the companion countervailing duty case at the CIT. With regard to the antidumping duty case, among the issues raised before the Court was the valuation of wire input consumed by two of the respondent companies, Starbright and Tianjin United Tire & Rubber International Co., Ltd. (“TUTRIC”), under the factors of production methodology to calculate normal value in a non-market economy country pursuant to section 773(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).

    1See Final Determination.

    2Id., 73 FR at 51625.

    On August 4, 2010, pursuant to the Department's request for a voluntary remand, the CIT remanded the wire input valuation issue to the Department for reconsideration or further explanation.3 In a remand redetermination filed on September 3, 2010, the Department determined that record evidence supported using a different surrogate value for the wire input consumed by Starbright and TUTRIC in the production of OTR tires.4 As a result of this change, the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for subject merchandise produced by Starbright and exported by Starbright/GPX changed from 29.93 percent to 31.79 percent, the weighted average dumping margin calculated for subject merchandise produced and exported by TUTRIC changed from 8.44 percent to 10.08 percent, and the weighted-average dumping margin calculated for separate rate companies changed from 12.91 percent to 13.92 percent.5 The CIT affirmed the Department's remand redetermination on October 1, 2010.6 On October 12, 2010, the Department notified the public that the final CIT judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's final affirmative determination in the AD investigation of OTR tires from the PRC.7 Subsequently, domestic litigation over issues pertaining to the consolidated countervailing duty case continued.8 On March 13, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) issued a final and conclusive decision in this case, which no party appealed.9 Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision in this case, the Department is amending the final determination for the separate rate respondents.

    3See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 10-84 at *19-*20, *28 (Ct. Int'l Trade August 4, 2010) (“GPX II”).

    4See Second Remand Redetermination, GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, dated September 3, 2010, at 4-9.

    5Id. at 9-12.

    6See GPX III.

    7See 2010 Timken Notice, 75 FR 62504.

    8 A summary of this litigation can be found in Certain New Pneumatic Off-the Road Tires from the People's Republic of China: Corrected Notice of Decision of the Court of International Trade Not in Harmony and Corrected Notice of Amended Final Determination, 80 FR 31889 (June 4, 2015) (“2015 Timken Notice”).

    9See GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 780 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

    Amended Final Determination

    Since the Final Determination, the Department has established a new cash deposit rate for TUTRIC and for Starbright.10 Therefore, this amended final determination does not change TUTRIC's or Starbright's cash deposit rates. Because there is now a final and conclusive court decision with respect to the Final Determination, the revised cash deposit rate for the separate rate companies is 13.92 percent. For those separate-rate companies that do not have a superseding cash deposit rate identified in the table below, the Department will issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, adjusting the cash deposit rate for the below separate-rate companies to 13.92 percent, effective March 23, 2015.11

    10 For Starbright/GPX, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2008-2009 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 76 FR 22871 (April 25, 2011). For TUTRIC, see Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From the People's Republic of China: Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Rescission, in Part, 77 FR 14495 (March 12, 2012).

    11See 2015 Timken Notice; see also GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 08-00285, Slip Op. 15-46 (CIT May 18, 2015).

    Exporter Producer Weighted-average margin
  • (percent)
  • Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd Aeolus Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd Double Happiness Tyre Industries Corp., Ltd 13.92 Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd Jiangsu Feichi Co., Ltd 13.92 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited Midland Off The Road Tire Co., Ltd 13.92 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited Midland Specialty Tire Co., Ltd 13.92 Oriental Tyre Technology Limited Xuzhou Hanbang Tyres Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Etyre International Trade Co., Ltd Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd Qingdao Shuanghe Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Zhentai Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Milestone Tyre Co., Ltd Weifang Longtai Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd Qingdao Qizhou Rubber Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd Qingdao Hengda Tyres Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd Shifeng Double-Star Tire Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Sinorient International Ltd Tengzhou Broncho Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Huitong Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Jinyu Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Taishan Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd Shandong Wanda Boto Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd Shangdong Xingda Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Shandong Xingyuan International Trading Co., Ltd Xingyuan Tyre Group Co., Ltd 13.92 Techking Tires Limited Shandong Xingda Tyre Co. Ltd 13.92 Techking Tires Limited Shandong Xingyuan International Trade Co. Ltd 13.92 Techking Tires Limited Shandong Xingyuan Rubber Co. Ltd 13.92 Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd Triangle Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd Wendeng Sanfeng Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92 Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd./Kenda Global Kenda Rubber (China) Co., Ltd 13.92 Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd Qingdao Aonuo Tyre Co., Ltd 13.92
    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17308 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Notice of Implementation of Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act and Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 18, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) issued its final determination under a section 129 proceeding regarding the fourth administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) with respect to the Minh Phu Group. On July 18, 2016, the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) instructed the Department to implement the 129 Final Determination. As a result, the Department is now implementing its determination.

    DATES:

    Effective July 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Nature of the Proceeding

    Section 129 of the Uruguay Rounds Agreement Act (“URAA”) 1 allows the Department to amend, rescind, or modify a determination found by a WTO dispute settlement panel or the Appellate Body to be inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the Antidumping Agreement. Specifically, section 129(b)(2) provides that, “notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930 . . ., ” within 180 days after receipt of a written request from the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department shall issue a determination that would render its actions not inconsistent with an adverse finding of a WTO panel or the Appellate Body.2 The Statement of Administrative Action, URAA, H. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong. (1994) (“SAA”), refers variously to such a determination by the Department as a “new,” “second,” and “different” determination.3 After consulting with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees, the USTR may direct the Department to implement, in whole or in part, the new determinations made under section 129 of the URAA.4 Pursuant to section 129(c) of the URAA, the new determinations shall apply with respect to unliquidated entries of the subject merchandise that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the USTR directs the Department to implement the new determinations.5 This determination may be subject to judicial review separate and apart from judicial review of the Department's original determination.6

    1 Citation to “section 129” refers to section 129 of the URAA, codified at 19 U.S.C. 3538.

    2See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(2).

    3See SAA at 1025, 1027.

    4See 19 U.S.C. 3538(b)(4).

    5See 19 U.S.C. 3538(c).

    6See 19 U.S.C. 1516a(a)(2)(B)(vii).

    Background

    At the written request of USTR, the Department informed interested parties on May 20, 2016, that it was initiating a proceeding under section 129 of the URAA to implement certain findings of the WTO dispute settlement panel in United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from VietNam (WTO/DS429) (“Panel Report”).7 On May 20, 2016, the Department issued its preliminary determination in this proceeding 8 in which the Department recalculated the weighted-average dumping margin for the Minh Phu Group 9 from the AR4 Amended Final10 by eliminating the denial of offsets for non-dumped sales

    7See Letter from USTR, re: “Request to Comply with WTO Panel Report,” dated May 20, 2016. See also Letter from the Department to All Interested Parties, re: “Initiation of DS429,” dated May 20, 2016.

    8See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, re: “Preliminary Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated May 20, 2016 (“129 Preliminary Determination”). See also Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office V, re: “Preliminary Determination Under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”)” (“MPG 129 Prelim Memo”), dated May 20, 2016.

    9 For purposes of this proceeding, the “Minh Phu Group” includes the following companies: (1) Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), (2) Minh Phu Seafood Corp., (3) Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, (4) Minh Phu Seafood Pte, (5) Minh Qui Seafood, (6) Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., (7) Minh Qui, (8) Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., (9) Minh Phat, (10) Minh Phat Seafood, (11) Minh Phat Seafood Corp., (12) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, (13) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., (14) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., and (15) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd. See 129 Final Determination.

    10See Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Final Results and Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 47771 (August 9, 2010) (“AR4 Final”) and Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 75 FR 61122 (October 4, 2010) (“AR4 Amended Final”).

    On July 6, 2016, the Department solicited comments from interested parties regarding the Preliminary 129 Determination, and also released the draft revocation instructions with a proposed importer and exporter certification requirement.11 On July 13, 2016, the Minh Phu Group filed comments regarding the trade names listed for revocation in the Prelim Comment Memo at Attachment I.12 Consequently, the Department issued the 129 Final Determination on July 18, 2016.13

    11See Memorandum to the File from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, Office V, re: “Schedule for Comments on the Section 129 Preliminary Determination and Release of Draft Revocation Instructions with Importer Certification Requirement for Comment,” dated July 6, 2016 (“Prelim Comment Memo”).

    12See Letter from the Minh Phu Group, re: “Minh Phu Group's Comments on Draft Revocation Instructions,” dated July 13, 2016.

    13See Memorandum from Christian Marsh to Paul Piquado, re: “Final Determination of the Proceeding under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated July 18, 2016 (“129 Final Determination”).

    On July 18, 2016, the USTR notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the 129 Final Determination have been completed. As a result, in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA, USTR directed the Department to implement this determination.14

    14See Letter from USTR, re: “Request to Implement Final Determination,” dated July 18, 2016 (“USTR Implementation Letter”).

    Implementation of the 129 Final Determination

    Pursuant to the USTR Implementation Letter, the 129 Final Determination is hereby implemented and adopted by this notice. A list of the issues discussed in the 129 Final Determination are attached as an Appendix to this notice. The 129 Final Determination is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). Access to ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Commerce building. A complete version of the memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/section129/full-129-index.html. The signed 129 Final Determination and the respective electronic version of the memorandum are identical in content.

    Final Weighted-Average Dumping Margin

    As a result of the above, the AR4 Amended Final recalculated weighted-average dumping margin for the Minh Phu Group, unchanged from the Preliminary 129 Determination, is:

    Producer and exporter Section 129 results Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), aka 0.00% Minh Phu Seafood Corp., aka Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, aka Minh Phu Seafood Pte, aka Minh Qui Seafood, aka Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Minh Qui, aka Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Minh Phat, aka Minh Phat Seafood, aka Minh Phat Seafood Corp., aka Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., aka Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., aka Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd Partial Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order

    Because the Department has re-calculated a weighted-average dumping margin of zero percent for the Minh Phu Group, which results in three consecutive years of no dumping, and the Minh Phu Group has certified 15 that it will not sell certain frozen warmwater shrimp in the future at less than fair value, the Department is revoking the AD Order with respect to the Minh Phu Group, for entries made on or after July 18, 2016. The Department's practice with respect to revocation of companies from an antidumping duty order is to exclude companies in specific producer-exporter combinations.16 Accordingly, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp, produced and exported by the Minh Phu Group 17 which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 18, 2016. Furthermore, the Department will instruct CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation and the collection of cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties for entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp produced and exported by the Minh Phu Group. The Department will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for estimated antidumping duties from other Vietnamese exporters as the AD Order, in whole, has not been revoked. Furthermore, the Department will require the Minh Phu Group and its importers to participate in a certification requirement for those entries which are no longer subject to the AD Order, as discussed in the 129 Final Determination.18

    15See Memorandum to the File, from Irene Gorelik, Senior Analyst, re: “Placing AR4 Documents on the Record of DS429,” dated May 20, 2016, at .pdf page 15.

    16See, e.g., Brake Rotors From the People's Republic of China: Final Results and Partial Rescission of the Fifth Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Final Results of the Seventh New Shipper Review, 68 FR 25861 (May 14, 2003) and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 1. See also Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Certain Frozen and Canned Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 69 FR 70997, 71004 (December 8, 2004), where the Department stated that “the Department does not require any cash deposit or posting of a bond for Zhanjiang Guolian when the subject merchandise is produced and exported by Zhanjiang Guolian.” Subsequently, in the PRC Shrimp Order, the Department stated that “pursuant to 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to suspend liquidation of all entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp and prawns from the PRC (except merchandise produced and exported by Zhanjiang Guolian because this company has a de minimis margin)” (emphasis added). See Notice of Amended Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Antidumping Duty Order: Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 5149, 5152 (February 1, 2005) (“PRC Shrimp Order”).

    17 Revocation for the Minh Phu Group is specific to merchandise produced and exported by: (1) Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), (2) Minh Phu Seafood Corp., (3) Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, (4) Minh Phu Seafood Pte, (5) Minh Qui Seafood, (6) Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., (7) Minh Qui, (8) Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., (9) Minh Phat, (10) Minh Phat Seafood, (11) Minh Phat Seafood Corp., (12) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, (13) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., (14) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., and (15) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd.

    18See 129 Final Determination Memo at 6 and Appendix.

    This final determination is issued and published in accordance with section 129(c)(2)(A) of the URAA.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix List of Issues in the 129 Final Determination I. Summary II. Background III. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Company Names to be Revoked from the AD Order IV. Section 129 Final Determination V. Revocation of the Minh Phu Group VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17383 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-552-802] Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp From the Socialist Republic of Vietnam: Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews (2014-2015; 2015-2016) and Compromise of Outstanding Claims AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) is rescinding, in part, the antidumping duty administrative reviews for the antidumping duty order (“the Order”) on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”) for the periods February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, and February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016 with respect to sales made by the Minh Phu Group. Further, the Department is compromising its claims for certain antidumping duties for entries of subject merchandise exported by the Minh Phu Group for the period February 1, 2014, through July 17, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective July 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Rescission of Reviews Tenth Administrative Review (2014-2015)

    On February 27, 2015, Vietnamese Association of Shrimp Exporters and Producers (“VASEP”), Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (“AHSTAC”), and American Shrimp Processors Association (“ASPA”) each requested a review of the Order for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015, with respect to sales made by the Minh Phu Group.1

    1 These requests for review included: Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Phat Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang, collectively “Minh Phu Group”), as requested by VASEP; Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., and Minh Phu Seafood Corp., as requested by AHSTAC; and Minh Phat Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Pte, Minh Qui Seafood, and Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., as requested by ASPA.

    On April 3, 2015, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the tenth administrative review of the Order, covering the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.2 On July 6, 2016, VASEP, AHSTAC, and ASPA withdrew their requests for review with respect to the Minh Phu Group and requested that the Department exercise its authority to extend the 90-day deadline to withdraw the requests for review and rescind the administrative review, in part, under extraordinary circumstances. In particular, the parties explained their understanding that extraordinary circumstances exist because the withdrawals of review requests for the Minh Phu Group will assist the government of the United States and government of Vietnam in reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution with respect to United States—Anti-dumping Measures of Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS429) and United States Anti-dumping Measures of Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS404). The parties further explained their understanding that a mutually satisfactory resolution of these disputes was not effectuated within the 90-day deadline, and, but for this mutually satisfactory resolution, the parties would not be withdrawing their request for review of the Minh Phu Group.

    2See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 80 FR 18202 (April 3, 2015) (“AR10 Initiation Notice”). This initiation notice included, in relevant part: Minh Phat Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Pte, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Phat Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang, collectively “Minh Phu Group”), Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., Minh Qui Seafood, and Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd.

    Section 351.213(d)(1) of the Department's regulations states that the Department will rescind an administrative review if a party requesting the review withdraws the request within 90 days of the publication of the notice of initiation. Further, 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) allows the Department to extend the 90-day deadline if it considers it reasonable to do so. In the AR10 Initiation Notice, the Department stated that a party requesting an extension of the deadline must demonstrate that an “extraordinary circumstance” prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request, and that a determination to extend the deadline would be made on a case-by-case basis.3 Although the parties' withdrawals of review request for the tenth administrative review are past the 90-day deadline, the Department determines that the parties have demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist for this segment of the proceeding, and thus, find it reasonable to extend the deadline pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Therefore, because all parties that requested a review of the Minh Phu Group have withdrawn their requests, the Department is rescinding the review with respect to the Minh Phu Group for the period February 1, 2014, through January 31, 2015.

    3Id., 80 FR at 18202.

    Eleventh Administrative Review (2015-2016)

    On February 29, 2016, VASEP, AHSTAC, and ASPA each requested a review of the Order for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, with respect to sales made by the Minh Phu Group.4

    4 These requests for review included, in relevant part: Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Minh Phu Group”), as requested by VASEP; Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Corp., and Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., as requested by AHSTAC; and Minh Phat Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phat Seafood Co. Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang, collectively “Minh Phu Group”), Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Pte, Minh Qui Seafood, and Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., as requested by ASPA.

    On April 7, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of the eleventh administrative review of the Order, covering the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016.5 On July 6, 2016, VASEP, AHSTAC, and ASPA timely withdrew their requests for review with respect to the Minh Phu Group and requested that the Department rescind the administrative review, in part.

    5See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016) (“AR11 Initiation Notice”). This initiation notice included, in relevant part: Minh Phat Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Pte, Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., Minh Qui Seafood, Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Seafood Corporation (and its affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.) (collectively “Minh Phu Group”).

    Because all parties that requested a review of the Minh Phu Group have timely withdrawn their requests, the Department is rescinding the administrative review with respect to the Minh Phu Group for the period February 1, 2015, through January 31, 2016, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1).

    Compromise of Outstanding Claims

    On July 18, 2016, the United States and Vietnam entered into an Agreement on the Antidumping Duty Order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Vietnam (“Agreement”) to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the WTO disputes, United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS429) and United States—Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS404), and to provide for the settlement of certain litigation, and the compromise of certain claims arising under the Order. In conjunction with the Agreement, on July 18, 2016, the Department issued its determination pursuant to section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) which has culminated in the revocation of the Order, in part, with respect to the Minh Phu Group.6 7 In a July 18, 2016, letter, the United States Trade Representative (“USTR”) notified the Department that, consistent with section 129(b)(3) of the URAA, consultations with the Department and the appropriate congressional committees with respect to the 129 Final Determination have been completed, and directed the Department, in accordance with section 129(b)(4) of the URAA, to implement this determination.8

    6See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, re: “Final Determination of the Proceeding under Section 129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Antidumping Measures on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam,” dated July 18, 2016 (“129 Final Determination”).

    7 In the 129 Final Determination, the Department indicated its intent to revoke the following Minh Phu Group individual company names from the Order: Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), Minh Phu Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, Minh Phu Seafood Pte, Minh Qui Seafood, Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Qui, Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phat, Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., Minh Phat Seafood, Minh Phat Seafood Corp., Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., and Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd.

    8See Letter from USTR, re: “Request to Implement Final Determination,” dated July 18, 2016.

    Effective July 18, 2016, the Agreement compromises the United States' claims for certain outstanding duties on shipments of subject merchandise from the Minh Phu Group that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2014, through July 17, 2016, pursuant to section 617 the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).9 In accordance with the terms of the Agreement, the Department will instruct United States Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to liquidate entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp exported by the Minh Phu Group 10 and imported by Mseafood Corporation which entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2014, through July 17, 2016, without regard to antidumping duties, with the exception of such entries which entered the United States during the period February 1, 2016, through May 3, 2016, which will be liquidated at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry. Further, the Department will instruct CBP to liquidate all other entries of certain frozen warmwater shrimp exported by the Minh Phu Group which entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period February 1, 2014, through July 17, 2016, at the cash deposit rate in effect at the time of entry.

    9See also Appendix 6 to the Agreement, entitled “Agreement between DOC, Minh Phu Group, MSeafood Corporation, AHSTAC, and ASPA.”

    10 The following names will be listed in the CBP instructions: (1) Minh Phu Seafood Export Import Corporation (and affiliates Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd. and Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd.), aka (2) Minh Phu Seafood Corp., aka (3) Minh Phu Seafood Corporation, aka (4) Minh Phu Seafood Pte, or (5) Minh Qui Seafood, aka (6) Minh Qui Seafood Co., Ltd., aka (7) Minh Qui, or (8) Minh Phat Seafood Co., Ltd., aka (9) Minh Phat, aka (10) Minh Phat Seafood, aka (11) Minh Phat Seafood Corp., or (12) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Joint Stock Company, aka (13) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Co., Ltd., aka (14) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Corp., aka (15) Minh Phu Hau Giang Seafood Processing Co., Ltd.

    Because there is no further basis for conducting an administrative review of the Order with respect to the Minh Phu Group for the period February 1, 2016, through January 31, 2017, the Department does not intend to initiate an administrative review with respect to the Minh Phu Group for this period.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1) and (4).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17384 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE752 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scientific & Statistical Committee to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 beginning at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, Boston Logan, 100 Boardman Street, Boston, MA 02128; phone: (617) 567-6789.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Committee will develop OFL (overfishing level) and ABC (acceptable biological catch) recommendations for Georges Bank yellowtail flounder for fishing year 2017. They will also develop OFL and ABC recommendations for monkfish for fishing years 2017-19 as well as develop OFL and ABC recommendations for Atlantic deep-sea red crab for fishing years 2017-19. They will discuss other business as needed.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17381 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE751 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Hearings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public hearings on Amendments to the U.S. Caribbean Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans: Timing of Accountability Measure-Based Closures in the U.S. Caribbean Draft Document.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council will hold public hearings on the Amendments to the U.S. Caribbean Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans: Timing of Accountability Measure-Based Seasonal Closures Including Draft Environmental Assessment: Amendment 8 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Fishery of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Amendment 7 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Amendment 6 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The complete document is available upon request and can be found at the Caribbean Council's Web site: www.caribbeanfmc.com.

    DATES and ADDRESSES:

    The dates and locations for the public hearings are:

    August 15, 2016, Doubletree Hotel, De Diego Avenue, Condado, San Juan, Puerto Rico, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

    August 17, 2016, Mayagüez Holiday Inn Hotel, Mayagüez Holiday Inn, 2701 Hostos Avenue, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The proposed actions are to modify the timing for the application of accountability measures in the Reef Fish, Spiny Lobster, and Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management Plans of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Amendment contains the following Actions and Alternatives:

    ACTION 1: Modify the timing for the implementation of AM-based closures in the U.S. Caribbean EEZ.

    Alternative 1: No Action. Continue AM-based closures resulting from an annual catch limit (ACL) overage, ending on December 31st of the closure year, and extending backward into the closure year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings.

    Alternative 2 (Preferred): Accountability measure-based closures resulting from an ACL overage would end on September 30th of the closure year and extend backward toward the beginning of the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. The September 30th closure date would apply to all fishery management units (FMUs) for each of the Puerto Rico commercial and recreational sectors, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix, and Caribbean-wide. If Alternative 5 of this Action is also chosen for an FMU that includes species with seasonal closures in federal waters, closure dates for that FMU would be governed by Alternative 5. If, for any of the FMUs covered by Alternative 2, the number of available days running from September 30th backward to the beginning of the year is not enough to achieve the required reduction in landings, then the additional days needed would be captured by extending the closure forward toward the end of the year, beginning on October 1st and continuing for the number of days needed to achieve the required reduction.

    Alternative 3: Accountability measure-based closures resulting from an ACL overage would begin on January 1st of the closure year and extend forward into the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. The January 1st closure start date would apply to all FMUs for each of Puerto Rico commercial and recreational sectors, St. Thomas/St. John, St. Croix, and Caribbean-wide. If Alternative 5 of this Action is also chosen for an FMU that includes species with seasonal closures in federal waters, closure dates for that FMU would be governed by Alternative 5.

    Alternative 4: Establish a fixed fishing closure end date for the implementation of AMs for each FMU by island management area and, in the case of Puerto Rico, fishing sector (A. Puerto Rico (I. Commercial sector [The Puerto Rico spiny lobster FMU is addressed under the Commercial Sector sub-alternatives. This is because the spiny lobster ACL is governed by commercial landings. If the AM is triggered due to a Puerto Rico spiny lobster ACL overage, the commercial and recreational fishing season is reduced.] II. Recreational sector), B. St. Thomas/St. John, C. St. Croix, and D. Caribbean-wide), based on the highest or lowest average monthly landings of the most recent three years of available data (2012, 2013, 2014). A different closure date may be chosen for each FMU for each island management area and Puerto Rico fishing sector. The closure date will end on the last day of the identified month and extend backward toward the beginning of the year for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. If, for any FMU in any year, the number of available days running from the closure implementation date backward toward the beginning of the year is not enough to achieve the required reduction in landings, then the additional days needed would be captured by extending the closure forward toward the end of the year and continuing for the number of days needed to achieve the required reduction.

    A. Puerto Rico I. Commercial

    Sub-Alternative 4a. Closure to end the last day of the month that has the highest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-2014 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Sub-Alternative 4b. Closure to end the last day of the month with lowest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-2014 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    II. Recreational

    Sub-Alternative 4c. Closure to end the last day of the second month that has the highest landings based on bi-monthly average landings through time, using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Sub-Alternative 4d. Closure to end the last day of the second month with lowest landings based on bi-monthly average landings through time, using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    B. St. Thomas/St. John, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 4e. Closure to end the last day of the month that has the highest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Sub-Alternative 4f. Closure to end the last day of the month with the lowest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    C. St. Croix, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 4g. Closure to end the last day of the month that has the highest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-2014 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Sub-Alternative 4h. Closure to end the last day of the month with the lowest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-2014 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    D. Caribbean-Wide (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 4i. Closure to end the last day of the month that has the highest landings based on monthly average landings through time, using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Sub-Alternative 4j. Closure to end the last day of the month with the lowest landings based on monthly average landings through time using 2012-14 as the most recent three years of available landings data.

    Alternative 5: For FMUs that include species with seasonal closures in U.S. Caribbean federal waters (Table 2.2.6 in the document), AM-based closures resulting from an ACL overage for these FMUs would be timed to be continuous with the seasonal closure. The AM-based closure would extend either forward or backward from the seasonal closure into the year as specified in Sub-Alternatives 5a through 5n for the number of days necessary to achieve the required reduction in landings. If, for any of these FMUs, in any year, the number of available days running from the date specified by the sub-alternative, is not enough to achieve the required reduction in landings, then the additional days needed would be captured by extending the closure in the opposite direction and continuing for the number of days needed to fulfill the required reduction.

    I. Groupers A. Puerto Rico 1. Commercial

    Sub-Alternative 5a: For the commercial sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would start on May 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5b: For the commercial sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would end on November 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    2. Recreational

    Sub-Alternative 5c: For the recreational sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would start on May 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5d: For the recreational sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would end on November 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    B. St. Thomas/St. John, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 5e: For the St. Thomas/St. John management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would start on May 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    C. St. Croix, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 5f: For the St. Croix management area, an AM-based closure for the grouper complex would start on May 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    II. Snappers A. Puerto Rico 1. Commercial

    Sub-Alternative 5g: For the commercial sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for all snapper species in Snapper Unit 3 (SU3) would start on July 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5h: For the commercial sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for all snapper species in Snapper Unit 1 (SU1) would end on September 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    2. Recreational

    Sub-Alternative 5i: For the recreational sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for all snapper species in SU3 would start on July 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5j: For the recreational sector of the Puerto Rico management area, an AM-based closure for all snapper species in SU1 would end on September 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    B. St. Thomas/St. John, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 5k: For the St. Thomas/St. John management area, an AM-based closure the snapper complex would start on July 1st of the closure year and move forward toward the end of the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5l: For the St. Thomas/St. John management area, an AM-based closure for the snapper complex would end on September 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    C. St. Croix, USVI (All Sectors)

    Sub-Alternative 5m: For the St. Croix management area, an AM-based closure for the snapper complex would start on July 1st of the closure year and move forward into the year.

    Sub-Alternative 5n: For the St. Croix management area, an AM-based closure for the snapper complex would end on September 30th of the closure year and move backward toward the beginning of the year.

    Action 2: Specify a time period for revisiting the approach to establish AM-based closures selected in Action 1.

    Alternative 1. No action. Do not specify how often the approach chosen should be revisited.

    Alternative 2 (Preferred). Revisit the approach selected no longer than 2 years from implementation and every 2 years thereafter.

    Alternative 3. Revisit the approach selected no longer than 5 years from implementation and every 5 years thereafter.

    Additional Information: Written comments can be sent to Dr. Graciela García-Moliner by email at [email protected] or by regular mail to Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918, no later than August 22, 2016.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. For more information or request for sign language interpretation and other auxiliary aids, please contact Mr. Miguel A. Rolón, Executive Director, Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 00918-1903, telephone (787) 766-5926, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17380 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE736 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a meeting, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The HMSMT will meet Monday, August 8 through Thursday, August 11, 2016. The meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. on August 8 and at 8:30 a.m. on August 9-11. On each day the meeting will end at 5 p.m. or when business for the day is concluded.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held in the Large Conference Room at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's office.

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, Oregon 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Council assigned several tasks to the HMSMT for completion by the September 2016 Council meeting. At this meeting, the HMSMT plans to draft reports for these tasks that can be included in the advanced briefing materials for the September Council meeting. These tasks include: (1) An update on international HMS management, including outcomes of the 80th Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission meeting; (2) If available, reviewing exempted fishing permit (EFP) applications; (3) Developing recommendations for updates to the Fishery Management Plan for U.S. West Coast Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species (HMS FMP) to correct errors, revise out of date descriptions, and clarify descriptive passages; (4) Drafting a framework for reporting estimates of reference points for HMS FMP management unit species; (5) Developing recommendations responding to the referral to the Council by National Marine Fisheries Service of requests for rulemaking contained in the agency's response to the Center for Biological Diversity's petition for rulemaking to address the relative impacts of the U.S. fleet on the Pacific bluefin tuna stock (81 FR 39213); (6) Identifying data gaps and research needs for deep-set buoy gear (DSBG) to inform future Council recommendations on issuance of EFPs to test this gear for the objectives of developing a Federal fishing permit system for DSBG and regulatory authorizing use of the gear; (7) Identifying incentives for EFPs to test DSBG; (8) Developing a range of alternatives for a Federal permit for the California large mesh driftnet fishery for swordfish and sharks; and (9) Making recommendations on indicators to be included in the Annual State of the California Current Ecosystem Report delivered to the Council each March. The HMSMT may also discuss other matters related to HMS management besides the assignments enumerated above.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2280 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17378 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    Title: StormReady, TsunamiReady, StormReady/TsunamiReady, and StormReady and TsunamiReady Supporter Application Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0419.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (revision of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 305.

    Average Hours per Response: Two hours for StormReady, TsunamiReady and Stormready/TsunamiReady applications, and one hour for support applications.

    Burden Hours: 545.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for revision of a currently approved information collection.

    NOAA's National Weather Service would like to add a TsunamiReady Supporter Application Form to its currently approved collection, which includes StormReady, TsunamiReady, StormReady/TsunamiReady, and StormReady Supporter application forms. The title would then change to “StormReady, TsunamiReady, StormReady/TsunamiReady, StormReady Supporter and TsunamiReady Supporter Application Forms”. This new application would be used by entities such as businesses and not-for-profit institutions that may not have the resources necessary to fulfill all the eligibility requirements to achieve the full TsunamiReady recognition. The form will be used to apply for initial TsunamiReady Supporter recognition and renewal of that recognition every five years. The federal government will use the information collected to determine whether an entity has met all of the criteria to receive TsunamiReady Supporter recognition.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; state, local or tribal government.

    Frequency: Every six years or one time only.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17305 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-KE-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Docket No. 131105931-6595-02] RIN 0648-XC970 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Caribbean Electric Ray as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of 12-month finding and availability of status review document.

    SUMMARY:

    We, NMFS, announce a 12-month finding and listing determination on a petition to list the Caribbean electric ray (Narcine bancroftii) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We have completed a comprehensive status review of the species in response to a petition submitted by WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife and considered the best scientific and commercial data available. Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, including the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015), we have determined that the species is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range and is not likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that the Caribbean electric ray does not warrant listing at this time.

    DATES:

    This finding was made on July 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Caribbean electric ray status review document associated with this determination and its references are available by submitting a request to the Species Conservation Branch Chief, Protected Resources Division, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701-5505, Attn: Caribbean Electric Ray 12-month Finding. The report and references are also available electronically at: http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/protected_resources/listing_petitions/index.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Lee, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office (727) 551-5778; or Marta Nammack, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources (301) 427-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On September 7, 2010, we received a petition from WildEarth Guardians to list the Caribbean electric ray as threatened or endangered throughout its historical and current range and to designate critical habitat within the territory of the United States concurrently with listing the species under the ESA. On March 22, 2011 (76 FR 15947), we made a 90-day finding that the petition did not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

    On March 22, 2012, we received a 60-day notice of intent to sue from WildEarth Guardians on the negative 90-day finding. On February 26, 2013, WildEarth Guardians filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, on the negative 90-day finding. On October 1, 2013, the Court approved a settlement agreement under which we agreed to accept a supplement to the 2010 petition, if any was provided, and to make a new 90-day finding based on the 2010 petition, the supplement, and any additional information readily available in our files.

    On October 31, 2013, we received a supplemental petition from WildEarth Guardians and Defenders of Wildlife. On January 30, 2014, we published a 90-day finding with our determination that the petition presented substantial scientific and commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted (79 FR 4877). In our 90-day finding, we requested scientific and commercial information from the public to inform the status review on the species. Specifically, we requested information on the status of the Caribbean electric ray throughout its range including: (1) Historical and current distribution and abundance of this species throughout its range; (2) historical and current population trends; (3) life history and habitat requirements; (4) population structure information, such as genetics data; (5) past, current and future threats specific to the Caribbean electric ray, including any current or planned activities that may adversely impact the species, especially information on destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat and on bycatch in commercial and artisanal fisheries worldwide; (6) ongoing or planned efforts to protect and restore the species and its habitat; and (7) management, regulatory, and enforcement information on the species and its habitats. We received information from the public in response to the 90-day finding and incorporated relevant information in the species status review.

    Listing Determinations Under the ESA

    We are responsible for determining whether the Caribbean electric ray is threatened or endangered under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the ESA requires us to make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account efforts being made by any state or foreign nation to protect the species.

    To be considered for listing under the ESA, a group of organisms must constitute a “species,” which is defined in section 3 of the ESA to include taxonomic species and “any subspecies of fish, or wildlife, or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.” In our 90-day finding we found that the petitioned species constitutes a valid species eligible for listing under the ESA based on the information presented in the petition, along with information readily available in our files. To determine whether the Caribbean electric ray warrants listing under the ESA, we convened a Status Review Team (SRT). The SRT was comprised of NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center and NMFS Southeast Regional Office biologists. The SRT reviewed an unpublished dissertation that separated the genus Narcine of the western Atlantic Ocean into two species: N. brasiliensis, and N. bancroftii (de Carvalho 1999). The SRT noted some taxonomic uncertainty (see Taxonomy and Species Description), but accepted de Carvalho (1999) as the best available information on the species taxonomy. Narcine bancroftii is recognized as a valid species in the Catalog of Fishes, the authoritative reference for taxonomic fish names and taxonomic revision (Eschmeyer 2015). We accept both de Carvalho (1999) and Eschmeyer (2015) as the best available science at this time, thus we maintain that Narcine bancroftii is a valid species eligible for listing.

    When we consider whether a species might qualify as threatened under the ESA, we must consider the meaning of the term “foreseeable future.” It is appropriate to interpret “foreseeable future” as the horizon over which predictions about the conservation status of the species can be reasonably relied upon. The foreseeable future considers the life history of the species, habitat characteristics, availability of data, particular threats, ability to predict threats, and the ability to forecast the effects of these threats and future events on the status of the species under consideration. Because a species may be susceptible to a variety of threats for which different data are available, or which operate across different time scales, the foreseeable future is not necessarily reducible to a particular number of years or a single timeframe.

    Under section 4(a) of the ESA, we must determine whether any species is endangered or threatened due to any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (sections 4(a)(1)(A) through (E)).

    The SRT completed a status review report, which summarized the best available information on the taxonomy, distribution, abundance, life history and biology of the species, analyzed the threats identified as potentially impacting the status of the species, and conducted an extinction risk analysis (ERA) to determine the status of the species. The results of the ERA are discussed below under “Extinction Risk Analysis.” The status review report incorporates relevant information received from the public in response to our request for information (79 FR 4877; January 30, 2014). The draft status review report was submitted to 3 independent peer reviewers and comments and information received from the peer reviewers were addressed and incorporated as appropriate into the draft report before finalizing it. The peer review report is available at http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prplans/PRsummaries.html.

    Section 3 of the ESA defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as one “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Thus, we interpret an “endangered species” to be one that is presently in danger of extinction. A “threatened species” is not currently in danger of extinction but is likely to become so within the foreseeable future. The key statutory difference between a threatened and endangered species is the timing of when a species may be in danger of extinction, either presently (endangered) or in the foreseeable future (threatened).

    In determining whether the species meets the standard of endangered or threatened, we considered the specific life history and ecology of the species, the nature of threats, the species' response to those threats, and population numbers and trends. We considered information summarized in the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015). We considered each threat that was identified, both individually and cumulatively. For purposes of our analysis, the mere identification of factors that could impact a species negatively is not sufficient to compel a finding that ESA listing is appropriate. In considering those factors that might constitute threats, we look beyond mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether the species responds, either to a single or multiple threats, in a way that causes actual impacts to the species' status. In making this finding, we have considered and evaluated the best available scientific and commercial information, including information received in response to our 90-day finding.

    The following sections provide key information presented in the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015).

    Summary of the Status Review Life History, Biology and Ecology Taxonomy and Morphology

    Narcine bancroftii is a species in the phylum Chondrata, class Chondrichthyes, order Torpediniforms and family Narcinidae. Common names for this species include the lesser electric ray, Bancroft's numbfish, and Caribbean electric ray. The SRT titled the status review report and referred to the species in its report as the `lesser electric ray' because the species is almost unanimously referred to as the lesser electric ray, including in the published literature. In our finding, we retain the use of `Caribbean electric ray' for the sole purpose of being consistent with the petitioned action.

    Rays within the genus Narcine, collectively known as numbfishes, occur globally in temperate to tropical marine waters and according to Eshmeyer (2015) are composed of 23 species. Until recently, rays of the genus Narcine within the western North Atlantic Ocean were considered to be one widely distributed species, N. brasiliensis (von Olfers 1831). However, Garman (1913) was the first to notice that there was sufficient regional variability among individuals and suggested that N. brasiliensis could be separated into two distinct species. Later, in a taxonomic revision of the genus Narcine, de Carvalho (1999) separated numbfishes of the western Atlantic Ocean into two species: N. brasiliensis, known as the Brazilian electric ray, and N. bancroftii (Griffith and Smith 1834), known as Bancroft's numbfish, or more commonly, the lesser electric ray. N. brasiliensis is thought to range from southeastern Brazil to northern Argentina, whereas N. bancroftii is reported to range from North Carolina to northeastern Brazil, including the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) and the Caribbean Sea (de Carvalho 1999).

    The SRT noted that “the taxonomy of Narcine in the western Atlantic Ocean remains uncertain because taxonomic changes are sometimes accepted in ichthyology without adequate or supporting proof and the de Carvalho (1999) study remains unpublished.” The SRT pointed out the need for a genetics-based examination (e.g., mitochondrial DNA analysis) of Narcine specimens from throughout their known range in the western Atlantic Ocean to support the presence of two distinct species. However, as we previously discussed (see Listing Determinations Under the ESA), we accept both de Carvalho (1999) and Eschmeyer (2015) as the best available science at this time, thus we maintain that Narcine bancroftii is a valid species eligible for listing.

    Species Description

    The Caribbean electric ray is a small, shallow-water batoid characterized by a flattened, oval-shaped disc, large pelvic fins, and oversized dorsal and caudal fins that cover most of its tapering tail (Tricas et al. 1997). The dorsal surface of the Caribbean electric ray varies from a light yellow brown to a darker greyish brown with dark blotches over the snout and small incomplete eyespots over the disc and base of the tail. The underside of the species is white or cream colored sometimes with grey or brown blotches (McEachran and Carvalho 2002). The Caribbean electric ray has two electric organs that can produce 14-37 volts of electricity (Smith 1997; Tricas et al. 1997). Outlines of these kidney-shaped electric organs may be visible behind the eyes as well as spiracles with rounded tubercles along the edges next to the eyes (Smith 1997). Each organ consists of a honeycomb of 280 to 430 columns, containing several hundred electric plates, and the organs combined account for about a sixth of total body weight (Tricas et al. 1997).

    Range and Distribution

    The Caribbean electric ray is widely distributed in warm temperate to tropical waters of the western Atlantic from North Carolina, through the GOM, the Caribbean, the Lesser and Greater Antilles, and the north coast of South America (McEachran and de Carvalho 2002). Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) wrote: “This Electric Ray has been reported from localities so widely distributed, and it is so well represented in the larger museums of both America and Europe, that it is expected anywhere in the American littoral [zone], provided that the type of bottom and depth be suitable . . .” The southern extent of the range of Caribbean electric rays is uncertain. De Carvalho (1999) reported specimens taken from the southern hemisphere off the State of Bahia, Brazil, however, McEachran and de Carvalho (2002) later placed the southern extent of the range within the northern hemisphere off Venezuela.

    The Caribbean electric ray exhibits a patchy distribution throughout its range and is locally abundant in areas that contain specific habitat characteristics. Fishery independent trawl surveys in the Gulf of Mexico show that the species is patchily distributed (see Abundance and Trends). The species' local abundance is best documented by Rudloe (1989a) who found Caribbean electric rays abundant in barrier beach surf zones and adjacent passes between barrier islands at depths of 8-16 m around Cape San Blas, Florida, in the northern Gulf of Mexico. Rudloe (1989a) collected 3,913 rays from March 1985 to March 1987 from sites in those areas at rates ranging from 3-31 rays per hour. Rudlow (1989a) points out that “the rays were concentrated over an extremely limited area on each bar” and that “As little as several tens of meters change in position could determine whether there were two or 20 rays in the catch.”

    Further, data indicate seasonal variation in their local distributions. Rudloe (1989a) suggested that “rays are localized in their habitats during the warm months at least, and move directly from one preferred locality to another or remain in one area over a period of weeks to months.” The species is evidently migratory but its movements are poorly known. Existing information suggests at least some Caribbean electric ray seasonal migrations are likely associated with water temperature. Bigelow and Schroeder (1953) stated: “Captures of Narcine brasiliensis [bancroftii] off the Texas coast in the months of September, November, and March show that it winters that far north and probably does likewise at least along the southern part of Florida. However, northward along the Atlantic Coast of the United States, to North Carolina, all of the records of it, except one, have been in summer.” Similarly, Coles (1915) reported Caribbean electric rays are present only off the northernmost part of their range (North Carolina) during the summer. Rudloe (1989a) stated that within the GOM, rays were caught in the surf zone at Alligator Point, Florida, from March to December, and no rays were taken anywhere in the area from December to February. Funicelli (1975) reported that Caribbean electric rays are found at the deeper ends of their depth range during winter in the northern GOM, particularly during colder months from November-February.

    Habitat Use

    The Caribbean electric ray inhabits relatively shallow waters, often within the surf zone (Coles 1910; Fowler 1910; Bigelow and Schroeder 1953; Hoese and Moore 1998; Rudloe 1989a). The Caribbean electric ray generally occupies depths ranging from the intertidal zone to approximately 37 m (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Rudloe 1989a); however, there is at least one report of a Caribbean electric ray being captured at a depth of 340 m (Schwartz 2010). Fisheries independent data collected by NMFS verify that the Caribbean electric ray is primarily a shallow water species. From 2002-2013, 5,137 trawls were conducted in the northern GOM at randomly selected stations ranging in depth from 4.7-326 m. A total of 127 Caribbean electric rays were collected, and the mean depth of capture was 9.29 m (range 5.20-17.50 m; S.D. 2.93). Environmental data were collected during these surveys demonstrating that this species inhabits waters ranging in temperature from 21.9-30.2 °C (mean = 27.18 °C; S.D. = 1.57), salinity from 27.7-36.9 ppt (mean = 34.10 ppt; S.D. 2.32), dissolved oxygen from 2.0-3.7 mg/l (mean = 2.85 mg/l; S.D. = 0.99) and turbidity from 0.6-94.0 percent transmissivity (mean = 37.77 percent transmissivity; S.D. = 28.23). These data are consistent with past reports of environmental conditions associated with the presence of Caribbean electric rays (e.g., Gunter 1945, Rudloe 1989a, Steiner et al. 2007).

    The best available information on the species indicates that it occurs predominately in sand bottom habitats. While Caribbean electric rays have a relatively broad distribution in the western Atlantic Ocean, the species is reported to occur almost exclusively on sand bottom habitats (Coles 1910, Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Rudloe 1989a). For example, Rudloe (1989a) determined that “barrier beach surf zones and on [sand]bars adjacent to passes between barrier islands” are the preferred habitat for Caribbean electric rays. Both of these habitats are dominated by sand. Anecdotal reports also document Caribbean electric rays exclusively in high energy beach and sandbar habitats. In NMFS fisheries-independent trawl survey data, all Caribbean electric ray specimens recorded in the GOM were collected over sand bottom habitats. The SRT found only one study of Caribbean electric rays occurring in mud and fine silt habitats (i.e., Dean et al. 2005).

    Caribbean electric rays are generally nocturnal and spend daylight hours buried under the sand. Rudloe (1989a) noted that sampling was limited to night-time when the rays were active. Numerous reports of Caribbean electric ray sightings document that these rays are most commonly found buried in the sand with only their spiracles visible.

    Age and Growth

    There are no age and growth studies for this species. McEachran and de Carvalho (2002) report size at birth at 9-10 cm with maximum growth to 58 cm TL. Observations of Rudloe (1989a) suggest rapid growth during the first year. Rudloe (1989a) estimated that newborn rays less than 14 cm total length (TL) in late summer attain a size of 15-19 cm TL by fall. Rudloe (1989a) reported growth was dormant January and February and then resumed in March, with young attaining a size of 20-29.9 cm TL by the end of their first year.

    Reproductive Biology

    Estimates of size at reproductive maturity for male Caribbean electric rays range from 20 to 26 cm TL (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, Funicelli 1975, de Carvalho 1999, Moreno et al. 2010). Females are reported to reach a larger size than males at reproductive maturity. The smallest reported female with well-developed gonads measured 26 cm TL (Funicelli 1975), and the smallest gravid female measured 27.1 cm TL (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953).

    Rudloe (1989a) observed that all the females larger than 29 cm TL, both in captivity and collected from the field off Florida, were gravid in July. This indicates that the reproductive cycle is annual, and adult females in the population are capable of reproducing each year. Moreno et al. (2010) verified annual reproduction by mature females. Rudloe (1989a) documents that females give birth off Florida in August and September in the surf zone. Rudloe (1989a) also observed a peak in newborn rays at more offshore Florida locations in November (i.e., at West Pass) and December (i.e., at Cape San Blas), but could not determine if these rays were born offshore or had immigrated from the beach. Rudloe (1989a) did not estimate gestation period of Caribbean electric rays. In the Colombian Caribbean Sea, Moreno et al. (2010) found that the gestation period lasts approximately 4 months, with birth occurring from February to April.

    The brood size of female Caribbean electric rays has been reported as 14 by Bean and Weed (1911), 4-15 by Bigelow and Schroeder (1953), 5-13 by de Carvalho (1999), and 1-14 by Moreno et al. (2010).

    Diet and Feeding

    Caribbean electric rays are reported to feed on small, benthic organisms (Moreno et al. 2010). Funicelli (1975) observed annelids in 84 percent of the Caribbean electric ray stomachs he examined from the northern GOM, which was in agreement with the limited data presented by Gudger (1912) and Bigelow and Schroeder (1953). Fishes within the order Anguilliformes were the next most abundant prey (30 percent of individuals), followed by arthropods and molluscs. Arthropods were the dominant prey type found in small individuals less than 300 mm TL (Funicelli 1975). Moreno et al. (2009) and Grijalba-Bendeck et al. (2012) reported similar findings for Caribbean electric rays collected in the Caribbean Sea off Colombia with annelids occurring in the majority of stomachs examined. Both studies reported that arthropods constituted a larger portion of the diet than anguilliform fishes. A diet composed primarily of annelids has also been reported for the closely related Brazilian electric ray (Goitein et al. 1998).

    Dean and Motta (2004a and b) characterize Caribbean electric ray feeding behavior and kinematics. The Caribbean electric ray is a benthic suction feeder with highly protrusible jaws. The Caribbean electric ray has the ability to protrude its jaws by nearly 100 percent of its head length to excavate buried polychaetes.

    Predation and Disease

    Almost nothing is known of natural predation on the Caribbean electric ray. Presumably its electric organs deter potential predators, such as sharks and dolphins. Rudloe (1989a) reported that tagged rays released off trawlers were repeatedly observed to be actively avoided by both sharks and dolphins that fed heavily on other rays and bony fishes as they were culled overboard. A researcher reported observed consumption of Caribbean electric rays by large red drum that were captured on bottom longlines and dissected. It was not clear to the researcher whether the rays were discarded bycatch that were opportunistically consumed or not (M. Ajemian, Texas A&M-Corpus Christi, pers. comm. to Jennifer Lee, NMFS, June 19, 2015). Similarly, there is scant information on disease within the species. Tao (2013) reported that bacteria, such as Vibrio species, are prevalent in the blood of healthy Caribbean electric rays. This condition is not uncommon among chondrichthyan fishes.

    Status, Abundance and Trends

    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Assessment classifies the Caribbean electric ray as Critically Endangered (de Carvalho et al. 2007). The IUCN Red List assessment notes that the species has declined 98 percent since 1972 in the northern GOM according to a study by Shepherd and Myers (2005) of trawl data from the Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program (SEAMAP). The IUCN Red List assessment reports that “similar high rates of decline are seen in the U.S. coastal areas between Cape Canaveral (Florida) and Cape Hatter[a]s (North Carolina) in U.S. trawl surveys between 1989 and 2001 (a decline to 5% during this period)”. The IUCN also states that diver survey data from the Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) program show similar rates of decline for Caribbean electric ray between 1994 and 2004 in eastern Florida and the Florida Keys. The Red List Assessment formed the basis of the petition to list Caribbean electric ray under the ESA.

    To fully evaluate the above purported declines in abundance and rarity of the species, the SRT attempted to find any and all abundance data related to the species. This included a review of the known scientific literature, internet searches, and communication with state and Federal resource agencies that monitor fisheries. There are no population size estimates available for Caribbean electric rays. The SRT acquired the original data sets used for the IUCN assessment and conducted an independent analysis of these data. The SRT also considered a variety of other smaller datasets and encounter reports it acquired in forming its conclusions about the abundance and trends of the species. While some of these other data were anecdotal in nature and couldn't be used to statistically assess trends in abundance, the SRT believed they were useful in illustrating recent encounters of the species. Below we provide a summary of each data source considered and of the SRT's associated findings.

    Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP

    The primary source of fishery independent data reviewed was Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP data. The NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Mississippi Laboratories have conducted trawl surveys in the northern GOM dating back to the 1950s. Early work was exploratory and often only recorded catch of target species. In 1972 a standardized fall trawl survey began as a part of a resource assessment program. Then in 1982 a standardized summer trawl survey began under the SEAMAP. Finally, in 1987, the SEAMAP was adopted in the fall, thus unifying the two surveys. SEAMAP is a collaborative effort between Federal, state and university programs designed to collect, manage and distribute fishery independent data throughout the region. The primary objective of this trawl survey is to collect data on the abundance and distribution of demersal organisms in the northern GOM. The survey is conducted semi-annually (summer and fall) and provides an important source of fisheries independent information on many commercially and recreationally important species throughout the northern GOM (Pollack and Ingram 2014, Pollack & Ingram 2015). A full description of the historical and current surveys can be found in Nichols (2004) and Rester (2015).

    Shepherd and Myers (2005) examined trends in elasmobranch abundance from SEAMAP data using the longest continuous temporal coverage (1972-2002) for the areas between 10 and 110 m in depth near Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana (i.e., statistical zones 11, 13-16). The authors correctly noted that N. brasiliensis has been historically misidentified and is not known to inhabit the GOM. Thus, all N. brasiliensis and Narcine species identified within the trawl survey data were treated as N. bancroftii during the analysis. Using a generalized linear modeling approach to correct for factors unrelated to abundance, Shepherd and Myers (2005) reported a decline of 98 percent since the baseline abundance of Caribbean electric rays in 1972 in the northern GOM, i.e. the number of Caribbean electric rays documented in the survey that year.

    The SRT also used a generalized linear model approach in its re-analysis of the Gulf SEAMAP data. In statistics, a covariate is a variable that is possibly predictive of the outcome under study. Covariates considered in the analysis that may have affected abundance include year, area, water depth, and time-of-day. Irrespective of statistical methodology, the major difference between Shepherd and Myers (2005) and the analysis conducted by the SRT is the former did not take into account major changes in survey design and how they would affect the relative abundance of electric ray. There also was an apparent misunderstanding of how the catch was sorted.

    Because there were major changes in survey design and survey coverage between 1972-1986 and 1987-2013 (Pollack and Ingram 2014), the SRT determined that using one continuous time series as Shepherd and Myers (2005) did was inappropriate. Instead, the SRT used three separate time series: Fall SEAMAP 1972-1986, Fall SEAMAP 1988-2013, and Summer SEAMAP 1982-2013. The Fall SEAMAP 1987 trawl survey was omitted from analysis because the cruise track differed from that of all the other surveys (counter-clockwise around the northern GOM and missed half of the area off Texas due to weather). The SRT extended the analysis of these survey data 11 years beyond the analysis by Shepherd and Myers (2005), to reflect the best available data and the most complete representation of abundance over time in the survey. Similar to Shepherd and Myers (2005), all N. brasiliensis and Narcine (I, sp. were treated as N. bancroftii for this analysis.

    The abundance index constructed for Fall SEAMAP 1972-1986 was limited to NMFS statistical zones 11, 13, 14 and 15 (Figure 1). Sampling outside of these zones was inconsistent; therefore, the analysis was limited to this core area. In addition, all stations deeper than 75 m were removed from the dataset since there were no records of Caribbean electric ray occurring at those depths from any year of the survey. There are, in actuality, only two records in the entire SEAMAP data set of Caribbean electric ray occurring beyond 36.5 m, one in 1972 at 42 m and one in 1975 at 64 m (depths for these stations were verified by the NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/coastal/crm.html). The second index constructed was Fall SEAMAP 1988-2013. Following the methods outlined for the Fall SEAMAP survey, data for this index were limited to NMFS statistical zones 10-21 (excluding 12), and at stations shallower than 31 m. The third index constructed was Summer SEAMAP 1982-2013. Again following the methods outlined for the previous time series, data for this index were limited to NMFS statistical zones 10—21 (excluding 12), and at stations shallower than 33 m.

    There were no discernable trends in relative abundance (CPUEs) of Caribbean electric ray in any of the three Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP indices. All three time series analyzed were relatively flat with peaks in abundance scattered throughout the abundance trend. Within the northern Gulf of Mexico 9,876 tows were included in the analysis, with 624 Caribbean electric rays captured. Most captures occurred off the coast of Louisiana and Texas. Shepherd and Myers (2005) indicated that only 78 individuals were captured from 1972-2002. However, the SRT identified 351 individuals recorded from the same time period, more than four times as many. Shepherd and Myers' (2005) exclusion of data off Texas explains this partly, but the discrepancy also reflects their lack of understanding of how the data were sampled (See “sampled versus select” discussion in Carlson et al. 2016). The distribution of Caribbean electric ray seems to be heavily concentrated along the barrier islands around south Texas and Mississippi and Louisiana. However, off the coast of Mississippi and Louisiana the survey is conducted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ship Oregon II, which cannot fish in waters shallower than 9 m due to the vessel's draft. Presently, efforts are being made to include waters as shallow as two fathoms (4 m) in the sampling universe, but there are only a few research vessels that can sample that shallow. With the proportional allocation of stations by NMFS statistical zone, very few stations may end up in these shallow depths in future survey years. The SRT noted this could lead to a decrease in Caribbean electric rays captured by the survey in the future because SEAMAP is no longer sampling their habitat and therefore would not reflect abundance changes. Overall, the SRT concluded the Caribbean electric ray is a rare species to encounter during the trawl surveys due to their shallow-water habitat and the inability of research vessels to sample that habitat.

    South Atlantic SEAMAP

    The SRT also reviewed South Atlantic SEAMAP data. A similar SEAMAP survey occurs in the Atlantic Ocean off the southeastern U.S. East Coast. Samples are collected by trawl from the coastal zone of the South Atlantic Bight between Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Multi-legged cruises are conducted in spring (early April-mid-May), summer (mid-July-early August), and fall (October-mid-November). Stations are randomly selected from a pool of stations within each stratum. The number of stations sampled in each stratum is determined by optimal allocation. From 1990-2000, the survey sampled 78 stations each season within 24 shallow water strata. Beginning in 2001, the number of stations sampled each season in the 24 shallow water strata increased to 102, and strata were delineated by the 4-m depth contour inshore and the 10-m depth contour offshore. In previous years (1990-2000), stations were sampled in deeper strata with station depths ranging from 10 to 19 m in order to gather data on the reproductive condition of commercially important penaeid shrimp. Those strata were abandoned in 2001 in order to intensify sampling in the shallower depth-zone. Further details are available in Eldridge (1988).

    Neither we nor the SRT could find a reference or analysis to support the IUCN Red List assessment's statement regarding high rates of decline in Caribbean electric rays in U.S. coastal areas between Cape Canaveral, Florida and Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The SRT used a generalized linear modeling approach to correct for factors unrelated to abundance to standardize the South Atlantic SEAMAP data following methods similar to the GOM SEAMAP data. Covariates considered in this analysis that may have affected abundance include year, season, area, and sampling statistical zone. Time of day was not included as a covariate as data were discontinuous due to most participating vessels not conducting 24-hour operations. The abundance trend for this time series was flat with peaks in abundance of different magnitudes found every 5-10 years. The data showed high inter-annual variability in Caribbean electric ray catches in the survey, and catches were very low throughout, but there was no trend in the catch rates suggestive of a decline in Caribbean electric rays.

    REEF Data

    The REEF (www.reef.org) is a dataset that is composed of more than 100,000 visual surveys conducted by volunteer divers during their daily dive activities. This data set has been previously used for evaluating species abundance trends (e.g., Ward-Paige et al. 2010 and references therein) and was referenced in the petition as evidence of the low occurrence of Caribbean electric rays along the east coast of Florida, the GOM, and the northwestern Caribbean.

    The IUCN had cursorily reviewed 1994-2004 REEF data for apparent trends, but had not conducted a thorough analysis. Because these visual surveys vary in duration, location and diver skill level (experience, including experience in species identification), the SRT applied a generalized linear model to examine standardized rates of change in sighting frequency as an index of abundance. The SRT considered area as a covariate based on 8 major sampling areas from the REEF database: Gulf of Mexico, east coast of Florida, the Florida Keys, the Bahamas (including Turks and Caicos), and the northwestern Caribbean (including Cuba, the Cayman Islands, Jamaica, Haiti/Dominican Republic), Greater Antilles (Puerto Rico to Grenada), Continental Caribbean (Belize-Panama), and Netherland Antilles. The SRT also considered skill level of the diver (experienced or novice), the bottom type, year, season, water temperature and water visibility as covariates.

    In the REEF database, Caribbean electric rays were observed on 476 out of 119,620 surveys (0.4 percent). Caribbean electric rays were observed throughout the survey area with sighting records averaging 10-18 percent of the total number of fish in the Antilles, Bahamas, Florida and Central America. Positive occurrences were lowest in the northwest Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. The average depth where diver sightings occurred was about 5 meters generally over a habitat where a diver recorded a variety of individual habitats. The final covariates included in the model were year, area and bottom type. The trend in number of occurrences was relatively flat and similar to the other data series that showed high fluctuation across years. Due to the low encounter rate, there was high uncertainty in the abundance trend.

    The SRT found that relative abundance fluctuated dramatically between years, but found no trend. The final model selected contained year, area and bottom type as covariates with the trend in occurrences relatively flat with the number of encounters rapidly fluctuating over the time series.

    State Agency Data

    As noted earlier, the SRT sought additional datasets that were not included in the IUCN Red list Assessment or the petition. Fishery independent data sets with Caribbean electric ray records were obtained from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FFWRI). The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) also provided the SRT with the 6 records it had from all of its fishery-dependent and -independent programs combined.

    The TPWD fishery-independent nearshore Gulf trawl survey is the only TPWD program that catches Narcine bancroftii somewhat regularly. Trawl collections did not begin coast-wide until 1982 in bays and 1986 in the GOM. Trawl sampling in Sabine Lake began in January 1986, and in East Matagorda Bay in April 1987. The trawl sampling program began in the Texas Territorial Sea (within 16.7 kilometers (km) of shore) in 1984 off Port Aransas (24.1 km either side of each jetty) and was expanded to similar areas off the Sabine Pass, Galveston, Port O'Connor, and Port Isabel jetties in January 1986 (sampling off Port Isabel was restricted to 48.2 km north of the Rio Grande River) (Matlock 1992).

    TPWD provided trawl data for the three Gulf areas that encounter Caribbean electric rays, i.e., Aransas Pass, Matagorda, and Santiago Pass (Mark Fisher, TPFWD, pers. comm. to Jennifer Lee, NMFS SERO, July 31, 2014). Data from Aransas Pass and Matagorda show increases in abundance especially since early 2000. The trend in abundance for Santiago Pass increases until the late 1990s, then decreases to its original level at the start of the time series. Santiago Pass Caribbean electric ray catches were about 0.1/hour from 1985-1990, increased to 0.4/hour from 1991-2004, then declined back to 0.1/hour from 2005-present.

    The FFWRI's fisheries independent monitoring program uses a stratified-random sampling design to monitor fish populations of specific rivers and estuaries throughout Florida. They use a variety of gears to sample, including small seines, large seines, and otter trawls. The program has long-term data sets for Apalachicola (since 1998), Cedar Key (since 1996), Tampa Bay (since 1989), and Charlotte Harbor (since 1989) along the GOM and Tequesta (since 1997) and Indian River Lagoon (since 1990) on the Atlantic Coast.

    Despite the large geographic area sampled and the extensive sampling efforts over time, the FFWRI fisheries independent monitoring program has collected very few Caribbean electric rays to date (i.e., 34 specimens). Of these, 13 Caribbean electric rays were collected from Apalachicola (i.e., 2 per year in 1998, 2004, and 2012; 1 per year during 2000-2002 and 2006-2008, and 2010), 15 were collected from Cedar Key (1 per year during 2001-2002 and 2008, 5 in 2004, 2 per year in 2009 and 2012, and 3 in 2013); 4 were collected from Tequesta (2 in 1998, and 2 in 2009), and 1 was collected from each of Tampa Bay (1990) and Indian River Lagoon (1994). The SRT determined it was not appropriate to analyze these data points further due to the rarity of this species within their samples.

    The SRT also considered the NCDENR data. The SRT determined it was not appropriate to analyze these data points further due to the extreme rarity of this species' occurrence (i.e., 6 records) within their samples.

    Shrimp Observer Program

    The Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Galveston Laboratory, began placing at-sea observers on commercial shrimping vessels in 1992 in the U.S. southeastern region through a cooperative voluntary research effort. In July 2007, a mandatory Federal observer program was implemented to characterize the U.S. Gulf of Mexico penaeid shrimp fishery, and in June 2008, the mandatory program expanded to include the South Atlantic penaeid and rock shrimp fisheries. The program was initiated to identify and minimize the impacts of shrimp trawling on federally managed species. The specific objectives are to (1) estimate catch rates during commercial shrimping operations for target and non-target species, including protected species by area, season and depth; and (2) evaluate bycatch reduction devices designed to eliminate or significantly reduce non-targeted catch. During the voluntary research effort, several different projects were initiated. One project, referred to as a characterization, involved identifying all species in a subsample from one randomly selected net. In the mandatory shrimp observer program, there are approximately 30 species (common, federally managed, etc.) that are selected and subsampled from every sampled net, but other species, including Carribbean electric rays, are only grouped into broad categories (e.g., crustaceans, inverts, finfish).

    Data associated with commercial trawl bycatch of Caribbean electric rays (recorded as Narcine brasiliensis—Ray, Lesser Electric) in the eastern GOM and off the east coast of the United States were available from the characterization project conducted in 2001, 2002, 2005, and 2007. A total of 1,150 trawls were observed, and the catch was sorted in its entirety to the species level. Across all years, 28 Caribbean electric rays were captured during 4,016.6 hours of trawl effort, with 387 and 763 trawls being observed off the east coast and in the northern GOM, respectively. Due to the low occurrence of Caribbean electric rays, the SRT chose not to develop an index of abundance for this species from these data. The SRT believed the low number of animals captured across all years would make the index relatively uninformative. These data were evaluated in considering bycatch as a potential other manmade factor that may threaten the species.

    Anecdotal Reports

    In addition to the datasets reviewed above, the SRT found anecdotal accounts of Caribbean electric rays through various other sources. Many of these additional anecdotal accounts are from YouTube videos by beach goers or forum discussions by boaters and fishermen who encountered the species along the northern Gulf Coast. There are also anecdotal reports by divers around south Florida, along the Atlantic coast, and throughout parts of the Caribbean. A researcher at Auburn University provided anecdotal accounts of Caribbean electric rays along the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Alabama. The researcher observed large numbers of Caribbean electric rays during late summer to early fall over 3 years (2011-2013) of sampling in that particular area during that particular time of year (Dr. Ash Bullard, to Jennifer Lee, NMFS, pers. com, August 15, 2014). The most common anecdotal encounters are sightings. The sightings typically describe the number of Caribbean electric rays observed at one time as very abundant (e.g., “lots,” “everywhere”). One anecdote notes that when you know what to look for they can be seen everywhere. The SRT noted while these reports cannot be used to analyze trends in abundance, they illustrate that people continue to encounter the species in coastal areas around the GOM, South Atlantic, and Caribbean and that when they do the species appears to be locally abundant.

    Conclusion

    Based on all times series analyzed by the SRT, including those used to support the listing petition, the SRT found no evidence of a decline in Caribbean electric ray. Differences in reported trends are related to the more robust analysis used by the SRT in the status review. Moreover, the preliminary analyses in our 90-day finding used only ratio estimators, and we did not have the raw data to derive the confidence interval. No discernable trends in abundance of the Caribbean electric ray were detected in any of the three Gulf of Mexico SEAMAP indices or the South Atlantic SEAMP index. The SRT noted the number of encounters did dramatically fluctuate over each time series, but that it was not surprising based on the species' apparent clustered but patchy distribution over shallow, sandy habitats as documented repeatedly in the literature. As additional support for this characterization, the SRT noted that recent encounters documented through anecdotes indicate the Caribbean electric ray is fairly abundant in specific habitats while consistently absent from others. The SRT was unable to find any historical or current abundance information outside of U.S. waters for the Caribbean electric ray. A non-commercial species, there are no statistics on Caribbean commercial fishery catches or on efforts that would enable an assessment of the population.

    Threats Evaluation A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

    The SRT concluded that man-made activities that have the potential to impact shallow sandy habitats include dredging, beach nourishment, and shoreline hardening projects (e.g., groins). These types of activities can negatively impact Caribbean electric rays by removing habitat features (e.g., alteration or destruction of sand bars) and affecting prey species. For example, annelids that Caribbean electric rays prey on are killed or otherwise directly or indirectly affected by large dredge-and-fill projects (Greene 2002).

    The SRT determined that coastal habitats in the United States are being impacted by urbanization. Coastal habitats in the southern United States, including both the areas along the Atlantic and GOM, have experienced and continue to experience losses due to urbanization. For example, wetland losses in the GOM region of the United States averaged annual net losses of 60,000 acres (24,281 hectares) of coastal and freshwater habitat from 1998 to 2004 (Stedman and Dahl 2008). Although wetland restoration activities are ongoing in this region of the United States, the losses outweigh the gains, significantly (Stedman and Dahl 2008). These losses have been attributed to commercial and residential development, port construction (e.g., dredging, blasting, and filling activities), construction of water control structures, modification to freshwater inflows (e.g., Rio Grande River in Texas), and oil and gas related activities.

    The oil and gas industry may affect marine resources in a variety of ways, including increased vessel traffic, the discharge of pollutants, noise from seismic surveys, and decommissioning charges. Although routine oil and gas drilling activities generally occur outside of the known depth range of the species, miles of pipelines associated with oil and gas activities may run through Caribbean electric ray habitat. The SRT concluded that the effect or magnitude of effects on Caribbean electric ray habitat from oil and gas activities is unknown. The largest threat is the release of oil from accidental spills. While safety precautions are in place to prevent the probability of spills and to decrease the duration of spills, these events still occur. In the GOM, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was an unprecedented disaster, both in terms of the area affected and the duration of the spill. The Deepwater Horizon incident resulted in injuries to a wide array of resources and habitat across the Northern Gulf of Mexico from Texas to Florida, including shoreline beaches and sediments, organisms that live on and in the sand and sediment, and fish and shellfish and other invertebrates that live in the water in nearshore ocean-bottom habitats (NOAA 2015, http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/restoration-planning/gulf-plan/). While there has been no production of oil along the Atlantic coast of the United States to date, there remains the possibility of production in the future.

    The SRT reported on NOAA's Restoration Center's involvement in ongoing coastal restoration activities throughout the southeastern United States. In 2010, NOAA funded coastal restoration activities in Texas and Louisiana using appropriations from The American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009. In Louisiana, where 25 square miles (64.7 square kilometers) of wetlands are lost per year, funding from the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and Restoration Act helps to implement large-scale wetlands restoration projects, including barrier island restoration and terrace and channel construction.

    The SRT anticipated an increase in large-scale restoration projects in the GOM to mitigate the adverse effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and foster restoration of coastal habitat, including those used by the Caribbean electric ray. Numerous large coastal restoration projects in the GOM are expected to be funded by the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act, Natural Resource Damage Assessment, and Clean Water Act settlement agreements related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Many additional restoration projects will also be funded by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, beginning in Fiscal Year 2017.

    While fewer in number, restoration efforts are also expected along coastal areas of the South Atlantic states. For example, funding is expected to be available to support comprehensive and cooperative habitat conservation projects in Biscayne Bay located in south Florida, as one of NOAA's three Habitat Focus Areas.

    The SRT concluded the geographic areas in which the Caribbean electric ray occurs are being impacted by human activities. Despite ongoing and anticipated efforts to restore coastal habitats of the GOM and Atlantic off the Southeastern United States, coastal habitat losses will continue to occur in these regions as well as throughout the Caribbean electric ray's entire range. However, the SRT could find no information on specific effects to the Caribbean electric ray beyond broad statements on the impacts to coastal habitat resulting from development and oil and gas exploration. Data are lacking on impacts to habitat features related to the Caribbean electric ray and/or threats that result in curtailment of the Caribbean electric ray's range. In October 2015, NOAA published a Programmatic Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (PDARP) and Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which considers programmatic alternatives to restore natural resources, ecological services, and recreational use services injured or lost as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The PDARP presents data on impacts to nearshore habitats and resources, but there are no data specific to Caribbean electric rays.

    As discussed above, anthropogenic impacts to shallow, soft bottom habitats have been occurring for decades and are expected to continue into the future indefinitely. However, there is no available information that indicates that the Caribbean electric ray has been adversely affected by impacts to the coastal soft bottom habitats they prefer. Sand substrate is not limiting throughout the Caribbean electric ray's range, and the limited data available on the species' movements indicate they do travel between areas with suitable habitat. The SRT concluded that predictions of coastal habitat losses adversely impacting the Caribbean ray in the future would be speculative.

    B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes

    The SRT details how McEachran and Carvalho (2002) reported for the Narcinidae family that “flesh of the tail region may be marketed after removal of the electric organs in the larger species, but is generally considered to be mediocre in quality.” The SRT notes that in the species-specific account for Caribbean electric ray, McEachran and Carvalho (2002) reported that “the tail region may be consumed as food and considered of good quality, but it is not targeted regularly by fisheries in the Western Central Atlantic.”

    The SRT found no evidence of commercial or recreational harvest of the species. Interest in the species by those who detect it in the surf zone is largely one of curiosity. As Caribbean electric rays are generally nocturnal and spend daylight hours buried under the sand, they likely go undetected by the general public. Recreational fishermen who are gigging for flounder at night are most likely to encounter this species. The SRT noted there are some anecdotal reports of recreational surf fishermen capturing them in dip-nets; however, available data indicate that captured individuals are released.

    Scientific research on Caribbean electric rays has been sparse. Rudloe (1989a) collected and studied the ecology of Caribbean electric rays from March 1985 to March 1987, to assess the feasibility of its use in biochemical and neurophysiological research. Rudloe (1989a) reported catching 3,913 rays at several stations from Cape San Blas to Alligator Point, Florida, during this time period. Of these, 3,229 were retained, 455 were tagged and released, and 229 were released untagged due to small size. Funding for research was discontinued after these 2 years of sampling.

    The SRT uncovered only a few additional studies involving the Caribbean electric ray that post-date the Rudloe study (Dean and Motta 2004a, b; Dean et al. 2005, 2006; Tao 2013). Dr. Mason Dean led a study on Caribbean electric ray husbandry (Dean et al. 2005) and three studies on jaw morphology and feeding behavior (Dean and Motta 2004a, b; Dean et al. 2006). For these studies, samples were collected using a trawl off Cape Canaveral on the east coast of Florida (41 individuals total) and in the northeast portion of the GOM (6 individuals); six individual specimens preserved at the Florida Museum of Natural History that had been collected from Little St. George Island, Florida were also used. Tao (2013), as a Ph.D. candidate at Auburn University, analyzed the blood vascular systems of ten Caribbean electric rays captured in the northern GOM off Alabama for bacteria. The Bullard Laboratory at Auburn University provided the samples for that study, subsequently releasing them alive after collecting external parasites (Dr. Ash Bullard, Auburn University pers. comm. to J. Lee, NMFS, August 15, 2014). Bullard Laboratory at Auburn University sampled an unknown number of additional Caribbean electric rays in accordance with its state collection permit; no record was kept of the number of Caribbean electric rays observed in the field or the total number of individuals examined. A few researchers from the GOM expressed interest in studying the species in the future, but the SRT did not uncover nor are we aware of any directed studies on Caribbean electric rays at this time.

    Captive display of Caribbean electric rays in public aquaria is extremely rare. Due to their selective food habits (i.e., live polychaete worms) and feeding behavior, they are not easy to keep in aquaria (Rudloe 1989b, Dean et al. 2005). The 2008 American Elasmobranch Society International Captive Elasmobranch Census documented two male electric rays and one female electric ray in captivity. They were recorded as Narcine brasiliensis and were in captivity at a single aquarium. The SRT was unable to determine if these animals were still in captivity or the location of this aquarium. Nevertheless this serves as the only record of electric rays in aquaria.

    The Gulf Marine Specimens Laboratory sells 6-24 cm wild caught Caribbean electric rays for $126 (http://www.gulfspecimen.org/specimen/fish/sharks-and-rays/). However, no more than a few are sold annually, and the cost of collection and delivery greatly reduces the likelihood of their use as student specimens (Jack Rudloe pers. comm. to J. Lee, NMFS, August 15, 2014).

    The species has apparent fidelity for specific, localized habitats, thus targeting Caribbean electric rays could adversely affect the population. However, the SRT found no information to indicate that commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational overutilization of Caribbean electric rays has occurred or is occurring. Further, based on the information presented above, the SRT did not expect overutilization by any specific industry in the future.

    C. Competition, Disease and Predation

    The available data reviewed by the SRT on competition for Caribbean electric ray prey species or other resources, and disease of and predation on Caribbean electric rays, are summarized in the Life History, Biology, and Ecology Section. The SRT found no information to indicate that competition for Caribbean electric ray prey species or other resources (e.g., sandy substrate habitat) is negatively affecting the Caribbean electric ray abundance or survival. The SRT also found no information indicating that predation or disease is impacting Caribbean electric ray abundance and survival. Given the lack of data, the SRT concluded that predictions of whether competition, predation, or disease, may impact the Caribbean electric ray in the future would be entirely speculative.

    D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    The SRT evaluated this factor in terms of whether existing regulations may be inadequate to address potential threats to the species. The SRT concluded that although there were no species-specific regulations, there is no evidence that the lack of such is having a detrimental effect on the Caribbean electric ray.

    E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    There are a variety of other natural and manmade factors that may affect the Caribbean electric ray and thus the continued existence of this species. Factors reviewed by the SRT included the species' life history and habitat use, natural events such as extreme tidal or red tide events, bycatch in commercial fisheries, and climate change.

    Life History and Habitat Use

    Rudloe (1989a) believed the species was potentially vulnerable to overharvest as a result of its low rate of reproduction and localized distribution. Caribbean electric rays reproduce annually (Rudloe 1989a, Moreno et al. 2010) with brood sizes ranging from 1-14 young (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953, de Carvalho et al. 1999, Moreno et al. 2010). While it is generally believed that elasmobranchs exhibit life history traits that make them more susceptible to exploitation (e.g., low fecundity, late age of maturity, slow growth), the limited evidence on Caribbean electric ray life-history traits and population parameters (e.g., mature by age 2, females reproduce every year) likely place the species among those elasmobranchs that are more productive. Therefore, the SRT did not consider the species to be vulnerable due to its rate of reproduction. The SRT did believe the species' patchy distribution and fidelity for specific habitats increases vulnerability, but they did not find evidence of this vulnerability having detrimental effects on the Caribbean electric ray. Thus they believed there was no basis to conclude these traits would increase extinction risk into the future.

    Natural Events

    Red tide (Karenia brevis) impacts many species of fish and wildlife in the GOM and along the Florida coast. Karenia brevis produces brevetoxins capable of killing fish, birds, and other marine animals. While red tide events can cause deaths of aquatic species, the SRT has no information on the extent to which red tides may be affecting the Caribbean electric ray. The SRT did not find any reports of red tide resulting in Caribbean electric ray mortalities.

    There are a couple of reports of mass strandings of electric rays resulting from extremely low tides. The National Park Service at Padre National Seashore reported documenting a dozen or so dead electric rays in the tidal zone of Padre Island, Texas, after an extremely low tide event in the fall. Showing no signs of trauma or disease, officials at the National Park Service at Padre National Seashore attributed the mortalities to the extreme low tide leaving them stranded. The SRT concluded that such events have always occurred occasionally and are expected to continue to occur in the future without affecting overall population abundance.

    Bycatch in Commercial Fisheries

    Caribbean electric rays have been incidentally captured by commercial fisheries targeting other species, specifically those fisheries using trawl gear. The likelihood and frequency of exposure to bycatch in fisheries is generally a function of (1) the extent of spatial and temporal overlap of the species and fishing effort, and (2) the likelihood of an interaction resulting in capture and the extent of injury from capture.

    As stated earlier, data associated with commercial trawl bycatch of Caribbean electric ray in the eastern GOM and off the east coast of the United States are available from the NMFS Observer Program. During 2001, 2002, 2005 and 2007, 1,150 trawls were observed and the catch was sorted in its entirety to the species level. Across all years, 28 Caribbean electric rays were captured during 4,016.6 hours of trawl effort. NMFS observed 387 trawls off the east coast and 763 trawls in the northern GOM over this time period. Trawl duration ranged from 0.1 to 11 hours (mean = 3.48 hours, S.D. = 1.41) and occurred at depths ranging from 0.6 to 71.1 m (mean = 15.08, S.D. = 9.04). In the combined areas there were 0.0070 individuals caught per hour of trawling. Examining area specific Caribbean electric ray catch rates, there were 0.0171 and 0.0015 individuals caught per hour off the east coast and in the GOM, respectively. For trawls with positive catch, there was no significant relationship between trawl duration and the number of individuals captured (F = 0.01, P = 0.92), consistent with what would be expected for a species with a patchy distribution. Based on the number of trawls associated with Caribbean electric ray captures (n = 10) and the total number of trawls observed (n = 1150), the probability of capturing Caribbean electric rays off the east coast and in the GOM is 0.0087 (C.V. = 0.3148).

    Acevedo et al. (2007) reported on 99 shrimp trawls in the Caribbean Sea off the northern coast of Colombia from August to November 2004. These trawls were conducted at depths ranging from 14-72 m. Elasmobranch fishes were captured in 30 of the 99 trawls, including 6 Caribbean electric rays. The six specimens were reported for the months of August and September, the only months in which the species was taken.

    The SRT believes the capture of six Caribbean electric rays is likely the result of their patchy distribution and not reflective of overall Colombian fleet annual catch per unit of effort levels. The SRT noted that there are few areas of suitable habitat for the species off northern Colombia because the bottoms are rocky or coralline, and that this also makes most areas in that area unsuitable for trawling. Based on that information, the SRT concluded that it did not believe the documented bycatch is particularly notable or cause for concern.

    The lack of sandy bottom habitat in northern Colombia could also mean that Caribbean electric rays and trawling effort may overlap more in that particular area. However, the SRT did not conclude that documented bycatch in Colombia raises concerns about the status of the species.

    Overall, the SRT concluded there is no evidence that the bycatch of Caribbean electric ray occurring in U.S. or foreign fisheries, including the Colombia trawl fisheries, has had any past impact on Caribbean electric rays. Given that declines have not been documented in U.S. waters where data are available, there is no reason to suspect that declines are occurring elsewhere in the species' range. The SRT further found there is no basis to conclude that operations of these fisheries indefinitely into the future would result in a decline in Caribbean electric ray abundance.

    Climate Change

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that global climate change is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and its impacts to coastal resources may be significant. There is a large and growing body of literature on past, present, and future impacts of global climate change induced by human activities, i.e., global warming mostly driven by the burning of fossil fuels. Some of the likely effects commonly mentioned are sea level rise, increased frequency of severe weather events, and change in air and water temperatures. NOAA's climate change web portal provides information on the climate-related variability and changes that are exacerbated by human activities (http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate). The EPA's climate change Web page also provides basic background information on these and other measured or anticipated effects (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html).

    The SRT concluded that climate change impacts on Caribbean electric rays cannot currently be predicted with any degree of certainty. Climate change can potentially affect the distribution and abundance of marine fish species. Distributional changes are believed to be highly dependent on the biogeography of each species, but changes in ocean temperature are believed likely to drive poleward movement of ranges for tropical and lower latitude organisms (Nye et al. 2009). Evidence of climate change-induced shifts in distribution of marine fish has been recorded in the western Atlantic, the Gulf of Mexico, and in the Northeastern Atlantic (Fodrie et al. 2010, Murawski 1993, Nye et al. 2009). The SRT predicts that increased water levels and warmer water temperatures will have little impact on the species and, if anything, could possibly expand its range off the U.S. east coast. Given what the SRT knows about the species' current depth distribution, the SRT concluded it is unlikely that sea level rise will have adverse effects. Similarly, because the range of the Caribbean electric ray seems to be restricted to warm temperate to tropical water temperature, the SRT concluded increased water temperatures are unlikely to negatively influence the species and could possibly expand their northern range in the future.

    Extinction Risk Analysis

    In addition to reviewing the best available data on potential threats to Caribbean electric rays, the SRT considered demographic risks to the species similar to approaches described by Wainwright and Kope (1999) and McElhany et al. (2000). The approach of considering demographic risk factors to help frame the discussion of extinction risk has been used in many status reviews (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species). In this approach, the collective condition of individual populations is considered at the species level, typically according to four demographic viability risk criteria: Abundance, population growth, spatial structure/connectivity, and diversity/resilience. These viability criteria reflect concepts that are well-founded in conservation biology and that individually and collectively provide strong indicators of extinction risk.

    Because the information on Caribbean electric ray demographics and threats is largely sparse and non-quantitative, the SRT used qualitative reference levels for its analysis to the extent consistent with the best available information. The three qualitative `reference levels' of extinction risk relative to the demographic criteria used were high risk, moderate risk, and low risk as defined in NMFS' Guidance on Responding to Petitions and Conducting Status Reviews under the ESA. A species or distinct population segment (DPS) with a high risk of extinction was defined as being at or near a level of abundance, productivity, spatial structure, and/or diversity that places its continued persistence in question. The demographics of a species or DPS at such a high level of risk may be highly uncertain and strongly influenced by stochastic or depensatory processes. Similarly, a species or DPS may be at high risk of extinction if it faces clear and present threats (e.g., confinement to a small geographic area; imminent destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat; or disease epidemic) that are likely to create present and substantial demographic risks.

    A species or DPS was defined as being at moderate risk of extinction if it is on a trajectory that puts it at a high level of extinction risk in the foreseeable future (see description of “High risk” above). A species or DPS may be at moderate risk of extinction due to projected threats or declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity.

    A species or DPS was defined as being at low risk of extinction if it is not at moderate or high level of extinction risk (see “Moderate risk” and “High risk” above). A species or DPS may be at low risk of extinction if it is not facing threats that result in declining trends in abundance, productivity, spatial structure, or diversity. A species or DPS at low risk of extinction is likely to show stable or increasing trends in abundance and productivity with connected, diverse populations.

    The SRT evaluated the current extent of extinction risk based on Caribbean electric ray relative abundance trends data and the likelihood the species will respond negatively in the future to potential threats. The foreseeable future is linked to the ability to forecast population trends. The SRT considered the degree of certainty and foreseeability that could be gleaned concerning each potential threat, whether the threat was temporary or permanent in nature, how the various threats affect the life history of the species, and whether observations concerning the species' response to the threat are adequate to establish a trend. In evaluating the foreseeable future, it is not just the foreseeability of the threats, but also the foreseeability of the impacts of the threats on the species that must be considered. Thus, the nature of the data concerning each threat and the degree to which reliable predictions about their impacts on the species could be made were assessed. There are no data documenting discernable decreases in relative abundance trends or other data showing that Caribbean electric ray populations have been impacted by identified potential threats. The magnitude of potential threats and factors described above were generally expected to remain unchanged. Thus, the SRT determined it was unable to specify a definitive time frame to define the foreseeable future for evaluating the degree to which demographic factors and potential threats contribute to the species' risk of extinction.

    Qualitative Risk Analysis of Demographics

    The SRT's ability to analyze many of the specific criteria embedded in the risk definitions for demographic factors was limited. There are no data available on age-at maturity or natural mortality that would be necessary to determine population growth rates. Population structure and levels of genetic diversity in Caribbean electric rays are completely unknown, with no genetic studies ever conducted, even for the species' taxonomy.

    The SRT determined that the relative abundance trend information for Caribbean electric rays represents a low risk to the species' continued existence now and into the future. The Caribbean electric ray has a broad range in warm temperate to tropical waters of the western Atlantic from North Carolina to Florida (its presence in the Bahamas is unknown, however), the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea to the northern coast of South America. Within its range, it has a patchy distribution within relatively shallow waters, often within the surf zone. There are no estimates of absolute population size over the species' range; however, analyses of available long-term datasets indicate that the trend in relative abundance is relatively flat with abundance dramatically fluctuating over each time series. The SRT did not find this surprising given the patchy distribution over specific habitat types.

    The SRT found very little information available on the life history of Caribbean electric ray. There are no age and growth studies for this species but anecdotal studies suggest rapid growth. Size at maturity for females is estimated at about 26 cm TL (Funicelli 1975). Caribbean electric rays are estimated to reach reproductive size by the end of their first year, and the reproductive cycle is annual (Rudloe 1989a). The brood size ranges from 1-14 depending on the study. While it is generally regarded that elasmobranchs exhibit life history traits (e.g., low fecundity, late age of maturity, slow growth) that make them more susceptible to exploitation, the limited evidence on Caribbean electric ray life-history traits and population parameters likely place the species among those elasmobranchs that are more productive. Thus, the SRT believed that the species likely will be able to withstand moderate anthropogenic mortality levels and have a higher potential to recover from exploitation and stochastic events. The SRT concluded that available information on the species' demographic characteristics currently represent a low risk of extinction, and risks are unlikely to increase into the future.

    The SRT found no evidence that Caribbean electric rays are at risk of extinction due to a change or loss of variation in genetic characteristics or gene flow among populations currently or into the future. This species is found over a broad range and appears to be opportunistic and well adapted to its environment. In addition, the risk of extinction due to the loss of spatial structure and connectivity for the Caribbean electric ray is low. Caribbean electric rays have a relatively broad distribution in the western Atlantic Ocean generally in habitats dominated by sand bottom substrate. Sand substrate is not limiting throughout the range, and the limited data available on species movements indicate individuals do travel between areas with suitable habitat.

    Qualitative Risk Analysis of Threats

    Regarding habitat threats to the species, the SRT concluded that man-made activities that have the potential to impact shallow sandy habitats include dredging, oil and gas pipelines and pipeline development, beach nourishment, and shoreline hardening projects (e.g., groins). These types of activities could negatively impact Caribbean electric rays by removing habitat features they require. Although specific data are lacking on impacts to the Caribbean electric ray, it is reasonable to anticipate that coastal development will continue perpetually and may damage habitat within the species' range. However, the species does occur over a broad range and most impacts to the coastal zone have more significantly occurred to wetlands, coral reefs and mangrove ecosystems, rather than sand bottom habitats. For these reasons, the SRT concluded that the Caribbean electric ray is at low risk of extinction due to destruction and modification of habitat currently and in the future.

    The SRT determined impacts from overutilization are unlikely to cause the species to be at heightened risk of extinction. There is little to no direct harvest for the species. The SRT considered bycatch in commercial fisheries as one of the natural or manmade factors it reviewed. Caribbean electric rays are very uncommon as bycatch in trawl and gillnet fisheries. Moreover, many states throughout their U.S. range (e.g., Florida, Texas, and Georgia) have banned gillnet fishing in state waters which will further reduce the likelihood of bycatch as a negative impact on the continued existence of Caribbean electric rays. The level of bycatch from U.S. shrimp trawl fisheries is believed to be low primarily because they operate mainly in areas where Caribbean electric rays are not found. The SRT concluded that overutilization presented a low risk of extinction. The risk associated with the level of bycatch from U.S. shrimp trawl fisheries is unlikely to change in the future given the areas where the fishery mainly operates are also unlikely to change. Since 2001, there has been a dramatic decrease in otter trawl effort in southeast U.S. shrimp fisheries, which has been attributed to low shrimp prices, rising fuel costs, competition with imported products, and the impacts of 2005 and 2006 hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Although otter trawl effort from year to year may fluctuate some, there are no data to indicate that otter trawl effort levels will increase in the future from recent levels. Also, the species has been subject to bycatch for centuries and does not appear to have experienced any measurable decline during those earlier periods, based on the relative abundance trends data available. The SRT also determined the risk to Caribbean electric ray from disease or predation is also low now; in the absence of data on past or current impacts to the species, the SRT concluded that no impacts can be foreseen into the future.

    Overall Risk of Extinction Throughout Its Range Analysis

    In this section we evaluate the overall risk of extinction to the Caribbean electric ray throughout its range. In determining the overall risk of extinction to the species throughout its range, we considered available data on the specific life history and ecology of the species, the nature of potential threats, any known responses of the species to those threats, and population abundance trends. We considered the information summarized in the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015).

    The SRT determined it could not define a foreseeable future for their extinction risk. However, we think the available information on abundance trends can provide an appropriate horizon over which to consider how the species may respond to potential impacts into the future. The fisheries-independent datasets from which we evaluated abundance trends span time periods of 11 to 34 years, during which abundance trends were flat, with scattered and varied peaks in abundance. All of the potential threats evaluated by the SRT were occurring at the same time that the fishery independent surveys were performed. All of the activities that constitute potential threats were also projected by the SRT to continue at their current levels into the future. Therefore, we feel it is appropriate to consider the foreseeable future to be the next few decades, or 20 to 30 years, for Caribbean electric ray. Although the lifespan of Caribbean electric ray is not known, based on their early size of maturity and apparent annual reproduction, 20 to 30 years would encompass several generations of the species and thus any adverse responses to threats would be discernible over this timeframe.

    We concur with the SRT's analysis and risk conclusions for potential threats and for demographic factors. The threat and demographic factors identified present either no risk or at most low risk to Caribbean electric ray, now and over the foreseeable future. There is no information indicating that any potential threats have adversely impacted Caribbean electric ray in the past, and there is no basis to predict that potential threats will adversely impact the species over the next 20 to 30 years. The species has not faced threats in the past, and is not expected to face any over the foreseeable future, that would result in declining trends in abundance, spatial structure, or diversity.

    Based on all time series of data analyzed by the SRT, including those used to support the listing petition, there is no evidence of a decline in relative abundance of Caribbean electric rays. No discernable trends in abundance of Caribbean electric ray were detected in any of the available datasets. Number of encounters did dramatically fluctuate over each time series, but we believe this reflects the species' apparent clustered but patchy distribution over shallow, sandy habitats. Anecdotal accounts of recent encounters indicate they are abundant in specific habitats while consistently absent from others. Our 90-day determination that the petitioned action may be warranted due to impacts from incidental take in fisheries was based on one study (Shepherd and Myers 2005) indicating that nearshore shrimp trawl fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of Mexico may be negatively impacting the species in that region. However, further examination of the dataset by the SRT revealed that Shepherd and Myers (2005) did not take into account major changes in survey design and how they would affect the relative abundance of Caribbean electric rays, and did not understand how the catch was sorted, thus Shepherd and Myers (2005) underestimated the number of individual reports in the data. The SRT's analysis showed no discernable trends in abundance of Caribbean electric ray in any of the three Gulf of Mexico Southeast Area Monitoring and Assessment Program indices.

    There is no evidence that potential threats comprising ESA section (4)(a)(1) factors (A)-(C) or (E) have contributed to heightened extinction risk and endangerment of the species. Incidental take in fisheries was the only activity we initially believed might be resulting in adverse impacts to the species due to the decline presented in Shepherd and Myers (2005). However, after further review we believe there is no evidence indicating that nearshore shrimp trawl fisheries operating in the northern Gulf of Mexico or in foreign waters (e.g., Colombia shrimp trawls) are negatively impacting the species in those areas.

    Neither we nor the SRT identified any threats under the other Section 4(a)(1) factors that may be causing or contributing to heightened extinction risk of this species. Therefore, we conclude that inadequate regulatory mechanisms (Section (4)(a)(1)(D)) are also not a factor affecting the status of Caribbean electric ray.

    So to summarize, we did not find that any of the demographic factors or Section 4(a)(1) factors contribute significantly to the extinction risk of this species throughout its range, now or in the foreseeable future. Based on our consideration of the best available data, as summarized here and in Carlson et al. (2016), we determine that the present overall risk of extinction to the Caribbean electric ray throughout its range is low, and will remain low over the foreseeable future, and thus listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA throughout its range is not warranted. We also considered whether any threats or demographic factors elevated risks to the species when considered cumulatively. With no evidence of any decline in the species or other negative impacts to life history characteristics, there is no evidence to suggest that potential threats and demographic factors cumulatively are currently elevating the species' risk of extinction, or will elevate extinction risk throughout its range over the foreseeable future.

    Significant Portion of Its Range (SPOIR)

    Because we found that listing the species as endangered or threatened throughout its range was not warranted, we then conducted a “significant portion of its range analysis.” The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS—together, “the Services”—have jointly finalized a policy interpreting the phrase “significant portion of its range” (SPOIR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The SPOIR policy provides that: (1) If a species is found to be endangered or threatened in only a significant portion of its range, the entire species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the Act's protections apply across the species' entire range; (2) a portion of the range of a species is “significant” if the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; and (3) the range of a species is considered to be the general geographical area within which that species can be found at the time we make any particular status determination.

    We evaluated whether substantial information indicated that (i) portions of the Caribbean electric ray's range are significant and (ii) the species occupying those portions is in danger of extinction or likely to become so within the foreseeable future (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). Under the SPOIR policy, both considerations must apply to warrant listing a species as threatened or endangered throughout its range based upon its status within a portion of the range.

    The historical range of the Caribbean electric ray is in western Atlantic shallow coastal waters, from North Carolina through the northern coast of Brazil (Carvalho et al. 2007). Individual populations are localized and do not migrate extensively, but do move onshore and offshore at least seasonally, crossing between barrier beach surf zones and sandbars adjacent to passes associated with estuarine barrier islands (Rudloe 1989a). Movements also include travel east and west between sand bar habitats (Rudloe 1989a). Geographically as well as quantitatively, those parts of the electric ray's range that are within U.S. waters (Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic) may each constitute a significant portion of the Caribbean electric ray's range because if the population were to disappear from either portion, it could result in the rest of the species being threatened or endangered. However, there is no information to indicate that the members of the species in either the Gulf of Mexico or the South Atlantic have different demographic viability or are facing different or more intense threats to the point where they would be threatened or endangered in these portions. Because a portion must be both significant and threatened or endangered before we can list a species based on its status in a significant portion of its range, we do not find that listing the Caribbean electric ray is threatened or endangered based on its status in a significant portion of its range is warranted.

    Final Listing Determination

    Section 4(b)(1) of the ESA requires that NMFS make listing determinations based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available after conducting a review of the status of the species and taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any state or foreign nation, or political subdivisions thereof, to protect and conserve the species. We have independently reviewed the best available scientific and commercial information including the petitions, public comments submitted on the 90-day finding (79 FR 4877; January 30, 2014), the status review report (Carlson et al. 2015), and other published and unpublished information. We considered each of the statutory factors to determine whether it contributed significantly to the extinction risk of the species. As previously explained, we could not identify a significant portion of the species' range that is threatened or endangered. Therefore, our determination is based on a synthesis and integration of the foregoing information, factors and considerations, and their effects on the status of the species throughout its entire range.

    We conclude that the Caribbean electric ray is not presently in danger of extinction, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. Accordingly, the Caribbean electric ray does not meet the definition of a threatened species or an endangered species and our listing determination is that the Caribbean electric ray does not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time.

    References

    A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Samuel R. Rauch, III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17397 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE750 Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (MAFMC); Public Meetings AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Committees.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held Monday, August 8, 2016 through Thursday, August 11, 2016. For agenda details, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at: Hilton Virginia Beach Oceanfront, 3001 Atlantic Avenue, Virginia Beach, VA 23451, telephone: (757) 213-3000.

    Council address: Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 800 N. State St., Suite 201, Dover, DE 19901; telephone: (302) 674-2331.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's Web site, www.mafmc.org also has details on the meeting location, proposed agenda, webinar listen-in access, and briefing materials.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The following items are on the agenda, though agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's Web site when possible.)

    Monday, August 8, 2016 Executive Committee

    The Executive Committee will hold a closed session and then open to review the letter regarding governance of summer flounder, scup, and black sea bass and coordination of research with SAFMC.

    Unmanaged Forage Amendment Final Action

    Review comments received during public hearings, review Ecosystem and Ocean Planning Advisory Panel and Committee recommendations for final action, and select preferred alternatives.

    Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) Guidance Document

    Review, finalize, and approve EAFM Guidance Document and review and discuss potential framework for integrating ecosystem interactions into fisheries assessment and management.

    Tuesday, August 9, 2016 Demersal Committee Meeting as a Committee of the Whole With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass and Bluefish Boards Summer Flounder Allocation Project Report

    A presentation will be received on the summer flounder allocation model and initial findings.

    Summer Flounder Amendment Alternatives

    Review and provide feedback on the list of amendment issues and Fishery Management Action Team recommendations.

    Summer Flounder Specifications

    Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding 2017-2018 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

    Black Sea Bass Specifications

    Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding 2017 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

    Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Demersal Committee Meeting as a Committee of the Whole With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass and Bluefish Boards Scup Specifications

    Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding 2017-18 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

    Bluefish Specifications

    Review SSC, Monitoring Committee, Advisory Panel, and staff recommendations regarding 2017-18 specifications and recommend any changes if necessary.

    Executive Committee Report Policy on Fishing Impacts on Habitat

    Review and consider approval of draft policy.

    For-Hire Electronic VTR Framework Meeting 2

    Review Framework document and analyses to address issues raised at the June Council meeting, summary of constituent input, and summarize revisions made. Also, select final alternative(s), and discuss the implementation process.

    Law Enforcement Reports

    Reports will be received from the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement and the U.S. Coast Guard.

    Thursday, August 11, 2016 Swearing In of New Council Members/Election of Officers Business Session

    Organization Reports; Liaison Reports; Executive Director's Report; Science Report; Committee Reports; and Continuing and New Business.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to M. Jan Saunders, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17379 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE662 Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    Nominations are being sought for appointment to a new task force of the Marine Fisheries Advisory Committee (MAFAC) to support its advisory work for the Secretary of Commerce on living marine resource matters. The task force will focus on providing information and advice on the establishment of long-term goals for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will appoint the members in consultation with MAFAC and they will serve for a term of up to two (2) years. The terms would begin in December 2016.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be postmarked or have an email date stamp on or before September 6, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Nominations should be sent to Katherine Cheney, NMFS West Coast Region, 1201 Northeast Lloyd Boulevard, Suite 1100, Portland, OR 97232 or to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Katherine Cheney, (503) 231-6730; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    MAFAC is the only Federal advisory committee with the responsibility to advise the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) on all matters concerning living marine resources that are the responsibility of the Department of Commerce. MAFAC is establishing a Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force to assist it in the development of long-term goals for salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River Basin, which is critical to the mission and goals of the NMFS.

    Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force

    This Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force is being created for state, tribal and stakeholder input to MAFAC to support development of quantitative goals for Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead at the species, stock, major population group (MPG), and population levels. The goals will be collaboratively developed to meet conservation needs while also providing harvest (including those necessary to satisfy tribal treaty rights). Shared goals will enhance engagement and understanding by providing a concise, common definition of success, consistent means to measure progress, and improved public support for work across the Columbia River Basin.

    The scope of the Columbia Basin Partnership Task Force will fall within the objectives and scope of the MAFAC; is more comprehensive than any prior goal-setting effort in the Basin; and will encompass:

    • All Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmon and steelhead in the Columbia Basin, above and below Bonneville Dam.

    • Ocean, mainstem, and tributary fisheries that harvest Columbia Basin stocks, including commercial, recreational, and tribal fisheries.

    • Multiple geographic scales (Basin-wide, species, and major population group).

    • All impacts across the salmon and steelhead life-cycle (e.g., habitat, hatchery, hydro, and harvest).

    • Consideration of ecological conditions and of current and future habitat capacity.

    The Task Force will report to MAFAC and will not provide advice or work product directly to NMFS. Recommendations generated by this Task Force's efforts will not result in any regulatory decision, obligate any party to undertake certain activities, or diminish treaty/trust obligations. The input of the Task Force will support efforts that seek common solutions that work for all sovereigns and stakeholders. The strength of the Task Force will hinge on the breadth of regional participation, collaboration, and commitment.

    This Task Force will consist of 25-35 individuals who have demonstrated subject matter expertise regarding salmon and steelhead biology and management in the Columbia River Basin, as well as the interest and ability to work collaboratively and respectfully with other sovereigns and stakeholders to find solutions. Individuals should represent the geographic diversity of the Columbia River Basin, as well as the diversity of interests including state and tribal fish managers; NGO/environmental interests; commercial fishing interests; recreational fishing interests; utility interests; river industry interests; agricultural/irrigation interests; and local watershed or recovery planning interests. At least one member of MAFAC will serve as a member of the Task Force.

    It is intended that the Task Force be established for an initial period of two (2) years with a possibility of extending that term if deemed necessary by NMFS and MAFAC. Task Force members should be able to fulfill the time commitments required for quarterly meetings (mostly by webinar or teleconference and potentially in-person). Members of the Task Force are not compensated for their services, but will upon request be allowed to travel and per diem expenses as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5701 et seq.

    Nomination Materials

    Each nomination submission must include: resume or curriculum vitae of the nominee and a cover letter, not to exceed 3 pages, that describes the nominee's qualifications and interest in serving on the Task Force and how the nominee meets the following criteria:

    • Is able to broadly represent his or her interests and constituency that he/she affiliates with as they are affected by salmon and steelhead management in the Columbia River Basin.

    • Has organizational and/or subject matter expertise regarding salmon and steelhead management in the Columbia River Basin.

    • Has demonstrated a willingness and ability to work collaboratively and respectfully with other stakeholders to find solutions.

    • Contributes to representation of the geographic diversity of the Columbia River Basin.

    Self-nominations are acceptable. The following contact information should accompany each nominee's submission: full name, address, telephone number, fax number, and email address. Nominations should be sent to (see ADDRESSES) and must be received by September 6, 2016. Information about MAFAC, its Committee Charter, current membership, and activities can be viewed on the NMFS' Web page at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/mafac.htm.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Jennifer Lukens, Director, Office of Policy, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17398 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete products and services from the Procurement List that was furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before: 8/21/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Deletions

    The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-00-NIB-1053—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 38R 8415-00-NIB-1054—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 38L 8415-00-NIB-1055—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 38XL 8415-00-NIB-1056—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 40S 8415-00-NIB-1057—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 40R 8415-00-NIB-1058—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 40L 8415-00-NIB-1059—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 40XL 8415-00-NIB-1092—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 42S 8415-00-NIB-1093—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 42R 8415-00-NIB-1094—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 42L 8415-00-NIB-1095—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 42XL 8415-00-NIB-1096—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 44S 8415-00-NIB-1097—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 44R 8415-00-NIB-1098—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 44L 8415-00-NIB-1099—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 44XL 8415-00-NIB-1100—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 46S 8415-00-NIB-1101—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 46R 8415-00-NIB-1102—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 46L 8415-00-NIB-1103—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 46XL 8415-00-NIB-1104—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 48R 8415-00-NIB-1105—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 48L 8415-00-NIB-1106—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 48XL 8415-00-NIB-1107—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 50R 8415-00-NIB-1108—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 50L 8415-00-NIB-1109—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 50XL 8415-00-NIB-1110—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 52R 8415-00-NIB-1111—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 52L 8415-00-NIB-1112—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 54R 8415-00-NIB-1113—Jacket, Tanker, USMC, Pewter Gray, Size 54L Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lions Services, Inc., Charlotte, NC Contracting Activity: Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico, VA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1005-01-511-2152—Sling, M-249 Small Arms Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Land and Maritime NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1005-01-478-0848—Sling, Combat, Close Quarters Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Best Industries for the Blind Inc., Runnemede NJ Contracting Activity: W40M NORTHEREGION CONTRACT OFC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 1095-00-223-7164—Scabbard, Bayonet-Knife Contracting Activity: W40M NORTHEREGION CONTRACT OFC NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930-01-494-2985—Ecolab Omni-Pak, Floor Cleaner/ Stripper, Heavy-Duty, Water Soluble, .5 oz. 7930-01-380-8404—EcoLab Water Soluble Cleaners/Detergents Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired—Goodwill Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930-01-600-5752—Starter Kit, Disinfectant Cleaner-Degreaser Cartridge Concentrate 7930-01-600-5749—Refills, Disinfectant Cleaner-Degreaser Cartridge Concentrate Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Association for Vision Rehabilitation and Employment, Inc., Binghamton, NY Contracting Activities: Department of Veterans Affairs General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7930-01-380-8350—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 1 gal 930-01-380-8475—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 55 gal 7930-01-380-8500—Finish, Floor, Sealer, Non-buffing, High Gloss, Ready-to-Use, 5 gal Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Lighthouse for the Blind of Houston, Houston, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7045-01-392-6514—Greendisk Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: North Central Sight Services, Inc., Williamsport, PA Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: VA Primary Care Clinic, 3715 Municipal Drive, McHenry, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs Service Type: Employment Placement Service Mandatory for: Defense Logistics Agency: National Human Resource Offices, Fort Belvoir, VA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY Service Type: Administrative Service Mandatory for: General Services Administration: Public Building Service Property Development, 230 S. Dearborn Street, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Central Field Office, 536 S. Clark Street, Chicago, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Administrative/General Support Service, Chaplain's Office, Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Great Lakes, IL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Chicago Lighthouse for People Who Are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago, IL Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Administrative Support Service Mandatory for: GSA, Tampa Property Management Office, 501 E Polk Street, Tampa, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind, Tampa, FL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, FPDS Agency Coordinator Service Type: Assembly, Kit Camouflage Supp. Service Mandatory for: Department of the Army: Red River Army Depot, 469 Avenue L, Texarkana, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Louisiana Association for the Blind, Shreveport, LA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W40M Northern Region Contract Ofc Service Type: Switchboard Operation Service Mandatory for: Cannon Air Force Base, Cannon AFB, NM Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: ENMRSH, Inc., Clovis, NM Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA4855 27 SOCONS LGC Service Type: Transportation/Vehicle Operation Service Mandatory for: Brooks Air Force Base, Brooks AFB, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Training, Rehabilitation, & Development Institute, Inc., San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA8901 311 ABG PKB Service Type: Storage & Distribution of Tape, Webbing Service Mandatory for: Defense Supply Center Philadelphia, 2800 S 20th Street, Philadelphia, PA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Service Type: Fabrication of Tool Box Liners Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Repair of Small Hand Tools Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Tampa Lighthouse for the Blind, Tampa, FL Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Parts Machining Service Mandatory for: Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, P.O. Box 97, Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, FL Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Arizona Industries for the Blind, Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Service Type: Parts Machining Service Mandatory for: Naval Supply Center (Bldg 467): Puget Sound, 467 W Street, Bremerton, WA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: The Lighthouse for the Blind, Inc. (Seattle Lighthouse), Seattle, WA Contracting Activity: DOD/Department of the Navy Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17388 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to delete services from the Procurement List that were previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: 8/21/2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Deletions

    On 6/17/2016 (81 FR 39630), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the services listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to provide the services to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the services deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following services are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Types: Library Service Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base, Travis Air Force Base, CA Beale Air Force Base, Beale Air Force Base, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Family Housing Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base, Travis AFB, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Baggage Inspection Service Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base: Air Passenger Terminal, Travis Air Force Base, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Furnishings Management Service Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base, Travis Air Force Base, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Pacific Coast Community Services, Richmond, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Linen Service Mandatory for: Hickam Air Force Base, Hickam Air Force Base, HI Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Network Enterprises, Inc., Honolulu, HI Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Facilities Management Service Mandatory for: Television Audio Support Activity (TASA), McClellan AFB, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: PRIDE Industries, Roseville, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Service Type: Repair of Air Cargo Top & Side Nets Service Mandatory for: Travis Air Force Base, Travis AFB, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Fontana Resources at Work, Fontana, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK, Andrews AFB, MD Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17389 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Notice of Intent To Renew Collection 3038-0074, Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities AGENCY:

    Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Commission) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the renewal of the collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment. This notice solicits comments in connection with part 37 of the Commission's regulations, which requires certain recordkeeping and reporting information collections for swap execution facilities (SEFs).

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by “Renewal of Collection Pertaining to Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities” by any of the following methods:

    • The Agency's Web site, at http://comments.cftc.gov/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments through the Web site.

    Mail: Christopher Kirkpatrick, Secretary of the Commission, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC 20581.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as Mail above.

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

    Please submit your comments using only one method.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven A. Haidar, Attorney-Advisor, Division of Market Oversight, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-5611; email: [email protected], and refer to OMB Control No. 3038-0074.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the PRA, 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 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 before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, the Commission is publishing notice of the existing collections of information listed below.

    Title: Core Principles and Other Requirements for Swap Execution Facilities (OMB Control No. 3038-0074). This is a request for extension of currently approved information collections.

    Abstract: Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) added new section 5h to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of SEFs, which the Commission has incorporated in part 37 of its regulations.1 These information collections are needed for the Commission to ensure that SEFs (and entities applying for SEF registration) comply with these requirements. Among other requirements, part 37 of the Commission's regulations imposes SEF registration requirements for a trading platform or system, obligates SEFs to provide transaction confirmations to swap counterparties, and requires SEFs to comply with 15 core principles.2

    1 In general, this OMB control number covers the information collections in part 37 of the Commission's regulations, including subpart A and the SEF core principles (i.e., subparts B and C). However, any information collections related to § 37.10 of the Commission's regulations are subject to a separate information collection with OMB control number 3038-0099 (Process for a Swap Execution Facility or Designated Contract Market to Make a Swap Available to Trade).

    2 These 15 core principles include: Enforcing rules; listing contracts for trading that are not readily susceptible to manipulation; monitoring trading to prevent market manipulation; obtaining information; adopting position limits or position accountability levels; adopting rules to enforce financial integrity of swaps transactions entered on or through the SEF; adopting rules to provide for the exercise of emergency authority, in consultation with the Commission; making public information regarding prices and volume on a timely basis; maintaining records of all activities of the business of the contract market in a form and manner acceptable to the Commission for five years; avoiding rules that result in unreasonable restraints of trade or anticompetitive burden on trading; enforcing rules to minimize conflicts of interest in its decision-making process; maintaining adequate financial resources; establishing system safeguards; and designating a chief compliance officer.

    With respect to these information collections, the Commission invites comments on:

    • Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have a practical use;

    • The accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Ways to minimize the burden of 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.

    All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. If you wish the Commission to consider information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a petition for confidential treatment of the exempt information may be submitted according to the procedures established in § 145.9 of the Commission's regulations.3

    3 17 CFR 145.9.

    The Commission reserves the right, but shall have no obligation, to review, pre-screen, filter, redact, refuse or remove any or all of your submission from http://www.cftc.gov that it may deem to be inappropriate for publication, such as obscene language. All submissions that have been redacted or removed that contain comments on the merits of the Information Collection Request will be retained in the public comment file and will be considered as required under the Administrative Procedure Act and other applicable laws, and may be accessible under the Freedom of Information Act.

    Burden Statement: Part 37 of the Commission's regulations result in information collection requirements within the meaning of the PRA. These regulations impose requirements concerning the registration and operation of SEFs, including requiring SEFs to continually be in compliance with 15 core principles. The Commission initially estimated that each respondent SEF would incur annually 308 burden hours in connection with collections of information and that there would be 35 SEF respondents for an aggregate of 10,780 annual burden hours.4 Based on the Commission's observation of registered SEFs' operations and compliance with part 37's requirements, the Commission is increasing this estimate and now estimates that each respondent SEF would incur annually 1,000 burden hours. Additionally, the Commission notes that rather than the initial estimate of 35 SEFs, there currently are 22 SEFs registered with the Commission. The recurring annual burden hours for each SEF are increased as noted in the applicable table below.

    4See 78 FR 33476, 33549. (35 SEFs × 308 burden hours = 10,780 hours per SEF).

    Furthermore, in its initial PRA analysis, the Commission did not explicitly distinguish the non-recurring burden hours related to the registration process from the Commission's estimate of the recurring, annual burden hours, but rather provided an aggregated number.5 Based on the experience gained by the Commission during the SEF permanent registration review process, the Commission estimates that each SEF incurs approximately 300 non-recurring burden hours in connection with completing the registration process. The non-recurring burden hours for each SEF are noted in the applicable table below.

    5See id.

    6 In the part 37 final rule release, the Commission estimated that there would be 35 SEFs. See id. The Commission, however, notes that 22 SEFs are currently registered with the Commission. Accordingly, the revised aggregate burden hour estimate accounts for both the increased annual burden hours estimate to 1,000 hours per SEF as well as the decrease in the number of SEFs from 35 to 22.

    7 1,000 average recurring burden hours per respondent SEF × 22 registered SEFs = 22,000 total burden hours for all registered SEFs.

    8 The Commission notes that respondent SEFs also are required to provide 4 quarterly reports and one annual report as part of their recurring information collection obligations.

    9 Based on the number of applicants that have applied for permanent SEF registration since the Commission first granted permanent registration status to SEFs on January 22, 2016, the Commission expects to receive 4 applications per year for permanent SEF registration.

    10 300 average initial burden hours per respondent SEF × 4 anticipated SEF applicants = 1,200 total burden hours incurred for all anticipated SEF applicants.

    Recurring Annual Burden Hours for SEFs Respondents/Affected Entities SEFs. Estimated number of respondents 22.6 Estimated annual burden hours per respondent SEF 1000 burden hours. Estimated total annual burden on respondents 22,000 hours.7 Frequency of collection Once per trade day.8 Non-Recurring Annual Burden Hours for SEFs Respondents/Affected Entities SEFs. Estimated number of respondents 4.9 Estimated annual burden hours per respondent SEF 300. Estimated total annual burden on respondents 1,200.10 Frequency of collection Initial registration. Authority:

    44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Robert N. Sidman, Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17374 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION [Docket No. CFPB-2016-0026] RIN 3170-AA40 Request for Information on Payday Loans, Vehicle Title Loans, Installment Loans, and Open-End Lines of Credit AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    Congress established the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau or CFPB) in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). As set forth in section 1021 of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Bureau's purpose is to implement and, where applicable, enforce Federal consumer financial law consistently for the purpose of ensuring that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services and that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent, and competitive. In discharging this obligation, the CFPB seeks feedback on practices and products that are related to but may not be addressed in the Bureau's concurrently published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Payday, Vehicle Title, and Certain High-Cost Installment Loans (Concurrent Proposal). Specifically, in this Request for Information (RFI), the Bureau seeks comment on: Potential consumer protection concerns with loans that fall outside the scope of the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal but are designed to serve similar populations and needs as those loans covered by the proposal; and business practices concerning loans falling within the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal's coverage that raise potential consumer protection concerns that are not addressed by the Concurrent Proposal. The Bureau seeks comment from the public about these consumer lending practices to increase the Bureau's understanding of and support for potential future efforts, including but not limited to future rulemakings, supervision, enforcement, or consumer education initiatives. Where the Bureau requests evidence, data, or other information regarding a particularly concern about consumer protections, the Bureau does not seek information that directly identifies an individual consumer.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before October 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2016-0026 or RIN 3170-AA40, by any of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include Docket No. CFPB-2016-0026 or RIN 3170-AA40 in the subject line of the email.

    Electronic: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20552.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002.

    Instructions: Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the Bureau is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments electronically. In general, all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov. In addition, comments will be available for public inspection and copying at 1275 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. eastern time. You can make an appointment to inspect the documents by telephoning (202) 435-7275.

    All comments, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, should not be included. Comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For general inquiries, submission process questions, or any additional information, please contact Monica Jackson, Office of the Executive Secretary, at 202-435-7275.

    Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 5511(c).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) that established the Bureau, part of the Bureau's mission is to empower consumers to take control over their economic lives. Section 1021(c)(3) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that one of the primary functions of the Bureau is collecting, researching, monitoring, and publishing information relevant to the function of markets for consumer financial products and services.1 Specifically section 1022(c)(1) directs the Bureau to monitor for risks to consumers in the offering or provision of consumer financial products or services in order to support its rulemaking and other functions.2 Moreover, the Bureau is charged with using its rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement authorities under Federal consumer financial law to prevent unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in the consumer financial services markets.3 In discharging these obligations, the Bureau has studied certain types of loans made to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls, including payday loans, vehicle title loans, and certain types of installment loans. The Bureau also has conducted supervisory examinations of payday lenders and pursued public law enforcement actions against creditors making payday loans, vehicle title loans, and similar forms of credit.

    1 12 U.S.C. 5511(c)(3).

    2 12 U.S.C. 5512(c)(1).

    3 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(2).

    The Bureau is concerned that lenders that make these loans have developed business models that deviate substantially from the practices in other credit markets by failing to assess consumers' ability to repay their loans and by engaging in harmful practices in the course of seeking to withdraw payments from consumers' accounts. The Bureau believes that there may be a high likelihood of consumer harm in connection with these covered loans because many consumers struggle to repay their loans. In particular, many consumers who take out covered loans appear to lack the ability to repay them and face one of three options when an unaffordable loan payment is due: Take out additional covered loans, default on the covered loan, or make the payment on the covered loan and fail to meet other major financial obligations or basic living expenses. Many lenders may seek to obtain repayment of covered loans directly from consumers' accounts. The Bureau is concerned that consumers may be subject to multiple fees and other harms when lenders make repeated unsuccessful attempts to withdraw funds from consumers' accounts.

    The Concurrent Proposal generally would cover two categories of loans. First, the proposal generally would cover loans with a term of 45 days or less or loans with multiple advances if each advance is required to be repaid within 45 days. Second, the proposal generally would cover loans with a term greater than 45 days, provided that they (1) have an all-in annual percentage rate greater than 36 percent; and (2) either are repaid directly from the consumer's account or income or are secured by the consumer's vehicle. For both categories of covered loans, the proposal would identify it as an abusive and unfair practice for a lender to make a covered loan without reasonably determining that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The proposal generally would require that, before making a covered loan, a lender must reasonably determine that the consumer has the ability to repay the loan. The proposal also would impose certain restrictions on making covered loans when a consumer has or recently had certain outstanding covered loans. The proposal would provide lenders with options to make covered loans without satisfying the ability-to-repay requirements, if those loans meet certain conditions. The proposal also would identify it as an unfair and abusive practice to attempt to withdraw payment from a consumer's account for a covered loan after two consecutive payment attempts have failed. The proposal would require lenders to provide certain notices to the consumer before attempting to withdraw payment for a covered loan from the consumer's account. The Bureau's Concurrent Proposal appears in a separate Federal Register notice concurrently published with this RFI. The Bureau is seeking comment on that proposal in the rulemaking docket, which is separate from the docket for this RFI.

    The Bureau is also engaged in pre-rulemaking activity concerning debt collection practices generally and on checking account overdraft services, which some consumers may use in lieu of small-dollar loans. Those practices are not the focus of this RFI. Finally, the Bureau has also proposed to regulate certain credit products offered in conjunction with prepaid accounts, which is also not the focus of this RFI.

    The Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal may not address all potential concerns in these markets. Most particularly, while the Bureau has chosen to issue a proposed rule on payday loans and similar forms of credit for public comment, the Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal does not cover all loans made to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls. Such loans may include other high-cost products, where the risks to consumers from making unaffordable payments may be similar to the types of harms detailed in the Concurrent Proposal. The Bureau is specifically seeking to learn more about the scope, use, underwriting, and impact of such products for purposes of determining what types of Bureau action may be appropriate. To protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, the Bureau is expressly empowered to use all of its authorities, not just rulemaking. Therefore, in this RFI the Bureau is seeking information about certain consumer lending practices to increase the Bureau's understanding of whether there is a need and basis for potential future efforts, including but not limited to future rulemakings, supervisory examinations, or enforcement investigations.

    Similarly, the Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal may not address all potentially harmful practices with regard to products that would be covered by the Concurrent Proposal. Specifically, the proposal focuses on lenders' practices with regard to underwriting and attempts to withdraw loan payments from consumers' bank accounts. The Bureau is thus seeking information on other potentially problematic lender practices and consumer protection concerns regarding products that would be covered by the proposal, in order to determine whether additional Bureau actions are warranted.

    Accordingly, the Bureau is interested in learning more about potential consumer protection concerns that may not be addressed by the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal. The Bureau encourages comments from the public, including:

    • Borrowers and their families;

    • Lenders and their investors or employees;

    • Debt collectors, payment processors, and other service providers;

    • Financial counselors and social workers;

    • Pastors, priests, nuns, rabbis, imams, and other clergy or faith leaders;

    • Accountants;

    • Journalists;

    • Consumer advocates;

    • Banks, thrifts, and credit unions;

    • State, local, and tribal governments;

    • Academics including but not limited to psychologists, economists, sociologists, geographers, and historians; as well as

    • Any other interested parties.

    I. Background

    Throughout American history, the Federal government and the States have taken varied approaches to regulating payday and similar forms of credit. Early on, the 13 original American States adopted interest rate limits of between 5 percent and 12 percent per annum in the early years of the Republic.4 Later entrants into the Union typically followed this pattern and most of these “general usury limits” remained in force throughout the United States during the 19th Century. Later, Congress passed legislation intended to provide protection to consumers in the Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938.5 The Wheeler-Lea Act amended the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act of 1914 to provide the FTC with the authority to pursue unfair or deceptive acts or practices in commerce to protect consumers against oppression that might not amount to common law or criminal fraud.6

    4 These State price limits were based on English statutes. Ransom H. Tyler, A Treatise on the Law of Usury, Pawns or Pledges and Maritime Loans, at 49-55 (1891). American usury law drew upon an older legal tradition. For example, historians report that the Roman Empire capped interest rates at 12 percent per annum. And, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1750 BCE) includes an interest rate limit of 33.3 percent for loans payable in grain and a limit of 20 percent on loans payable in silver. Sydney Homer & Richard Sylla, A History of Interest Rates, at 30, 49 (3d. ed. 1996).

    5 Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938, Public Law 75-447, 52 Stat. 111 (1938).

    6 Richard A. Posner, The Federal Trade Commission: A Retrospective, 72 Antitrust L.J. 761, 765 (2005).

    In the 1960s, Congress began passing a wave of consumer protection laws focused on financial products, beginning with the Consumer Credit Protection Act (CCPA) in 1968.7 The CCPA included the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), which imposed disclosure and other requirements on creditors.8 Congress followed the enactment of TILA with several other consumer financial protection laws. For example, in 1970, Congress passed the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which promotes the accuracy, fairness, and privacy of consumer information contained in the files of consumer reporting agencies, as well as providing consumers access to their own information.9 In 1974, Congress passed the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) to prohibit creditors from discriminating against applicants with respect to credit transactions.10 In 1977, Congress passed the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) to promote the fair treatment of consumers who are subject to debt collection activities.11 Congress has placed limitations on the rates Federal credit unions may impose, generally 15 percent with certain allowance for the NCUA to make adjustments.12 Congress has established a usury limit for loans to servicemembers. In 2006 Congress established an all-in interest rate limit of 36 percent annual percentage rate (APR) on consumer credit extended to military servicemembers and their dependents and charged the Bureau with enforcing this limit in 2013.13

    7 Consumer Credit Protection Act, Public Law 90-321, 82 Stat. 146 (1968).

    8 15 U.S.C. 1601

    9 15 U.S.C. 1681.

    10 15 U.S.C. 1691.

    11 15 U.S.C. 1692. Other such Federal consumer protection laws include those enumerated in the Dodd-Frank Act and made subject to the Bureau's rulemaking, supervision, and enforcement authority: Alternative Mortgage Transaction Parity Act of 1982, 12 U.S.C. 3801; Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. 1667; Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA), 15 U.S.C. 1693 (except with respect to § 920 of that Act); Fair Credit Billing Act, 15 U.S.C. 1666; Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, 12 U.S.C. 2801; Home Owners Protection Act of 1998, 12 U.S.C. 4901; Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1831t (b)-(f); Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act 15 U.S.C. 6802-09 (except with respect to § 505 as it applies to § 501(b) of that Act); Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. 1701; section 626 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, 12 U.S.C. 5338; Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974 (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2601; S.A.F.E. Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, 12 U.S.C. 5101. Federal consumer protection law also includes the Bureau's authority to take action to prevent a covered person or service provider from committing or engaging in an unfair, deceptive, and abusive acts or practices, Dodd-Frank section 1031, and its disclosure authority, Dodd-Frank section 1032.

    12 12 U.S.C. 1757(5)(A)(vi).

    13 10 U.S.C. 987(b), (f)(6). Moreover, Congress has also established criminal laws enforced by the Department of Justice that address some forms of payday and similar credit. First, Congress established a threshold of 45 percent per annum as a limitation in determining whether the government is entitled to a presumption that a debtor believed a creditor used extortionate collection methods in criminal loansharking prosecutions under the Consumer Credit Protection Act. 18 U.S.C. 892(b)(2). And second, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act established a federal crime for collecting an unenforceable debt with a price in excess of twice an applicable federal or state usury limit. 18 U.S.C. 1961(6)(B), 1962(c), 1963. See, e.g., U.S. v. Scott Tucker and Timothy Muir, Sealed Indictment, No. 16 Crim 091 (S.D.N.Y. 2016); Press Release, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Announces Charges Against owner of, and Attorney For, $2 Billion Unlawful Internet Payday Lending Enterprise (February 10, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-us-attorney-announces-charges-against-owner-and-attorney-2-billion-unlawful.

    In addition, in the early 20th Century many States began to adopt small loan laws that allowed licensed lenders to make small consumer loans at interest rates of between 2 and 4 percent per month, or 24 to 48 percent per year 14 A variety of “special” usury limits along these lines proliferated in most States throughout the 20th Century. By 1965, all States limited interest rates on small loans, with an annual rate of 36 percent per annum being the most common ceiling.15

    14 Elizabeth Anderson, Experts, Ideas, and Policy Change: The Russell Sage Foundation and Small Loan Reform, 1910-1940 (March 8, 2006), 16. See also David J. Gallert, Walter Stern, and Geoffrey May, Small Loan Legislation: A History of the Regulation of the Business of Lending Small Sums, at 89 (1932).

    15 Christopher L. Peterson, Usury Law, Payday Loans, and Statutory Sleight of Hand: Salience Distortion in American Credit Pricing Limits, 92 Minn. L. Rev. 1110, 1138-1142 (2008).

    In the 1960s, States began passing their own consumer protection statutes modeled on the FTC Act to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices. The FTC encouraged the adoption of consumer protection statutes at the State level and worked directly with the Council of State Governments to draft model legislation that influenced many state consumer protection statutes.16 Currently, “[e]very state has a consumer protection law that prohibits deceptive practices, and many prohibit unfair or unconscionable practices as well.” 17 At the same time that States have become more active in providing substantive consumer protection, there has been some movement away from State regulation of interest rates. In States with usury limits, a majority of State legislatures have created carve outs for payday loans, permitting licensed businesses to make payday loans with average effective interest rates of over 300 percent per annum.18

    16 Dee Pridgen and Richard M. Alderman, Consumer Protection and the Law § 2:10 (2015).

    17See Carolyn L. Carter, Nat'l Consumer L. Ctr., Consumer Protection in the States, at 5 (2009), available at https://www.nclc.org/images/pdf/udap/report_50_states.pdf.

    18 As discussed in further detail within the Concurrent Proposal, there are now 36 States that either have created a carve-out from their general usury cap for payday loans or have no usury caps on consumer loans. The remaining 14 States and the District of Columbia either ban payday loans or have fee or interest rate caps that payday lenders apparently find too low to sustain their business models.

    As discussed in greater detail in the Concurrent Proposal, some states and municipalities have set other limits on payday and similar lending. For example, Washington and Delaware have restricted repeat borrowing by imposing limits on the number of payday loans consumers may obtain. Through 2010 amendments to its payday loan law, Colorado no longer permits short-term single-payment payday loans. Instead, in order to charge fees in excess of the 36 percent APR cap for most other consumer loans, the minimum loan term must be six months.19 The maximum payday loan amount remains capped at $500, and lenders are permitted to take a series of post-dated checks or payment authorizations to cover each payment under the loan, providing lenders with the same access to borrowers' accounts as a single-payment payday loan. At least 35 Texas municipalities have adopted local ordinances setting business regulations on payday lending (and vehicle title lending).20

    19 Colo. Rev. Stat. sec. 5-3.1-103. Although loans may be structured in multiple installments of substantially equal payments or a single installment, almost all lenders contract for repayment in monthly or bi-weekly installments. 4 Colo. Code Regs. sec. 902-1, Rule 17(B)1, available at http://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?ruleVersionId=3842; Adm'r of the Colo. Unif. Consumer Credit Code, Colorado Payday Lending—Demographic and Statistical Information July 2000 Through December 2012, at 15-16 (2014), available at http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/contentuploads/cp/ConsumerCreditUnit/UCCC/AnnualReportComposites/DemoStatsInfo/ddlasummary2000-2012.pdf.

    20 A description of the municipalities is available at Texas Municipal League. An additional 15 Texas municipalities have adopted land use ordinances on payday or vehicle title lending. City Regulation of Payday and Auto Title Lenders, Texas Mun. League, http://www.tml.org/payday-updates (last visited May 6, 2016).

    In the wake of the financial crisis, Congress adopted the Dodd-Frank Act. Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products and services under the Federal consumer financial laws.21 The Dodd-Frank Act defines Federal consumer financial law to include certain enumerated federal consumer laws, including the TILA, FCRA, FDCPA, EFTA as well as Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act itself. Congress provided the Bureau with a range of enforcement and regulatory tools to fulfill its mission. For example, the Bureau has both supervisory and enforcement authority over all banks, savings associations, and credit unions with over 10 billion dollars in assets, as well as over a variety of nondepository financial companies including payday lenders.22 Congress also provided the Bureau with a range of rulemaking authorities. Section 1022(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act provides that the Bureau's Director may prescribe rules and issue orders and guidance, as may be necessary or appropriate to enable the Bureau to administer and carry out the purposes and objectives of the Federal consumer financial laws, and to prevent evasion thereof.23 Section 1031(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act also provides the Bureau with authority to prescribe rules to identify as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service, or the offering of a consumer financial product or service.24 Rules issued identifying as unlawful unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices may include requirements for the purpose of preventing such acts or practices.25 The Bureau also has the authority to prescribe rules to ensure that the features of any consumer financial product or service are fully, accurately, and effectively disclosed to consumers.26 Finally, the Bureau is also charged with conducting financial education programs to assist consumers in making responsible decisions about financial transactions.27

    21 12 U.S.C. 5491(a).

    22 12 U.S.C. 5514(a), 5515, 5516(a)

    23 12. U.S.C. 5512(b)(1).

    24 12 U.S.C. 5531(b).

    25 12 U.S.C. 5531(b).

    26 12 U.S.C. 5532(a).

    27 12 U.S.C. 5511(b)(1), (c)(1).

    In addition to establishing the Bureau, Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act also prohibits any unfair, deceptive or abusive act or practice in connection with any transaction with a consumer for a consumer financial product or service or the offering of such product or service.28 The Bureau is charged with conducting examinations of institutions within its jurisdiction for the purpose, among others, of assessing compliance with the requirements of Federal consumer financial laws; 29 this includes assessing compliance with the prohibition on unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices. The Bureau is likewise charged with conducting investigations “for the purpose of ascertaining whether any person is or has been engaged in any conduct that is a . . . violation of any provision of Federal consumer finance law,” again including the prohibition on unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices in consumer finance markets. Congress specifically provided that “No provision of [Title X] shall be construed as conferring authority on the Bureau to establish a usury limit applicable to an extension of credit offered or made by a covered person to a consumer, unless explicitly authorized by law.” 30

    28 12 U.S.C. 5536(a)(1)(B) (“It shall be unlawful” for any covered person or service provider “to engage in any unfair, deceptive, or abusive act or practice.”).

    29 12 U.S.C. 5515(b)(1)(A).

    30 12 U.S.C. 5517(o). As discussed in greater detail in the Concurrent Proposal, the Bureau believes the prohibition in this section is reasonably interpreted not to prohibit differential regulation such as certain requirements contained in the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal.

    The Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal may not address all potential concerns relating to loans made to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls. Most particularly, while the Bureau has chosen to issue a proposed rule on payday, vehicle title, and certain high-cost installment loans, the Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal does not cover all loans made to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls. Such loans may include other high-cost products, where the risks to consumers from making unaffordable payments may be similar to the types of harms detailed in the Concurrent Proposal. The Bureau is specifically seeking to learn more about the scope, use, underwriting, and impact of such products for purposes of determining what types of Bureau action may be appropriate. To protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices, the Bureau is expressly empowered to use all of its authorities, not just rulemaking. Therefore, in this RFI the Bureau is seeking information about certain consumer lending practices to increase the Bureau's understanding of whether there is a need and basis for potential future efforts, including but not limited to future rulemakings, supervisory examinations, or enforcement investigations.

    Similarly, the Bureau is aware that the Concurrent Proposal may not address all potentially harmful practices with regard to products that would be covered by the Concurrent Proposal. Specifically, the proposal focuses on lenders' practices with regard to underwriting and attempts to withdraw loan payments from consumers' bank accounts. The Bureau is thus seeking information on other potentially problematic lender practices and consumer protections concerns regarding products that would be covered by the proposal, in order to determine whether additional Bureau actions are warranted.

    Accordingly, the Bureau is interested in learning more about potential consumer protection concerns that may not be addressed by the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal.

    II. Potential Consumer Protection Concerns With High-Cost Installment Loans and Open-End Lines of Credit Not Covered Within the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal

    As detailed in the Concurrent Proposal, the Bureau believes that there may be a high likelihood of consumer harm in connection with loans that would be covered by the Concurrent Proposal. As noted above, the Concurrent Proposal generally would cover loans with a term of 45 days or less or loans with multiple advances if each advance is required to be repaid within 45 days. Second, the Concurrent Proposal generally would cover loans with a term greater than 45 days, provided that they (1) have an all-in annual percentage rate greater than 36 percent; and (2) either are repaid directly from the consumer's account or income (i.e., have a “leveraged payment mechanism” 31 ) or are secured by the consumer's vehicle.

    31 In the Concurrent Proposal, the Bureau refers to methods by which the lender can obtain payment directly “leveraged payment mechanisms.” As provided in proposed § 1041.3(c), in general, a lender or service provider would obtain a leveraged payment mechanism if it has the right to initiate a transfer of money, through any means, from a consumer's account to satisfy an obligation on a loan, except that the lender or service provider does not obtain a leverage payment mechanism by initiating a one-time electronic fund transfer immediately after the consumer authorizes the transfer, has the contractual right to obtain payment directly from the consumer's employer or other source of income, or requires the consumer to repay the loan through a payroll deduction or deduction from another source of income.

    Thus, the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal would not cover either closed-end installment loans or open-end lines of credit with durations longer than 45 days with no vehicle title or leveraged payment mechanisms, regardless of the total cost of credit. The Bureau's Concurrent Proposal also would not cover loans that fall within the proposed exceptions, including non-recourse pawn loans, certain money purchase loans, real-estate secured credit, student loans, and credit card loans. In this RFI, the Bureau refers to loans that fall outside the scope of the proposal as “non-covered products.”

    The Bureau believes that most loans made to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls would fall within the scope of the proposal. As discussed further in the Concurrent Proposal, these consumers tend to have low or non-existent credit scores and limited access to mainstream sources of credit. The loans that are made to them tend to be at a high interest rate and the Bureau believes that, with most of these loans, lenders generally obtain either a security interest in the borrower's vehicle or the ability to secure repayment directly from the consumer's deposit account or paycheck. On the other hand, the Bureau also has identified a limited number of lenders offering non-covered longer duration loans with high annual percentage rates that lack a vehicle security interest or leveraged payment mechanism and that may raise consumer protection concerns.32

    32 For example, in New Mexico, Idaho, Utah, and Wisconsin The CashStore offers 140 day installment loans of $500 repayable in cash only with a 780 percent APR. Cash Store APR And Rate Card Information, Thecashstore.com, https://www.cashstore.com/apr-rate-card (last visited March 24, 2016). In Utah, Mountain Loan Centers, Inc. has offered seven month, 432 percent APR, “signature” loans of $800 with no post-dated check or account access. Mountain Loan Centers, Inc. v. Audra Crizer, Complaint, Fourth Judicial District Court, Utah (March 25, 2015). See also Mountain Loan Centers, Inc., Mountain Loan Centers Get $5000! EZ Approval!, YouTube (Nov. 7, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtipWKKOoAo (advertisement stating “we don't hold a check and we don't even care if you have a bank account.”). And in Missouri Capital Solutions Investments, Inc. (d/b/a Loan Express Co.) has made five month loans of $100 with no account access and an interest rate of 199 percent APR. Hollins v. Capital Solutions Investments, Inc. 477 SW.3d 19, 21 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015); Defendant's Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts Supporting Motion for Summary Judgment, Exhibit B-1, Case, Hollins v. Capital Solutions Investments, Inc., No. 11SL-CC04216 Div. 7, (Mo. Cir. Ct. St. Louis County, 21st Jud. Cir. Nov. 7, 2012).

    The Bureau believes that some non-covered products may be different in significant ways from loans that would be covered under the Concurrent Proposal. For example, in bona fide pawn transactions, borrowers grant a possessory security interest in personal property in exchange for a non-recourse loan. Because these loans are non-recourse and because the consumer turns over physical possession of the collateral to the lender at the outset, the Bureau believes the consumer risks posed by these loans are somewhat different from the consumer risks posed by other high-cost products. In a bona fide pawn loan, the borrower has the option to either repay the loan or permit the pawnbroker to retain and sell the pledged collateral at the end of the loan term, relieving the borrower of any additional financial obligation, and the process of surrendering the item may reinforce to the consumer what the consequences will be if the consumer is later unable to repay the pawn loan.

    The Bureau is seeking additional information about forms of non-covered credit offered to the types of consumers who use covered loans to deal with cash shortfalls, including the types and volume of installment and open-end credit products that would not be covered by the Concurrent Proposal and are offered in this market segment, their pricing structures, and lenders' practices with regard to marketing, underwriting, servicing and collections. For example, an installment loan or open-end line of credit without a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security interest would be beyond the scope of the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal even if the agreement calls for non-amortizing, interest-only payments and without regard to the cost. Such loans could raise substantial consumer protection concerns and might potentially be unfair, deceptive, or abusive depending on the circumstances, including instances where there are long-term financial hardships imposed by such loans or where consumers fail to understand the payment structure of the loans. Since such loans lack vehicle security or leveraged payment mechanisms, the Bureau is also particularly interested in any other mechanisms or practices that lenders may use with regard to such loans to mitigate the risk that consumers would be unable to repay their loans.

    Because Congress has charged the Bureau with protecting consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive credit practices, the Bureau is interested in learning more about the potential consumer protection concerns that may arise in high-cost loans that are not covered by the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal. The Bureau is also looking ahead to anticipate potential changes in the consumer lending market in response to both the Concurrent Proposal and other regulatory and economic developments. Accordingly, the Bureau seeks public feedback to better understand the prevalence of problematic business practices in this market.

    While the Bureau invites all comments relevant to this general topic, the Bureau specifically invites commenters to address the following questions. With respect to these non-covered, high-cost, longer-duration installment loans and open-end lines of credit that lack vehicle security or leveraged payment features:

    1. Is there a viable business model in extending high-cost, non-covered loans for terms longer than 45 days without regard to the borrower's ability to repay the loan as scheduled? If so, what are the essential characteristics of this business model or models and what consumer protection concerns, if any, are associated with such practices? For example:

    a. Are there non-covered loan products with particular payment structures that make it viable for a lender to extend loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay?

    b. Are there non-covered loan products with security or possessory interests in products or documents other than the consumer's vehicle (and without leveraged access to the consumer's transaction account) that make it viable for a lender to extend loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay?

    c. Are there particular collection practices that make it viable for lenders to make high-cost, non-covered loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay?

    d. Are there other loan features or practices that make it viable for lenders to extend loans without regard to the consumer's ability to repay?

    e. To the extent there are loans made in categories a through d, how prevalent are such practices? How easy is it for consumers to find and obtain such products? To what extent are these loans leading to injury to consumers? To what extent are consumers aware of the costs and risks of such loans?

    f. Are there changes in technology or the market that make such practices more likely to develop or spread in the future?

    2. To the extent that certain business models enable lenders to extend non-covered loans to consumers facing liquidity shortfalls without regard to the consumer's ability to repay, what factors might limit or encourage growth of these business models going forward?

    a. What are the State and Federal regulations that affect their viability and growth?

    b. What effect, if any, would the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal, if finalized, have on their viability and growth?

    c. Are technology, investment, and other market factors affecting their viability and growth?

    d. What factors affect competition in these markets, particularly the emergence of new market players and development of new product alternatives?

    3. To what extent are consumers able to protect themselves in the selection or use of products identified in response to questions number 1(a) through 1(d)? For example:

    a. What evidence, data, or other information exists with respect to the ability of consumers to shop effectively for products of the type described above and for alternative products that may better serve consumers' needs? Are there currently Web sites or other digital tools that facilitate effective price comparison among lenders offering products designed to serve the needs of liquidity-constrained borrowers, including comparison of prices, prior to surrendering personal information such as names, email addresses, and bank account numbers? Are consumers in search of a loan to meet a liquidity shortfall able to avail themselves of common internet search engines to effectively shop for loans to meet their needs?

    b. Are new business entrants in the market for high-cost, non-covered loans able to offer loans at a lower cost than those offered by established lenders? What factors enhance or inhibit the ability of new market entrants to do so? Are new business entrants with lower pricing able to effectively raise customer awareness about the benefits of their products in comparison to established covered or non-covered loans?

    c. Are there cognitive, behavioral, or psychological limitations that make it more difficult for consumers facing a liquidity crisis to shop effectively for a non-covered loan to meet their needs?

    d. Are there marketing practices or loan features that take advantage of these cognitive, behavioral, or psychological limitations?

    e. What evidence, data, or other information exists with respect to the existence and prevalence of any such limitations, marketing practices, or loan features?

    III. Potential Consumer Harm from Garnishment Orders, Judgment Liens, or Other Forms of Enhanced Collection

    As discussed above, the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal would cover high-cost, longer-term loans that include a leveraged payment mechanism or a vehicle security interest and would generally require lenders making such loans to first reasonably determine whether the consumer has the ability to repay the loan.33 The Bureau anticipates that, if the Concurrent Proposal is finalized, even where lenders do successfully determine a consumer's ability to repay, some consumers will nonetheless end up defaulting on their loans if, for example, the consumer becomes disabled and is unable to work for a prolonged period of time.

    33 Under the Concurrent Proposal a lender with a leveraged payment mechanism generally includes a lender that has the right to initiate a transfer of money from a consumer's transaction account to satisfy an obligation, to obtain payment directly from the consumer's employer or other source of income, or to require the consumer to repay the loan through a payroll deduction or deduction from another source of income.

    The Bureau's Concurrent Proposal does not address the collection practices of lenders making covered loans. The Bureau anticipates that at a future date it will be issuing a proposal to regulate debt collection practices that will apply to the collection of covered and non-covered loans alike. But the Bureau is concerned that there may be certain practices that are more prevalent with respect to high-cost loans made to consumers facing cash shortfalls and that pose serious risks for such consumers. The Bureau is concerned that these practices could become more prevalent with covered or non-covered high-cost loans if the Bureau finalizes the Concurrent Proposal.

    In particular, the Bureau seeks information about possible alternatives to leveraged payment mechanisms and vehicle security interests that may exist currently or develop in response to the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal and market or technology changes. For example, the laws of some States allow creditors to sue borrowers over a debt, and subsequently obtain garnishment orders that permit lenders to seize borrowers' wages, bank account funds, or vehicles under some circumstances. The Federal CCPA and implementing regulations issued by the Department of Labor provide some protection for consumers by limiting the amount of wages that can be garnished during a pay period.34 Moreover, State and Federal due process guarantees as well as debtor asset exemption statutes also provide borrowers with some protection. However, the Bureau's market monitoring and research suggests that State laws vary widely in this regard and may place burdens on consumers that they may not be prepared to meet and that the consumer financial services market has seen substantial and potentially problematic innovation and change in recent years. For example, a recent case in the Missouri Court of Appeals highlights a lender practice of allowing interest and fees to accrue post-default—as discussed further in part V of this RFI—and then suing and obtaining a garnishment order for amounts that a concurring opinion found “shocks the conscience” such as the following seven consumers that “exemplif[ied] the situation of the class action members in this case”:

    34 Subject to certain exceptions, the Title III of the Consumer Credit Protection Act protects employees by limiting the amount of earnings that may be garnished in any workweek or pay period to the lesser of 25 percent of disposable earnings or the amount by which disposable earnings are greater than 30 times the federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. 15 U.S.C. 1673(a). This limit applies regardless of how many garnishment orders an employer receives. The Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. Wages and Hours Worked: Wage Garnishment, Department of Labor, https://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/garnish.htm (last visited May 24, 2016).

    Class member, D.W., took out a $100 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against him for $705.18; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $3.174.81 has been collected, and a balance of $4.105.77 remains

    Class member, S.S., took out an $80 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against her for $2.137.68; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $5.346.41 has been collected, and a balance of $19,643.48 remains.

    Class member, C.R., took out a $155 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against her for $1.686.93; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $9.566.15 has been collected, and a balance of $2.162.07 remains.

    Class member, C.N., took out a $155 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against him for $1.627.44. There is now a lien on C.N.'s property.

    Class member, S.L., took out a $360 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against her for $1.305.17; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $6.021.80 has been collected, and a balance of $2.182.90 remains.

    Class member, F.H., took out a $100 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against her for $380.82; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $3.935.54 has been collected, and a balance of $707.98 remains.

    Class member, B.D., took out a $200 loan from CSI. A judgment was entered against her for $853.05; the garnishment is still pending. So far, $4.692.31 has been collected, and a balance of $1.531.57 remains.35

    35Hollins v. Capital Sols. Investments, Inc., 477 SW.3d at 27.

    The Bureau believes that business practices of this nature, which might be referred to as enhanced collections practices, may raise substantial consumer protection concerns. Therefore, the Bureau requests information about methods creditors may use in connection with loans covered under the Concurrent Proposal or with non-covered loans to seize wages, funds, vehicles or other forms of personal property from borrowers that face liquidity crisis and obtain loans outside mainstream credit systems.

    4. Are there practices in obtaining or using wage garnishment orders to collect covered or non-covered loans that raise consumer protection concerns? If so, what data, evidence, or other information tends to show these concerns exist or are likely to emerge in the future?

    5. Are there practices in obtaining or using attachment or garnishment orders to seize funds from deposit accounts, prepaid cards, or other consumer assets to collect covered or non-covered loans that raise consumer protection concerns? If so, what data, evidence, or other information tends to show these concerns exist or are likely to emerge in the future?

    6. Are there practices in obtaining or using judgment liens on vehicles or other consumer goods that raise consumer protection concerns? If so, what data, evidence, or other information tends to show these concerns exist or are likely to emerge in the future?

    7. With respect to each of these questions, what is the prevalence of these practices in the current market? And, can the Bureau reasonably anticipate that these practices would increase or decrease if the Bureau were to finalize a rule along the lines of the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal? If so, why?

    8. Do particular Federal, State, or local laws affect consumer protection concerns associated with enhanced collection practices that would not be addressed by the Concurrent Proposal?

    IV. Potential Consumer Harm From Loan Churning, Prepayment Penalties, and Slowly Amortizing Credit in Covered and Non-Covered High-Cost Credit

    The Bureau's research into high-cost installment loans indicates that a substantial percentage of consumers refinance their loans during the term of their loans. Under the Concurrent Proposal, where consumers reborrow because their loan payments have proven to be unaffordable, a presumption would apply that a new loan with similar payment terms would likewise be unaffordable. However, that presumption would not apply in circumstances in which there is not an indication of financial distress or evidence that the refinancing was masking unaffordability of the outstanding loan.

    The Bureau is concerned, however, that under certain circumstances lenders may have an incentive to encourage borrowers to refinance their loans in a way that creates extended patterns of payment that do not serve consumers' interests. These patterns of extended repayment may be caused or exacerbated by marketing or business practices that tend to frustrate the ability of borrowers to understand their loan terms. For example, some lenders may structure their loans such that a refinancing generates additional revenue for the lender, beyond the incremental finance charges, as a result of prepayment penalties, rebates calculated under the Rule of 78s, new origination fees, or new fees to purchase ancillary products associated with the refinancing. Moreover, because, in some high-cost loans, repayment of loan principal does not occur until the final few payments of the borrower's payment schedule, refinancing can deprive borrowers of the opportunity to make substantial progress in escaping their debts. The Bureau seeks to better understand the use of incentives and sales practices that might encourage borrowers to refinance high-cost loans, including practices that encourage refinancing after the consumer has made multiple payments allocated to interest and fees, but before making substantial progress reducing the loan principal.

    The Bureau also requests information about the nature of consumer protection concerns associated with the imposition of prepayment penalties in longer-duration, high-cost covered loans and also whether comparable concerns exist in non-covered loan products. In the Concurrent Proposal, the Bureau has noted that penalizing consumers for prepaying loans with durations of less than 24 months is likely to be inconsistent with consumers' expectations for their loans and may prevent consumers from repaying debts that they otherwise would be able to retire. Accordingly the proposal would prohibit lenders from imposing a prepayment penalty in connection with certain covered longer duration loans that are made under a conditional exemption from the proposed ability-to-repay requirements. While the Bureau believes there is a basis for proposing to prohibit prepayment penalties from conditionally exempt covered loans, the Bureau requests further information about whether consumer protection concerns may exist more generally with respect to prepayment penalties incorporated into longer duration covered and non-covered loans marketed to consumers facing liquidity crises. In particular, the Bureau seeks to explore whether there may be informal methods of imposing prepayment penalties, such as denial of a promised rebate, which could make it more costly for borrowers in either covered or non-covered longer duration high-cost loans to repay those loans. The Bureau also seeks to obtain more information about the prevalence of prepayment penalties and potential consumer protection concerns associated with non-covered, longer duration, high-cost loans.

    The Bureau is also concerned that, for borrowers facing cash shortfalls that lack access to the mainstream credit system, loans could be structured in such a way that even if borrowers have the ability to make their payments, doing so could cause borrowers to suffer undue, long-term hardships. These hardships could be caused or exacerbated by marketing, business practices, or contract terms that tend to frustrate the ability of borrowers to understand their payment obligations or otherwise interfere with their ability to protect their interests. For example, a lender might aggressively market a payment-option, adjustable-rate installment loan that allows borrowers to temporarily make negatively amortizing payments until a later recast date. After the recast date, borrowers facing larger, adjusted installment payment obligations could be vulnerable to payment shock because their income may be insufficient to cover the adjusted payment along with their other obligations and basic living expenses at that time.

    Similarly, a lender might offer a fully amortizing loan with a sufficiently long term and high interest rate and apply most payments to interest for a large portion of the loan's life. Consider, for example, a $500 consumer loan with a 450 percent APR and a two-year duration payable in equal monthly installments. This borrower would face 24 monthly payments of about $188 each. After the first three months, a successfully repaying borrower would have repaid more than the initial amount financed, but reduced that balance by less than 50 cents. After 18 of 24 payments, the successfully repaying borrower would still owe over $400 of the $500 originally borrowed. Under the Bureau's Concurrent Proposal, if the loan included a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security interest, the lender would be required to reach a reasonable determination of the borrower's ability to repay each $188 monthly payment. On the other hand, a lender making this loan without a leveraged payment mechanism or vehicle security interest would not be subject to the proposed ability-to-repay requirement. In either case, the Bureau requests information about whether loans along the lines of these or similar examples currently exist or could be anticipated to evolve if the Bureau finalizes the Concurrent Proposal.

    With respect to these potential concerns:

    9. Are there marketing or other business practices with respect to lender incentives or encouragement of loan refinancing that raise consumer protection concerns?

    a. If so, what specific business practices or contractual terms are associated with consumer harm?

    b. What data, evidence, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm associated with these practices?

    10. Are there circumstances in which the imposition of prepayment penalties raises consumer protection concerns in non-covered loans marketed to consumers facing a liquidity crisis?

    a. If so, what specific contractual terms or business activities are associated with consumer harm?

    b. What evidence, data, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm associated with prepayment penalties in non-covered loans?

    11. Are there methods of imposing informal penalties for prepayment, such as withholding a promised rebate, which raise consumer protection concerns in either covered or non-covered loans marketed to consumers facing liquidity crisis?

    a. If so, specifically what contractual terms or business activities are associated with consumer harm?

    b. What evidence, data, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm associated with such informal penalties for prepayment.

    12. Are there circumstances in which excessively slow amortization of high-cost installment loans or open-end lines of credit raise consumer protection concerns?

    a. If so, what specific contractual terms or business activities are associated with consumer harm?

    b. To what extent are consumers aware of the costs and risks of such loans? Are there other factors that might frustrate the ability of consumers to protect their interests in using such loans?

    c. Is there consumer harm from loan payment schedules where the bulk of repayment allocated to principal occurs in the final few payments of an even-payment loan? What specific criteria should the Bureau consider in identifying such consumer harm, if any?

    d. What data, evidence, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm, if any, associated with payment schedules of this type?

    e. What evidence exists that consumers who make an even-payment understand that the lower principal is not being evenly paid down?

    13. With respect to each of these questions, what is the prevalence of these practices in the current market? And, can the Bureau reasonably anticipate that these practices would increase or decrease if the Bureau were to issue a final rule along the lines of the Bureau's notice of proposed rulemaking? If so, why?

    V. Potential Consumer Harm From Default Interest Rates, Late Payment Penalties, Teaser Rate Loans, or Other Back-End Pricing Practices

    In the Bureau's experience, post-delinquency or default revenue terms such as late fees, default interest rates, or other contractual remedies can lead to consumer protection concerns. For example, in 2009 Congress adopted the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act (CARD Act) to curb excessive or unfair late fees by generally requiring card issuers to refrain from imposing a late fee unless the creditor has adopted reasonable policies and procedures to ensure that consumers are given at least 21 days to pay their bill and by limiting late fees to an amount that is “reasonable and proportional” to the violation of the account terms in question.36

    36 15 U.S.C. 1665d, 1666b. To assist credit card issuers in complying with their CARD Act obligations Regulation Z establishes a safe harbor benchmark for reasonable and proportional penalty fees. 12 CFR 1026.52(b)(1)(ii).

    Unlike credit card markets, there are currently no broadly applicable Federal rules comparable to the CARD Act's late payment provisions for consumers of high-cost payday, vehicle title, installment loans, or open-end lines of credit. The Bureau seeks information about whether post-delinquency or default revenue terms such as late fees, default interest rates, or other back-end pricing practices may create a mismatch between borrowers' expectations and their actual experiences with their loans over time. For example, some consumers may have the ability to repay at origination but changes in their circumstances such as illness, loss of employment, family disruptions such as divorce or separation, or unexpected expenses could nevertheless lead to delinquency or default. Similarly, some consumers may fall into arrears due to inattention to detail, miscommunication, payment system delay, or clerical error. The Bureau seeks to learn whether revenue generation provisions imposed on consumers in these and similar situations may raise consumer protection concerns.37 The Bureau is not, however, soliciting information in this RFI on the examples of such practices that would constitute evasions of the Concurrent Proposal, as described in proposed § 1041.19 and its commentary.

    37 For example, Mountain Loan Centers' seven-month, 432 percent APR “signature” loans of $800 include a default interest rate of 600 percent imposed when any installment payment is more than three days past due. Complaint, Mountain Loan Centers, Inc. v. Audra Crizer, No. 159401338.

    The Bureau is also aware that teaser rate products can, under some circumstances, give rise to consumer protection concerns. With a teaser rate, the initial interest rate and payment may remain in effect for a limited period of time. For some such loans, the initial rate and payment can vary considerably from the rate and payment obligations later on. Teaser rate loans can lead to unexpected “payment shock” when borrowers face payments associated with a recast interest rate that increases borrower payments.38 The Bureau seeks to learn whether covered or non-covered high-cost loans made to consumers facing liquidity crisis are being offered with teaser rate features. If so, the Bureau would like to obtain information about whether the use of teaser rate loan terms in this market may create risks to consumers.

    38 Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Consumer Handbook on Adjustable-Rate Mortgages, available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201204_CFPB_ARMs-brochure.pdf.

    With respect to these issues:

    14. Other than circumstances identified in the Concurrent Proposal, as discussed above, under what circumstances do lenders' use of post-delinquency or default revenue terms such as late fees, default interest rates, or other contractual provisions or remedies in either covered or non-covered loans marketed to consumers facing liquidity crisis raise consumer protection concerns?

    a. To what extent do lenders making covered loans or non-covered, high-cost loans to consumers facing cash shortfalls consider post-delinquency or default revenue generating terms such as late fees, default interest rates, or other contractual provisions or remedies when they perform underwriting? If they do so, how do they do it?

    b. If lenders' current underwriting practices do not include consideration of the borrower's ability to repay post-delinquency or default revenue generating terms, what would be a reasonable method of underwriting for this factor?

    c. What evidence, data, or other information shows the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm, if any, associated with post-delinquency or default revenue terms in covered or non-covered high-cost consumer loans?

    15. Are there circumstances in which the use of teaser rates which reset to high-cost loans made to consumers facing liquidity crisis raise consumer protection concerns?

    a. If so, what specific contractual terms or business activities are associated with consumer harm?

    b. Do teaser rate products, to the extent any exist, create a mismatch between borrowers' repayment expectations and their actual experiences in either covered or non-covered loans?

    c. If lenders offer teaser rate products in loans to consumers facing liquidity needs, do they consider recast interest rates in underwriting? If they do so, how do they do it?

    d. What data, evidence, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm, if any, associated with adjustable interest rates products in covered or non-covered high-cost loans?

    16. Are there other circumstances in which “back-end” pricing impedes the ability of consumers to afford or to understand and compare credit options marketed to consumers facing liquidity crisis in a way that raises consumer protection concerns or impedes their ability to understand or anticipate the full cost of the loan to that consumer?

    a. If so, what specific back-end pricing fees, contractual terms, or other business activities exist in the marketplace or are likely to evolve in the future?

    b. If so, what back-end pricing fees, contractual terms, or other business activities are associated with consumer harm?

    c. What data, evidence, or other information tends to show the current or likely future prevalence of consumer harm, if any, associated with such back-end pricing in covered or non-covered high-cost loans?

    VI. Potential Consumer Harm from Ancillary Products

    In the Bureau's experience, the marketing of ancillary products, sometimes called “add-ons,” can lead to consumer protection concerns.39 For instance, the Bureau is concerned that some creditors may engage in sales and marketing practices that raise consumer protection concerns with respect to the sale of credit insurance, debt suspension or debt cancellation agreements, and other credit related ancillary products. For example, in the past four years the Bureau has announced numerous different public enforcement actions associated with illegal marketing of add-ons that led to approximately $2.4 billion in consumer redress, refunds, and forgiven debts. In these ancillary product matters, the Bureau, in some instances working in cooperation with other Federal or State regulators, imposed over $128 million in civil money penalties. Among other practices and concerns, the Bureau has found or alleged that some companies offering ancillary products failed to accurately describe those products, offered products that provided little or no benefit to consumers without disclosing this fact, stated or implied that ancillary products were required as a condition of borrowing when they were not, and billed consumers for add-on products without permission.40 For both covered and non-covered loans, the Bureau seeks to learn more about the marketing of ancillary products to consumers facing liquidity crisis and borrowing outside the mainstream credit system.

    39 Examples of ancillary products include credit insurance, debt suspension or debt cancellation agreements, and identity theft protection plans.

    40See, e.g., Citibank, N.A., CFPB No. 2015-CFPB-0015 (July 21, 2015), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201507_cfpb_consent-order-citibank-na-department-stores-national-bank-and-citicorp-credit-services-inc-usa.pdf; Am. Express Centurion Bank, CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0002 (Oct. 1, 2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/2012-CFPB-0002-American-Express-Centurion-Consent-Order.pdf; Discover Bank, CFPB No. 2012-CFPB-0005 (Sept. 24, 2012), available at http://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/201209_cfpb_consent_order_0005.pdf.

    Moreover, ancillary products can affect the affordability of consumer credit. The Bureau's Concurrent Proposal includes the cost of credit insurance, debt suspension agreements, and credit-related ancillary products sold in originating a loan in calculating the total cost of credit for purposes of determining whether a longer duration loan is covered by the proposed rule. The Bureau's Concurrent Proposal also would require that creditors consider the cost of these products in determining borrowers' ability to repay. Nevertheless, the Bureau seeks to obtain more information about the prevalence and affordability of add-on products in non-covered loans made to consumers facing liquidity crisis.

    With respect to these potential issues:

    17. Aside from affordability, are there consumer protection concerns arising out of the marketing of ancillary products in covered payday, vehicle title, or similar loans? If so, what evidence, data, or other information shows the current or likely future prevalence of these concerns?

    18. To what extent do lenders making non-covered, high-cost loans consider the cost of ancillary products in determining whether borrowers have the ability to repay?

    a. If they do so, how do they do it?

    b. If lenders do not currently consider the affordability of such products, what would be a reasonable method of underwriting for this component of the loan?

    c. What evidence, data, or other information shows the current or likely future prevalence of unaffordable ancillary products in non-covered loans?

    19. Are there other consumer protection concerns associated with the marketing or use of ancillary products in combination with covered or non-covered, high-cost credit? If so, what evidence, data, or other information shows the current or likely future prevalence of such consumer protection concerns?

    VII. Potential Market Evolution and Other Topics Not Identified

    The market for high-cost consumer credit is currently in transition due to regulatory and technological change. Many lenders are developing new technological channels for delivering consumer financial products to the market place. State, local and tribal laws are continually evolving in response to these forces. The Bureau seeks to apprise itself of current and expected changes in the marketplace for high-cost loans that could present consumer protection concerns. Moreover, the Bureau is mindful that, in the past, markets supplying credit to borrowers facing cash shortfalls have evolved in response to regulatory action, thereby causing the government considerable difficulty in addressing some consumer protection issues.

    Bearing in mind the potential for future evolution in this market and in lender practices:

    20. Are there other marketing, origination, underwriting, or collection practices that currently exist or, if the Bureau issues a final rule along the lines of the Concurrent Proposal, are likely to emerge, that pose risk to consumers and may warrant Bureau regulatory, supervisory, enforcement, or consumer educational action?

    21. Are there arrangements with brokers, credit service organizations, or other intermediaries in the marketing, origination, underwriting, collection or information-sharing practices associated with non-covered high-cost credit markets that pose risk to consumers and may warrant Bureau regulatory, supervisory, enforcement, or consumer educational action?

    22. If so, what specific actions or policies should the Bureau consider in addressing such consumer harm? Other than usury limits applicable to an extension of credit, which Congress has not authorized the Bureau to establish, are there examples of existing law, regulations, or other policy interventions that the Bureau should consider?

    Dated: June, 2016. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-13492 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Defense Health Board; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Health Board will take place.

    DATES:

    Tuesday, August 9, 2016 9:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m. (Open Session) 11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. (Administrative Session) 12:30 p.m.-5:00 p.m. (Open Session) ADDRESSES:

    The St. Anthony, San Antonio—Peraux Room, 300 East Travis Street, San Antonio, TX 78205 (Pre-meeting registration required; see guidance in SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, “Public's Accessibility to the Meeting”).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Executive Director of the Defense Health Board is Ms. Christine Bader, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, (703) 681-6653, Fax: (703) 681-9539, [email protected] For meeting information, please contact Ms. Kendal Brown, 7700 Arlington Boulevard, Suite 5101, Falls Church, Virginia 22042, [email protected], (703) 681-6670, Fax: (703) 681-9539.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 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. Additional information, including the agenda and electronic registration, is available at the DHB Web site, http://www.health.mil/About-MHS/Other-MHS-Organizations/Defense-Health-Board/Meetings.

    Purpose of the Meeting

    The purpose of the meeting is to provide progress updates on specific taskings before the DHB. In addition, the DHB will receive information briefings on current issues or lessons learned related to military medicine, health policy, health research, disease/injury prevention, health promotion, and health care delivery.

    Agenda

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, the DHB meeting is open to the public from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. on August 9, 2016. The DHB anticipates receiving progress updates from the Health Care Delivery Subcommittee on the pediatric clinical preventive services tasking, Public Health Subcommittee on its review of improving Defense Health Program medical research processes, and a subset of the Board on the Deployment Health Centers review. In addition, the DHB anticipates receiving information briefings on the Military Health System Population Health Portal; the Army Medical Home; a review of recommendations from the 2014 DHB report Combat Trauma Lessons Learned from Military Operations of 2001-2013; an update on progress in the evolution of the Joint Trauma System; a review of the recent National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report on A National Trauma Care System: Integrating Military and Civilian Trauma Systems to Achieve Zero Preventable Deaths After Injury; and advances in genitourinary reconstruction following combat trauma. Any changes to the agenda can be found at the link provided in this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

    Public's Accessibility to the Meeting

    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b, and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165 and subject to availability of space, this meeting is open to the public. Seating is limited and is on a first-come basis. All members of the public who wish to attend the public meeting must contact Ms. Kendal Brown at the number listed in the section FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no later than 12:00 p.m. on Monday, August 1, 2016 to register. Additional details will be provided to all registrants.

    Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations to access the public meeting should contact Ms. Kendal Brown at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

    Written Statements

    Any member of the public wishing to provide comments to the DHB may do so in accordance with section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 41 CFR 102-3.105(j) and 102-3.140, and the procedures described in this notice.

    Individuals desiring to provide comments to the DHB may do so by submitting a written statement to the DHB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Written statements should not be longer than two type-written pages and address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included, as needed, to establish the appropriate historical context and to provide any necessary background information.

    If the written statement is not received at least five (5) business days prior to the meeting, the DFO may choose to postpone consideration of the statement until the next open meeting.

    The DFO will review all timely submissions with the DHB President and ensure they are provided to members of the DHB before the meeting that is subject to this notice. After reviewing the written comments, the President and the DFO may choose to invite the submitter to orally present their issue during an open portion of this meeting or at a future meeting. The DFO, in consultation with the DHB President, may allot time for members of the public to present their issues for review and discussion by the Defense Health Board.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17349 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID DOD-2015-OS-0048] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: “Department of Defense Security Agreement,” “Appendage to Department of Defense Security Agreement,” “Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests;” DD Forms 441, 441-1 and SF 328; OMB Control Number 0704-0194.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Number of Respondents: 6,851.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 6,851.

    Average Burden per Response: 1.5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 4171.3 hours.

    Needs And Uses: Executive Order (EO) 12829 as amended, “National Industrial Security Program (NISP),” stipulates that the Secretary of Defense shall serve as the Executive Agent for inspecting and monitoring the contractors, licensees, and grantees who require or will require access to or who store or will store classified information; and for determining the eligibility for access to classified information of contractors, licensees, and grantees and their respective employees. The specific requirements necessary to protect classified information released to private industry are set forth in Department of Defense (DoD) 5220.22M, “National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM),” dated February 28, 2006 as amended by Conforming Change 1, dated March 28, 2013. These forms are mandated in the Industrial Security Regulation DoD 5220.22-R dated December 1985 as amended, DoD 5220.22—NISP Volume 3, dated April 17, 2014 and the Federal Acquisition Regulation. Respondents must execute DD Form 441, “Department of Defense Security Agreement,” which is the initial agreement between the contractor and the government regarding security requirements necessary to protect classified information associated with the contract. This legally binding document details the responsibility of both parties and obligates the contractor to fulfill the requirements outlined in DoD 5220.22M. The DD Form 441-1, “Appendage to Department of Defense Security Agreement,” is used to extend the agreement to branch offices of the contractor. The SF Form 328, “Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests,” must be submitted to provide certification regarding elements of Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) as stipulated in paragraph 2-302 of the NISPOM. DSS proposes to make changes to the DD Form 441 and SF 328. The requirement for execution of the corporate “Certificate” section and the use of a corporate seal is being deleted. Currently the government does not require all corporations to execute the corporate Certificate portion of the Forms. Only those corporations who are in possession of a seal were being required to execute the Certificate. Corporations that do not have a seal and other types of business structures such as limited liability companies, partnership and sole proprietors are only required to have the signing of the agreement witnessed. DSS proposes that a witness is sufficient for all companies whether or not they are a corporation.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; individuals or households; Not-for-profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be emailed to Ms. Jasmeet Seehra, DoD Desk Officer, at [email protected] Please identify the proposed information collection by DoD Desk Officer and the Docket ID number and title of the information collection.

    You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:

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

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at WHS/ESD Directives Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17353 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant an Exclusive License; SpringStar Inc. AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant SpringStar Inc. a revocable, nonassignable, exclusive license to practice worldwide the Government owned inventions described in U.S. Patent Application 14/693,615 filed April 22, 2015 and entitled “Insect control formulation with improved auto-dissemination characteristics,” as well as any issued patent, divisional or continuation from that and related foreign filings in the field of insect control.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any, not later than August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with Attn: Naval Medical Research Center, Code 1URO/OPBD, 503 Robert Grant Avenue, Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. T.A. Ponzio, Director, Partnerships & Business Development, Naval Medical Research Center, 503 Robert Grant Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20910-7500; [email protected]; telephone: 240-762-0673.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17027 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0656; FRL-9947-44-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Lead-Acid Battery Manufacturing (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1072.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0081), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0656, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), and any changes, or additions to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart KK. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Lead-acid battery manufacturing plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart KK).

    Estimated number of respondents: 52 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 3,990 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $423,000 (per year), which includes $11,700 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in respondent labor hours in this ICR from the most recently approved ICR. This decrease is due to rounding differences and a mathematical correction in the burden calculations.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17288 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0190; FRL—9947-37-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Nitric Acid Plants (40 CFR part 60, subparts G and Ga) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1056.12, OMB Control No. 2060-0019), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2015-0190, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 60, subpart A), as well as for the specific requirements (40 CFR part 60, subparts G and Ga). This includes submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Nitric acid plants.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subparts G and Ga).

    Estimated number of respondents: 29 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 2,190 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $2,970,000 (per year), which includes $2,740,000 in both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in the burden and cost estimates occurred due to industry growth in the past three years, resulting in an additional number of respondents that have become subject to Subpart Ga. Additionally, this ICR assumes that all respondents will have to familiarize themselves with regulatory requirements each year. These changes result in an increase in the number of responses, labor hours and costs, and total O&M costs.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17287 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207; FRL 9948-46-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “Cellulosic Production Volume Projections and Efficient Producer Reporting” (EPA ICR No. 2551.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 15597) on March 24, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], Attention Air and Radiation Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0207, or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jon Monger, Policy Advisor, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mail Code: 6401A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-0628; fax number: 202-564-1177; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: EPA is seeking to collect information from potential cellulosic biofuel producers to aid in determining the annual volume standards. This ICR includes a questionnaire form to facilitate the collection of this information. EPA would also like to use a data form to collect information from certain producers and importers who have requested and been approved to use an “efficient producer” pathway. This data form would standardize collection of selected data points and allow better and more efficient compliance with the RFS program. We inform respondents that they may assert claims of business confidentiality (CBI) for information they submit in accordance with 40 CFR 2.203.

    Form Numbers: RFS Efficient Producer Data Form (RFS2500), RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form (RFS2700).

    Respondents/affected entities: Producers, Importers of Renewable Fuels.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form is voluntary; RFS Efficient Producer Data Form is mandatory pursuant to Sections 114 and 208 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7414 and 7542 for producers eligible to generate RINs through an efficient producer pathway pursuant to 40 CFR 80.1416.

    Estimated number of respondents: 90 (total).

    Frequency of response: Annually (RFS Cellulosic Biofuel Producer Questionnaire Form) or quarterly (RFS Efficient Producer Data Form).

    Total estimated burden: 880 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).

    Total estimated cost: $101,920 (per year), includes no annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is no previous ICR for this collection.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17285 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9028-2] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly Receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) Filed 07/11/2016 Through 07/15/2016, Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20160164, Draft Supplemental, NRC, WY, Reno Creek In Situ Recovery Project, Supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the In Situ Leach Uranium Facilities, Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2016, Contact: Jill Caverly 301-415-7674. EIS No. 20160165, Final, USFWS, HI, Na Pua Makani Wind Project and Habitat Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 08/22/2016, Contact: Ms Jodi Charrier 808-792-9400. EIS No. 20160166, Final, USFS, OR, Lower Joseph Creek Restoration Project, Review Period Ends: 08/23/2016, Contact: Anne Thomas 541-278-3860. EIS No. 20160167, Draft Supplement, USACE, CA, Folsom Dam Raise Project, Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2016, Contact: Mariah Brumbaugh 916-557-6774. EIS No. 20160168, Draft, NSA, MD, East Campus Integration Program, Comment Period Ends: 09/05/2016, Contact: Jeffrey Williams 301-688-2970. EIS No. 20160169, Draft, BOEM, AK, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244 Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2016, Contact: Caron McKee, 907-334-5200. EIS No. 20160170, Final, BIA, IN, The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians Fee-to-Trust Transfer for Tribal Village and Casino, Review Period Ends: 08/22/2016, Contact: Scott Doig 612-725-4514. EIS No. 20160171, Final, BLM, UT, Moab Master Leasing Plan and Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendments, Review Period Ends: 08/22/2016, Contact: Brent Northrup 435-259-2151. Amended Notices EIS No. 20160132, Draft, FHWA, CO, US 50 Corridor East, Comment Period Ends: 08/12/2016, Contact: Patricia Sergeson 720-963-3073.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 06/10/2016; Extending Comment Period from 07/29/2016 to 08/12/2016.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Karin Leff, Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17382 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0678; FRL-9948-06-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Mineral Wool Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1799.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0362), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0678, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes, or additions to the Provisions that are specified (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD). Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Mineral wool production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDD).

    Estimated number of respondents: 8 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 2,130 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $285,000 (per year), which includes $6,000 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in burden due to an update to the estimated respondent universe. During development of the 2015 amendment, EPA estimates that 8 mineral wool production facilities are currently subject to the standard. There is also an increase in the respondent labor costs due to additional compliance testing requirements from the 2015 amendment.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17284 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9947-94] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New Uses AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022 and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register pesticide products containing active ingredients not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    EPA Registration Number: 100-1533. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Basil; Brassica head and stem vegetable group 5-16; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 100-1571. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Caneberry subgroup 13-07A; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 100-1572. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, 410 Swing Road, P.O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC 27419-8300. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Basil, Brassica head and stem vegetable group 5-16; Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4-16B. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Numbers: 264-693 and 264-695. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0064. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Fenamidone. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Basil; Brassica, head and stem, group 5-16; Brassica, leafy greens, subgroup 4-16B; Cotton subgroup 20C; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Leaf petiole vegetable subgroup 22B. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Numbers: 264-1105 & 264-1106. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0166. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Indaziflam. Product type: Herbicide end-use product. Proposed uses: For control of weeds in crops within the following crop groups/subgroups: Bushberry subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry subgroup 13-07A; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; Fruit, stone, group 12-12; Nut, tree, group 14-12; Tropical and Subtropical, small fruit, edible peel subgroup 23A; and the individual crops of coffee and hops. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 264-1129. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0166. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W. Alexander, P.O. Box 12014, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient: Indaziflam. Product type: Herbicide technical use product. Proposed use: For formulation into end-use indaziflam products that are used to control weeds in crops within the following crop groups/subgroups: Bushberry subgroup 13-07B; Caneberry subgroup 13-07A; Fruit, small, vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, subgroup 13-07F; Fruit, stone, group 12-12; Nut, tree, group 14-12; Tropical and Subtropical, small fruit, edible peel subgroup 23A; as well as the individual crops of coffee and hops. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 352-728 & 352-844. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0235. Applicant: E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company., Dupont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0300. Active ingredient: Chlorantraniliprole. Product type: insecticide. Proposed Use: Teff and quinoa. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 352-890. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0049. Applicant: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc., Dupont Crop Protection, Stine-Haskell Research Center, P.O. Box 30, Newark, DE 19714-0300. Active ingredient: Oxathiapiprolin. Product type: Fungicide. Proposed use: Basil; Brassica head and stem vegetable group 5-16; Brassica leafy greens subgroup 4-16B; Leafy greens subgroup 4-16A; Caneberry subgroup 13-07A; Stalk and stem vegetable subgroup 22A. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Number: 61842-21. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0326. Applicant: Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., 2255 N. 44th Street, Suite 300, Phoenix, AZ 85008. Active ingredient: Linuron. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Expansion of potato use to remove regional restrictions. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Numbers: 62719-21 and 62719-684. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0295. Applicant: Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268. Active ingredient: Nitrapyrin. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: Nut, tree, group 14-12 and almond, hulls. Contact: RD.

    EPA Registration Numbers: 67690-73, 67690-74, 67690-75. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0325. Applicant: SePRO Corporation, 11550 North Meridian Street, Suite 600, Carmel, IN 46032. Active ingredient: Fluridone. Product type: Herbicide. Proposed use: cotton, gin bypoducts. Contact: RD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17407 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0499; FRL-9947-52-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Steam Generating Units (40 CFR part 60, subpart Db) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1088.14, OMB Control No. 2060-0072), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously-requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0499, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS (40 CFR part 60, subpart A) and any changes, or additions to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Db. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must make an initial notification, performance tests, periodic reports, and maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports are also required semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating units.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart Db).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,846 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 1,690,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $210,000,000 (per year), which includes $35,100,000 in both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the overall burden in this ICR from the most-recently approved ICR. This is due to a projection of industry growth, resulting in additional sources becoming subject to the regulation. The growth projection is based on the Agency's November 2011 industry analysis. This results in an increase in the respondent labor hours, labor costs, capital and O&M costs, and number of responses.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17289 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0669; FRL-9947-85-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Oil and Natural Gas Production (40 CFR part 63, subpart HH) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1788.11, OMB Control No. 2060-0417), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0669, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63, subpart HH. This includes submitting initial notification reports, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with these standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Oil and natural gas production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart HH).

    Estimated number of respondents: 4,242 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 52,500 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $6,420,000 (per year), which includes $1,010,000 for both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the estimated burden. This is not due to program changes. The increase occurred because there is a projected industry growth, where an additional 28 major sources and 141 area sources are expected to become subject to the rule each year. This results in an estimated increase in the respondent labor hours, O&M costs, and number of responses.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17282 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0665; FRL-9947-65-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations (40 CFR part 63, subpart EE) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1678.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0326), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently-approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently-valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0665, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record keeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63 Subpart EE. This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Magnetic tape manufacturing facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart EE).

    Estimated number of respondents: 6 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 3,910 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $451,000 (per year), which includes $47,000 in both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the respondent burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes. The change in the burden and cost estimates occurred because of a change in assumption. This ICR assumes all sources will have to familiarize themselves with the regulatory requirements each year. In addition, this ICR has an increase of one response to account for the initial performance test notification.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17281 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0660; FRL-9947-54-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Halogenated Solvent Cleaners/Halogenated Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR part 63, subpart T) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1652.09, OMB Control No. 2060-0273), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were requested previously via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0660, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), and any changes, or additions. to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities with halogenated HAP solvent cleaning machines.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subpart T).

    Estimated number of respondents: 1,431 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly, semiannually and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 48,000 hours (rounded) (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $5,960,000 (per year), which includes $1,010,000 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in respondent labor hours in this ICR from the most recently approved ICR. This is due to assuming all existing sources will have to re-familiarize with the regulatory requirements each year. Additionally, there is a small decrease in the total capital and O&M cost due to the rounding of all calculated values to three significant digits.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17291 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0654; FRL—9946-89-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NSPS for Automobile and Light Duty Truck Surface Coating Operations (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1064.18, OMB Control No. 2060-0034), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0654, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the NSPS at 40 CFR part 60, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to the Provisions are specified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MM. Owners or operators of the affected facilities must submit initial notification reports, performance tests, and periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports, at a minimum, are required semiannually.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Facilities that perform surface coating of automobile and light duty truck.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 60, subpart MM).

    Estimated number of respondents: 66 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.

    Total estimated burden: 192,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $19,900,000 (per year), which includes $114,000 in both annualized capital/startup and operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the respondent and Agency burden in this ICR compared to the most recently approved ICR. This increase is due to an estimated increase in the number of sources, which results in an increase in labor hours, number of responses, and total O&M costs.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17290 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022; FRL-9947-93] Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Application for New Active Ingredient AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    EPA has received an application to register pesticide a product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0022 and the File Symbol of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

    Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Knizner, Antimicrobials Division (7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

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

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

    • Crop production (NAICS code 111).

    • Animal production (NAICS code 112).

    • Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

    • Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

    II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received an application to register a pesticide product containing an active ingredient not included in any currently registered pesticide products. Pursuant to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on this application. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

    EPA File Symbols: 91413-R and 91413-E. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0220. Applicant: Poly Group LLC, 451 Baxter Avenue, Louisville, KY 40204. Product name: Nouvex N950-9010. Active ingredient: Nouvex Antimicrobial Polymer—Pyridine, 4-Ethenyl-, Polymer with a-(2-Methyl-1-Oxo-2-Propen-1-yl)-ω-Methoxypoly(oxy-1,2-Ethanediyl), Compound with 1-Bromohexane (Nouvex N950-9010) at 97.2%. Proposed use: Material preservative used to control microorganisms that cause deterioration and discoloration for use in paper, plastic and textiles. Contact: AD.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: June 29, 2016. Steve Knizner, Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17409 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0676; FRL—9947-97-OEI] Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (Renewal) AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “NESHAP for Phosphoric Acid Manufacturing and Phosphate Fertilizers Production (40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB) (Renewal)” (EPA ICR No. 1790.08, OMB Control No. 2060-0361), to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through July 31, 2016. Public comments were requested previously via the Federal Register (80 FR 32116) on June 5, 2015, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OECA-2012-0676, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email to [email protected] Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for EPA.

    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Yellin, Monitoring, Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2970; fax number: (202) 564-0050; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Supporting documents which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is 202-566-1744. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    Abstract: Owners and operators of affected facilities are required to comply with reporting and record-keeping requirements for the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as well as for the specific requirements at 40 CFR part 63 subparts AA and BB. This includes submitting initial notifications, performance tests and periodic reports and results, and maintaining records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. These reports are used by EPA to determine compliance with the standards.

    Form Numbers: None.

    Respondents/affected entities: Phosphoric acid manufacturing and phosphate fertilizer production facilities.

    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63, subparts AA and BB).

    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).

    Frequency of response: Initially, occasionally, quarterly, semiannually and annually.

    Total estimated burden: 2,200 hours (per year). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

    Total estimated cost: $413,000 (per year), which includes $186,000 in either annualized capital/startup or operation & maintenance costs.

    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment increase in the total estimated cost, burden, number of responses, and capital and O&M costs as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved Burdens. The change in burden for the new and existing facilities is due primarily to a program change in the regulation requiring: (1) Mercury testing and total fluoride (TF) testing of phosphate rock calciners; and (2) TF testing of oxidation reactors. The Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) associated with this program change estimated 12 phosphoric acid units and 11 phosphate fertilizer units (a total of 23 process units) located at 13 facilities.

    Courtney Kerwin, Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17283 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

    ACTION:

    Notice for comment regarding the Federal Reserve proposal to extend with revision, the clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act for the following information collection activity.

    SUMMARY:

    The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board or Federal Reserve) invites comment on a proposal to revise the FR H-(b)11, an information collection submitted by Savings and Loan Holding Companies (SLHCs).

    On June 15, 1984, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) delegated to the Board authority under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) to approve of and assign OMB control numbers to collection of information requests and requirements conducted or sponsored by the Board. In exercising this delegated authority, the Board is directed to take every reasonable step to solicit comment. In determining whether to approve a collection of information, the Board will consider all comments received from the public and other agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before September 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by FR H-(b)11 by any of the following methods:

    Agency Web site: http://www.federalreserve.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx.

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

    Email: [email protected] Include OMB number in the subject line of the message.

    FAX: (202) 452-3819 or (202) 452-3102.

    Mail: Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20551.

    All public comments are available from the Board's Web site at http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/foia/proposedregs.aspx as submitted, unless modified for technical reasons. Accordingly, your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information. Public comments may also be viewed electronically or in paper form in Room 3515, 1801 K Street (between 18th and 19th Streets NW) Washington, DC 20006 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.

    Additionally, commenters may send a copy of their comments to the OMB Desk Officer—Shagufta Ahmed—Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-6974.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    A copy of the PRA OMB submission, including the proposed reporting form and instructions, supporting statement, and other documentation will be placed into OMB's public docket files, once approved. These documents will also be made available on the Federal Reserve Board's public Web site at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/apps/reportforms/review.aspx or may be requested from the agency clearance officer, whose name appears below.

    Federal Reserve Board Clearance Officer—Nuha Elmaghrabi—Office of the Chief Data Officer, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551 (202) 452-3829. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) users may contact (202) 263-4869, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC 20551.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Request for Comment on Information Collection Proposal

    The Board invites public comment on the following information collection, which is being reviewed under authority delegated by the OMB under the PRA. Comments are invited on the following:

    a. Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the Federal Reserve's functions; including whether the information has practical utility;

    b. The accuracy of the Federal Reserve's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    d. Ways to minimize the burden of information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

    e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

    At the end of the comment period, the comments and recommendations received will be analyzed to determine the extent to which the Federal Reserve should modify the proposed revisions prior to giving final approval.

    Proposal to approve under OMB delegated authority the extension for three years, with revision, of the following report:

    Report title: Savings Association Holding Company Report.

    Agency form number: FR H-(b)11.

    OMB control number: 7100-0334.

    Frequency: Quarterly.

    Respondents : Savings and Loan Holding Companies.

    Estimated number of respondents: 15.

    Estimated Average Hours per Response: 2 hours.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 120 hours.

    General Description of Report: The FR H-(b)11 collects information on filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), reports provided by the nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and securities analysts, supplemental information for select questions from the Quarterly Savings and Loan Holding Company Report (FR 2320; OMB No. 7100-0345), financial statements, and other materially important events and exhibits. Respondents are (1) grandfathered unitary SLHCs whose assets are primarily commercial and whose thrifts make up less than 5 percent of its consolidated assets and (2) SLHCs whose assets are primarily insurance-related and do not otherwise submit financial reports with the SEC pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Federal Reserve uses the FR H-(b)11 data to analyze the overall financial condition of SLHCs to ensure safe and sound operations.

    Legal Authorization and Confidentiality: The Board's Legal Division has determined that the FR H-(b)11 is authorized by Section 10 of the Home Owners' Loan Act, which requires SLHCs to file “such reports as may be required by the Board” and provides that such reports “shall contain such information concerning the operations of such SLHC and its subsidiaries as the Board may require” (12 U.S.C. 1467a(b)(2)(A)).

    The obligation to respond to the FR H-(b)11 is mandatory. The FR H-(b)11 covers 6 different items. Item 1 consists of SEC filings made by the SLHC that are not publicly traded companies and item 2 consists of reports provided by nationally recognized statistical rating organizations and securities analysts on any company in the SLHC's consolidated organization. The Board's Legal Division has determined that neither of these items should raise any issue of confidentiality.

    Item 3 consists of supplemental information for any questions on the FR 2320 to which the SLHC answered “yes.” The Board's Legal Division has determined that supplemental information in response to a “yes” answer for the FR 2320's questions 24, 25, and 26 may be protected from disclosure under exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which covers “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential” (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4)). These questions concern any new or changed pledges of capital stock of any subsidiary savings association that secures short-term or long-term debt or other borrowings of the SLHC; changes to any class of securities of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries that would negatively impact investors; and any default of the SLHC or any of its subsidiaries during the quarter. Disclosure of this type of information is likely to cause substantial competitive harm to the SLHC providing the information and thus this information may be protected from disclosure under FOIA exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4)).

    With regard to the supplemental information for other FR 2320 questions that would be provided in item 3 of the FR H-(b)11, as well as item 4 (Other Materially Important Events), item 5 (Financial Statements) and item 6 (Exhibits—essentially copies not previously filed of its charter or bylaws), the respondent may request confidential treatment of such information under one or more of the exemptions in the FOIA. The most likely case for confidential treatment will be exemption 4 (5 U.S.C. 522(b)(4)). However, all such requests for confidential treatment would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and in response to a specific request for disclosure.

    Proposed Revisions: The Federal Reserve proposes to eliminate the requirement that a publicly-traded SLHC submit a copy of its filings with the SEC.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 14, 2016. Robert deV. Frierson, Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17358 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION [Notice-MV-2016-01; Docket No. 2016-0002; Sequence No. 9] Public Availability of General Services Administration Fiscal Year 2015 Service Contract Inventory AGENCY:

    General Services Administration (GSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of public availability of GSA Fiscal Year 2015 Service Contract Inventories.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with The Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, GSA is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2015 Service Contract Inventories.

    DATES:

    July 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions regarding the Service Contract Inventory should be directed to Mr. James Tsujimoto, Office of Acquisition Policy, at 202-206-3585, or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with section 743 of Division C of the FY 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117), GSA is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2015 Service Contract Inventories. These inventories provide information on service contract actions over $25,000 that were made in FY 2015. The information is organized by component to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with the guidance issued on December 19, 2011, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventory-guidance. GSA has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory at the following location: http://www.gsa.gov/gsasci.

    Jeffrey A. Koses, Director, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17347 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-61-P
    GULF COAST ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION COUNCIL [Docket Number: 107222016-1111-04] Local Contracting Preference AGENCY:

    Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.

    ACTION:

    Notice of final policy.

    SUMMARY:

    The Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council (Council) hereby issues notice of its final policy for implementing the local contracting preference requirement of the Resources and Ecosystems Sustainability, Tourist Opportunities, and Revived Economies of the Gulf Coast States Act of 2012 (RESTORE Act).

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 22, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mark Bisgeier, General Counsel, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The RESTORE Act, Public Law 112-141 (July 6, 2012), codified at 33 U.S.C. 1321(t) and note, makes funds available for the restoration and protection of the Gulf Coast Region through a new trust fund in the Treasury of the United States, known as the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund (Trust Fund). The Trust Fund will contain 80 percent of the administrative and civil penalties paid after July 6, 2012 under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by responsible parties in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. These funds will be invested and made available through five components of the RESTORE Act. On December 14, 2015, the Department of Treasury (Treasury) issued final regulations (80 FR 77239) applicable to all five components that generally describe the responsibilities of the Federal and State entities that administer RESTORE Act programs and carry out restoration activities in the Gulf Coast Region.

    Two of the five components, the Comprehensive Plan Component (sometimes referred to as the Council-Selected Restoration Component) and the Spill Impact Component, are administered by the Council, an independent federal entity created by the RESTORE Act. Under the Comprehensive Plan Component (33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)), the subject of this policy, 30 percent of the amount in the Trust Fund will be used to fund the operations of the Council and to carry out projects and programs adopted in the Council's Comprehensive Plan. An Initial Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the Council in August 2013 and is available at https://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/Final%20Initial%20Comprehensive%20Plan.pdf.

    Pursuant to the RESTORE Act at 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(D)(ii)(IV)(dd), on December 9, 2015, the Council finalized a Funded Priorities List (FPL) to be included as part of the Initial Comprehensive Plan, setting forth programs and projects to be funded and prioritized for further review. These programs and projects will help to restore and protect the natural resources, ecosystems, fisheries, marine and wildlife habitats, beaches and coastal wetlands of the Gulf Coast region. The FPL is available at https://www.restorethegulf.gov/sites/default/files/FPL_FINAL_Dec9Vote_EC_Library_Links.pdf.

    Programs and projects selected for funding in the FPL will be funded either through grants to the State members of the Council (the Governors of the States of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) (State or States) or interagency agreements with the Federal members of the Council (the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Army, Commerce, the Interior and the Department in which the Coast Guard is operating, and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency). Those State and Federal members of the Council may in turn award grants or contracts to carry out the funded programs and projects.

    II. Discussion of This Policy and Response to Public Comments

    The RESTORE Act requires the Council to “develop standard terms to include in contracts for projects and programs awarded pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan that provide a preference to individuals and companies that reside in, are headquartered in, or are principally engaged in business in a Gulf Coast State.” 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(vii)(V). On May 22, 2015, the Council published in the Federal Register notice of its preliminary interpretation of this local contracting preference and described its proposed implementation of that interpretation (80 FR 29708). Public comment was requested and three public comments were received, one each from a private individual, a non-profit organization and a consortium of Gulf Coast organizations and businesses. The latter two commenters made similar recommendations and are addressed together.

    Preliminarily, due to differing legal requirements in the various jurisdictions, the Council will apply the local contracting requirement at the Federal level (see comment topic 2 below) while permitting each State to apply any local contracting preference in conformity with local requirements. The Council will therefore not impose on the States any special grant award conditions requiring a local contracting preference or related contractual certifications. Each of the States has enacted laws pertaining to local contracting preferences, most of which do not address preferences for another State's local firms; in some cases such laws prohibit preferences for another State's local firms. If the Council were to require the States to provide preferences for another State's local firms, those States with prohibitions against such preferences would be unable to participate in the grant program. Having one or more of the States ineligible to receive grants under the Comprehensive Plan Component would be inconsistent with the intent and purposes of the RESTORE Act. Council policy for State contracting action using RESTORE Act funds is therefore to have each State act in conformance with its laws with respect to contracting preferences, with no further requirements. This policy is consistent with 2 CFR part 200.319(b), which permits grant recipients to apply state or local geographic preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals only where a Federal statute, such as the RESTORE Act, expressly mandates or encourages geographical preference.

    Comment topic 1: The private individual recommended that any local contracting preference not detract from existing Federal acquisition requirements, particularly those related to small business programs.

    Response to comment topic 1: The Council will comply with all applicable Federal acquisition requirements.

    Comment topic 2: The two comments from the non-profit organization and the consortium of organizations and businesses included arguments for a stronger local contracting preference, especially at the Federal level, and recommendations for various certifications and local workforce development plans, training and hiring process provisions.

    Response to comment topic 2: At the Federal level, a local contracting preference is permitted only when a statute expressly authorizes or requires it. See 41 U.S.C. 3304(a)(5). The Council has determined that 33 U.S.C. 1321(t)(2)(C)(vii)(V) provides such an express authorization. To implement this at the Federal level, in May 2015 the Council proposed requiring federal agencies to either (1) provide a preference to Gulf Coast firms if proposals are determined equivalent under all other evaluation factors, or (2) include a weighted evaluation factor providing a preference to Gulf Coast firms (80 FR 29709). The non-profit organization recommended revising option (2) such that the agencies would be required to provide an explicit weight of 20% to the weighted evaluation factor. The Council has declined to do so. Assigning a specific weight to the local contractor preference factor unnecessarily limits the discretion of the contracting agency to tailor evaluation factors and their relative weights for each procurement. Further, contracting agencies are not required to assign specific percentage weights to each evaluation factor and doing so can result in a more quantitative than qualitative analysis of subjective evaluation factors. Agencies may use a variety of rating schemes, and requiring them to assign a specific percentage weight to the local contracting preference factor would be overly prescriptive and have the effect of restricting their ability to determine what constitutes best value for procurements on a case-by-case basis.

    Instead of assigning a specific weight or otherwise changing the two foregoing options, the Council has instead decided to provide Federal member contracting agencies with a third option of including in contracts a financial incentive that rewards contractors for specific local hiring thresholds. Because this third option provides an explicit financial incentive, the Council believes that it may actually make achieving a local hiring objective more likely than either of the other options. The Council thanks the commenters for encouraging the Council to devise a more robust and creative option to encourage local contracting.

    The two comments also included suggestions to include various certifications and contractual clauses to require offerors to develop and submit local workforce development plans and train local workers, and various mechanisms to process job opportunities through state and local hiring agencies. The Council declines to add these additional requirements for two reasons: First, the Council believes that requiring local training is beyond the scope of the RESTORE Act provision for a local contracting preference; and second, the Council is concerned that adding such additional requirements may actually discourage or inhibit local contractors from offering to undertake the work. It is the Federal members' collective experience that additional requirements can be burdensome to the point that potential offerors are discouraged from even participating in the contract proposal process. This is especially true with small, possibly local firms. Potentially discouraging local firms from participating would be inconsistent with the purpose of the local contracting preference.

    The Council believes that offering the choice of one of the three options discussed above would provide Federal agencies with sufficient discretion to make an award to an offeror whose proposal provides the best value to the Government. Furthermore, in order to prevent a Gulf Coast firm from serving as merely a pass-through for a firm outside the Gulf Coast region or other avoidance the objective of the preference, to be considered a “local firm” an offeror must certify that it resides, is headquartered or is principally engaged in business in a State. The offeror must also agree that it will perform at least a minimum percentage of the work under the contract with either local employees or local manufacturing, as the case may be. The method for determining whether an offeror meets these tests is adapted from the Small Business Administration's regulation found at 13 CFR 125.6.

    III. Provisions in Council Comprehensive Plan Interagency Agreements With Federal Members

    The text below will therefore be included in all solicitations by federal Council members for Comprehensive Plan Component contracts, and will be incorporated into all awards for such contracts.

    (a) The offeror represents as part of its offer that it ( ) is, ( ) is not a firm residing, headquartered or principally engaged in business in a Gulf Coast state. For purposes hereof, a “Gulf Coast state” is any of the states of Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi or Texas.

    (b) If the offeror (1) is a firm residing, headquartered or principally engaged in business in a Gulf Coast state and (2) agrees to the following applicable provisions and submits supporting documentation with its offer, then for purposes hereof the offeror will be deemed a “Gulf Coast Firm”:

    (i) For a contract for services (except construction), the offeror will perform services representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the total labor costs under the contract with employees that are residents of a Gulf Coast state;

    (ii) For a contract for supplies or products (other than procurement from a non-manufacturer of such supplies or products), the offeror will manufacture, within a Gulf Coast state, such supplies or products representing at least fifty percent (50%) of the total manufacturing costs under the contract (excluding costs of materials); or

    (iii) For a contract for general construction services, the firm will perform services representing at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total labor costs under the contract with employees that are residents of a Gulf Coast state.

    (c) For purposes hereof, a “resident of a Gulf Coast state” means a resident as defined by the applicable Gulf Coast state law.

    Additionally, one of the three options, generally in the form set forth below, will be included in all solicitations for Comprehensive Plan Component contracts by federal Council members. This term notifies prospective offerors that the Federal member contracting agency will either prefer Gulf Coast Firms in awarding Comprehensive Plan Component contracts or will include an incentive for contractors that perform the contracts using a certain percentage of residents of a Gulf Coast state.

    Option 1 provides a preference to Gulf Coast Firms if proposals are determined to be equivalent under all other evaluation factors.

    Option 2 provides a weighted evaluation factor providing a preference to Gulf Coast Firm offers. The solicitation should identify the relative weight of the local contracting preference to the other stated evaluation criteria.

    Option 3 provides a financial incentive to contractors that perform the contract using a certain percentage of residents of a Gulf Coast state.

    [Option 1] It is the policy of [contracting agency] to encourage the participation of Gulf Coast Firms in the procurement process. This solicitation includes a preference for Gulf Coast Firms. If [contracting agency] determines all other factors to be equivalent, [contracting agency] will give preference to a Gulf Coast Firm. [contracting agency] will review your Gulf Coast Firm status at the time the contract solicitation closes.

    [Option 2—to be assigned relative weight by the contracting agency] It is the policy of [contracting agency] to encourage the participation of Gulf Coast Firms in the procurement process. This solicitation includes a preference for Gulf Coast Firms. The [contracting agency] will review your Gulf Coast Firm status at the time the contract solicitation closes.

    [Option 3—Prescription]

    It is the policy of the [contracting agency] to encourage contractors to hire residents of Gulf Coast states in connection with contracts for RESTORE Act Funded Priorities List projects. Accordingly, [contracting agency] will include the following Local Hiring Incentive Award provision in any contract for which [contracting agency] authorizes such an award.

    [Option 3—Contract Provision]

    (1) To qualify for the Local Hiring Incentive Award set forth in section (2) below, a contractor must, on or before [deadline date], submit to the cognizant contracting officer documentation verifying that during the contract's performance period (i.e., base period, option period), on average at least [percent] of the [contractor's employees and/or consultants and/or subcontractor employees] performing work on the contract were residents of a Gulf Coast state.

    (2) If the cognizant contracting officer confirms in writing that the contractor has satisfied the requirements of section (1) above, then subject to any applicable appropriations laws the contractor will be entitled to receive an award (”Local Hiring Incentive Award”) equal to [percent] of the contract amount earned during the contract's performance period.

    Will D. Spoon, Program Analyst, Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Council.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17328 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-317, CMS-319, CMS-10166, CMS-10178, and CMS-10184] 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 22, 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: State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control Sample Plans; Use: The Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) system is based on monthly State reviews of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion under Title XXI cases by States performing the traditional sampling process identified through statistically reliable statewide samples of cases selected from the eligibility files. These reviews are conducted to determine whether or not the sampled cases meet applicable State Title XIX or XXI eligibility requirements when applicable. The reviews are also used to assess beneficiary liability, if any, and to determine the amounts paid to provide Medicaid services for these cases. In the MEQC system, sampling is the only practical method of validating eligibility of the total caseload and determining the dollar value of eligibility liability errors. Any attempt to make such validations and determinations by reviewing every case would be an enormous and unwieldy undertaking. In 1993, CMS implemented MEQC pilots in which States could focus on special studies, targeted populations, geographic areas or other forms of oversight with CMS approval. States must submit a sampling plan, or pilot proposal to be approved by CMS before implementing their pilot program. The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIPRA) was enacted February 4, 2009. Sections 203 and 601 of the CHIPRA relate to MEQC. Section 203 of the CHIPRA establishes an error rate measurement with respect to the enrollment of children under the express lane eligibility option. The law directs States not to include children enrolled using the express lane eligibility option in data or samples used for purposes of complying with the MEQC requirements. Section 601 of the CHIPRA, among other things, requires a new final rule for the Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program and aims to harmonize the PERM and MEQC programs and provides States with the option to apply PERM data resulting from its eligibility reviews for meeting MEQC requirements and vice versa, with certain conditions. We review, either directly or through its contractors, of the sampling plans helps to ensure States are using valid statistical methods for sample selection. The collection of information is also necessary to implement provisions from the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) (Pub. L. 111-3) with regard to the Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) and Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) programs. Form Number: CMS-317 (OMB control number: 0938-0146); Frequency: Semi-Annually Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 10; Total Annual Responses: 20; Total Annual Hours: 480. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control Sample Selection Lists; Use: The Medicaid Eligibility Quality Control (MEQC) system is based on monthly State reviews of Medicaid and Medicaid expansion under Title XXI cases by States performing the traditional sampling process identified through statistically reliable statewide samples of cases selected from the eligibility files. These reviews are conducted to determine whether or not the sampled cases meet applicable State Title XIX or XXI eligibility requirements when applicable. The reviews are also used to assess beneficiary liability, if any, and to determine the amounts paid to provide Medicaid services for these cases. In the MEQC system, sampling is the only practical method of validating eligibility of the total caseload and determining the dollar value of eligibility liability errors. Any attempt to make such validations and determinations by reviewing every case would be an enormous and unwieldy undertaking. At the beginning of each month, State agencies still performing the traditional sample are required to submit sample selection lists which identify all of the cases selected for review in the States' samples. The sample selection lists contain identifying information on Medicaid beneficiaries such as: State agency review number, beneficiary's name and address, the name of the county where the beneficiary resides, Medicaid case number, etc. The submittal of the sample selection lists is necessary for Regional Office validation of State reviews. Without these lists, the integrity of the sampling results would be suspect and the Regional Offices would have no data on the adequacy of the States' monthly sample draw or review completion status. The authority for collecting this information is Section 1903(u) of the Social Security Act. The specific requirement for submitting sample selection lists is described in regulations at 42 CFR 431.814(h). Regional Office staff review the sample selection lists to determine that States are sampling a sufficient number of cases for review. Form Number: CMS-319 (OMB control number: 0938-0147); Frequency: Monthly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 10; Total Annual Responses: 120; Total Annual Hours: 960. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Payment Error Rate Measurement in Medicaid & Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP); Use: The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act (IPERIA) of 2012 requires CMS to produce national error rates for Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To comply with the IPIA, CMS will engage a Federal contractor to produce the error rates in Medicaid and CHIP. The error rates for Medicaid and CHIP are calculated based on the reviews on three components of both Medicaid and CHIP program. They are: Fee-for-service claims medical reviews and data processing reviews, managed care claims data-processing reviews, and eligibility reviews. Each of the review components collects different types of information, and the state-specific error rates for each of the review components will be used to calculate an overall state-specific error rate, and the individual state-specific error rates will be used to produce a national error rate for Medicaid and CHIP. The states will be requested to submit, at their option, test data which include full claims details to the contractor prior to the quarterly submissions to detect potential problems in the dataset to and ensure the quality of the data. These states will be required to submit quarterly claims data to the contractor who will pull a statistically valid random sample, each quarter, by strata, so that medical and data processing reviews can be performed. State-specific error rates will be based on these review results. We need to collect the fee-for-service claims data, medical policies, and other information from states as well as medical records from providers in order for the contractor to sample and review adjudicated claims in those states selected for medical reviews and data processing reviews. Based on the reviews, state-specific error rates will be calculated which will serve as part of the basis for calculating national Medicaid and CHIP error rates. Form Number: CMS-10166 (OMB control number: 0938-0974); Frequency: Annually, Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 34; Total Annual Hours: 56,100. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP) Managed Care; Use: The Payment Error Rate Measurement (PERM) program measures improper payments for Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The program was designed to comply with the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. Although OMB guidance requires error rate measurement for SCHIP, 2009 SCHIP legislation temporarily suspended PERM measurement for this program and changed to Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) effective April 01, 2009. See Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) Public Law 111-3 for more details. There are two phases of the PERM program, the measurement phase and the corrective action phase. The PERM measures improper payments in Medicaid and CHIP and produces State and national-level error rates for each program. The error rates are based on reviews of Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service (FFS) and managed care payments made in the Federal fiscal year under review. States conduct eligibility reviews and report eligibility related payment error rates also used in the national error rate calculation. We created a 17 State rotation cycle so that each State will participate in PERM once every three years. Following is the list of States in which we will measure improper payments over the next three years in Medicaid. We need to collect capitation payment information from the selected States so that the federal contractor can draw a sample and review the managed care capitation payments. We will also collect State managed care contracts, rate schedules and updates to the contracts and rate schedules. This information will be used by the Federal contractor when conducting the managed care claims reviews. Sections 1902(a)(6) and 2107(b)(1) of the Social Security Act grants CMS authority to collect information from the States. The IPIA requires us to produce national error rates in Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service, including the managed care component. The State-specific Medicaid managed care and CHIP managed care error rates will be based on reviews of managed care capitation payments in each program and will be used to produce national Medicaid managed care and CHIP managed care error rates. Form Number: CMS-10178 (OMB control number: 0938-0994); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 28,050; Total Annual Hours: 28,050. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Payment Error Rate Measurement—State Medicaid and SCHIP Eligibility; Use: The Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) of 2002 requires CMS to produce national error rates for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). To comply with the IPIA, CMS will use a national contracting strategy to produce error rates for Medicaid and CHIP fee-for-service and managed care improper payments. The Federal contractor will review States on a rotational basis so that each State will be measured for improper payments, in each program, once and only once every three years. Subsequent to the first publication, we determined that we will measure Medicaid and CHIP in the same State. Therefore, States will measure Medicaid and CHIP eligibility in the same year measured for fee-for-service and managed care. We believe this approach will advantage States through economies of scale (e.g., administrative ease and shared staffing for both programs reviews). We also determined that interim case completion timeframes and reporting are critical to the integrity of the reviews and to keep the reviews on schedule to produce a timely error rate. Lastly, the sample sizes were increased slightly in order to produce an equal sample size per strata each month. Periodically, CMS will conduct Federal re-reviews of States' PERM files to ensure the accuracy of States' review findings and the validity of the review process. CMS will select a random subsample of Medicaid and CHIP cases from the sample selection lists provided by each State. States will submit all pertinent information related to the review of each sampled case that is selected by CMS. Form Number: CMS-10184 (OMB control number: 0938-1012); Frequency: Annually, Quarterly Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 34; Total Annual Responses: 1,583; Total Annual Hours: 946,164. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Bridgett Rider at 410-786-2602.)

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Martique Jones, Director, Regulations Development Group, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17251 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifiers: CMS-R-70, CMS-R-72, CMS-R-247, CMS-10151, CMS-10268, CMS-R-5, CMS-10615, and CMS-10062] 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 20, 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-70 Information Collection Requirements in HSQ-110, Acquisition, Protection and Disclosure of Peer review Organization Information and Supporting Regulations CMS-R-72 Information Collection Requirements in 42 CFR 478.18, 478.34, 478.36, 478.42, QIO Reconsiderations and Appeals CMS-R-247 Expanded Coverage for Diabetes Outpatient Self-Management Training Services and Supporting Regulations CMS-10151 Data Collection for Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death CMS-10268 Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web Enabled Network (CROWNWeb) Third-party Submission Authorization Form CMS-R-5 Physician Certification/Recertification in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) Manual Instructions CMS-10615 Healthy Indiana Program (HIP) 2.0 Beneficiaries Survey, Focus Groups, and Informational Interviews CMS-10062 Collection of Diagnostic Data from Medicare Advantage Organizations for Risk Adjusted Payments

    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: Information Collection Requirements in HSQ-110, Acquisition, Protection and Disclosure of Peer review Organization Information and Supporting Regulations; Use: The Peer Review Improvement Act of 1982 authorizes quality improvement organizations (QIOs), formally known as peer review organizations (PROs), to acquire information necessary to fulfill their duties and functions and places limits on disclosure of the information. The QIOs are required to provide notices to the affected parties when disclosing information about them. These requirements serve to protect the rights of the affected parties. The information provided in these notices is used by the patients, practitioners and providers to: Obtain access to the data maintained and collected on them by the QIOs; add additional data or make changes to existing QIO data; and reflect in the QIO's record the reasons for the QIO's disagreeing with an individual's or provider's request for amendment. Form Number: CMS-R-70 (OMB control number: 0938-0426); Frequency: Reporting—On occasion; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 400; Total Annual Responses: 21,200; Total Annual Hours: 42,400. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Winsome Higgins at 410-786-1835.)

    2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Information Collection Requirements in 42 CFR 478.18, 478.34, 478.36, 478.42, QIO Reconsiderations and Appeals; Use: In the event that a beneficiary, provider, physician, or other practitioner does not agree with the initial determination of a Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) or a QIO subcontractor, it is within that party's rights to request reconsideration. The information collection requirements 42 CFR 478.18, 478.34, 478.36, and 478.42, contain procedures for QIOs to use in reconsideration of initial determinations. The information requirements contained in these regulations are on QIOs to provide information to parties requesting the reconsideration. These parties will use the information as guidelines for appeal rights in instances where issues are actively being disputed. Form Number: CMS-R-72 (OMB control number: 0938-0443); Frequency: Reporting—On occasion; Affected Public: Individuals or Households and Business or other for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,590; Total Annual Responses: 5,228; Total Annual Hours: 2,822. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Winsome Higgins at 410-786-1835.)

    3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Expanded Coverage for Diabetes Outpatient Self-Management Training Services and Supporting Regulations; Use: According to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), as many as 18.7 percent of Americans over age 65 are at risk for developing diabetes. The goals in the management of diabetes are to achieve normal metabolic control and reduce the risk of micro- and macro-vascular complications. Numerous epidemiologic and interventional studies point to the necessity of maintaining good glycemic control to reduce the risk of the complications of diabetes. Despite this knowledge, diabetes remains the leading cause of blindness, lower extremity amputations and kidney disease requiring dialysis. Diabetes and its complications are primary or secondary factors in an estimated 9 percent of hospitalizations (Aubert, RE, et al., Diabetes-related hospitalizations and hospital utilization. In: Diabetes in America. 2nd ed. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease, NIH, Pub. No 95-1468-1995: 553-570). Overall, beneficiaries with diabetes are hospitalized 1.5 times more often than beneficiaries without diabetes. HCFA-3002-F provided for uniform coverage of diabetes outpatient self-management training services. These services include educational and training services furnished to a beneficiary with diabetes by an entity approved to furnish the services. The physician or qualified non-physician practitioner treating the beneficiary's diabetes would certify that these services are needed as part of a comprehensive plan of care. This rule established the quality standards that an entity would be required to meet in order to participate in furnishing diabetes outpatient self-management training services. It set forth payment amounts that have been established in consultation with appropriate diabetes organizations. It implements section 4105 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Form Number: CMS-R-247 (OMB control number: 0938-0818); Frequency: Recordkeeping and Reporting—Occasionally; Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 5327; Total Annual Responses: 63,924; Total Annual Hours: 197,542. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kristin Shifflett at 410-786-4133.)

    4. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Data Collection for Medicare Beneficiaries Receiving Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death; Use: We provide coverage for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death based on extensive evidence showing that use of ICDs among patients with a certain set of physiologic conditions are effective. Accordingly, we consider coverage for ICDs reasonable and necessary under Section 1862(a)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act. However, evidence for use of ICDs for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death is less compelling for certain patients.

    To encourage responsible and appropriate use of ICDs, we issued a “Decision Memo for Implantable Defibrillators” on January 27, 2005, indicating that ICDs will be covered for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death if the beneficiary is enrolled in either an FDA-approved category B IDE clinical trial (42 CFR 405.201), a trial under the CMS Clinical Trial Policy (NCD Manual § 310.1) or a qualifying prospective data collection system (either a practical clinical trial or prospective systematic data collection, which is sometimes referred to as a registry). Form Number: CMS-10151 (OMB control number: 0938-0967); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits, Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 1,702; Total Annual Responses: 82; Total Annual Hours: 139,356. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact JoAnna Baldwin at 410-786-7205.)

    5. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web Enabled Network (CROWNWeb) Third-party Submission Authorization Form; Use: The Consolidated Renal Operations in a Web Enabled Network (CROWNWeb) Third-Party Submission Authorization form (CWTPSA) is to be completed by “Facility Administrators” (administrators of CMS-certified dialysis facilities) if they intend to authorize a third party (a business with which the facility is associated, or an independent vendor) to submit data to us to comply with the recently-revised Conditions for Coverage of dialysis facilities. The CROWNWeb system is the system used as the collection point of data necessary for entitlement of ESRD patients to Medicare benefits and for federal government monitoring and assessing of the quality and types of care provided to renal patients. The information collected through the CWTPSA form will allow us along with our contractors to receive data from authorized parties acting on behalf of CMS-certified dialysis facilities. Since February 2009, we have received 4,160 CWTPSA forms and anticipates that they will continue to receive no more than 400 new CWTPSA forms annually to address the creation of new facilities under the current participating “third party submitters.” Form Number: CMS-10268 (OMB control number: 0938-1052); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 400; Total Annual Responses: 400; Total Annual Hours: 34. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Victoria Schlining at 410-786-6878.)

    6. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Physician Certification/Recertification in Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs) Manual Instructions; Use: Section 1814(a) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires specific certifications in order for Medicare payments to be made for certain services. Before the enactment of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA1989, Pub. L. 101-239), section 1814(a)(2) of the Act required that, in the case of post hospital extended care services, a physician certify that the services are or were required to be given because the individual needs or needed, on a daily basis, skilled nursing care (provided directly by or requiring the supervision of skilled nursing personnel) or other skilled rehabilitation services that, as a practical matter, can only be provided in a SNF on an inpatient basis. The physician certification requirements were included in the law to ensure that patients require a level of care that is covered by the Medicare program and because the physician is a key figure in determining the utilization of health services. Form Number: CMS-R-5 (OMB control number: 0938-0454); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 2,711,136; Total Annual Responses: 2,711,136; Total Annual Hours: 624,515. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Kia Sidbury at 410-786-7816.)

    7. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Healthy Indiana Program (HIP) 2.0 Beneficiaries Survey, Focus Groups, and Informational Interviews; Use: The collected information will be used to make decisions about the renewal of precedent-setting waivers of Medicaid policy that assure important beneficiary protections regarding coverage and access to care; e.g., the State of Indiana's non-emergency medical transportation waiver which will end or will be extended by no later than December 1, 2016. To support CMS decision making, the collection's survey effort would provide more detailed information on the Healthy Indiana Program (HIP) 2.0 demonstration's beneficiary understanding and experiences (current and new enrollees as well as disenrollees/lockouts). Additional information on other key policies under the demonstration, such as the 60-day beneficiary lock-out period, is also included in this information collection request.

    This request does not propose any new or revised information collection requirements or burden estimates outside of what is currently approved by OMB. Rather, it seeks to extend the collection's current expiration date of September 30, 2016 (approved under the emergency PRA process on March 21, 2016; see 81 FR 17460 dated March 29, 2106, and 81 FR 26798 dated May 4, 2016). Since the collection has already been subject to the public comment process for collection activities taking place through September 30, 2016, this “Extension of a currently approved collection” will only consider comments for activities taking place from October 1, 2016, through the end of the revised expiration date. The revised expiration date will be made available upon OMB approval at reginfo.gov. Form Number: CMS-10615 (OMB control number: 0938-1300); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Individuals and households, Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profits institutions), and State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 5,240; Total Annual Responses: 5,240; Total Annual Hours: 1,442. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Teresa DeCaro at 202-384-6309.)

    8. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Collection of Diagnostic Data from Medicare Advantage Organizations for Risk Adjusted Payments; Use: CMS requires hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient and physician diagnostic data from Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations to continue making payment under the risk adjustment methodology. CMS will use the data to make risk adjusted payment under Parts C and D. MA and MA-PD plans will use the data to develop their Part C and D bids. As required by law, CMS also annually publishes the risk adjustment factors for plans and other interested entities in the Advance Notice of Methodological Changes for MA Payment Rates (every February) and the Announcement of Medicare Advantage Payment Rates (every April). Lastly, CMS issues monthly reports to each individual plan that contains the CMS Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) and RxHCC models' output and the risk scores and reimbursements for each beneficiary that is enrolled in their plan. Form Number: CMS-10062 (OMB control number: 0938-0878); Frequency: Quarterly; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for profit and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 691; Total Annual Responses: 83,000,000; Total Annual Hours: 40,650. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Michael P. Massimini at 410-786-1566.)

    Dated: July 19, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17376 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Title: Child Care and Development Fund Financial Report (ACF-696) for States and Territories.

    OMB No.: 0970-0163.

    Description: States and Territories use the Financial Report Form ACF-696 to report Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) expenditures. Authority to collect and report this information is found in section 658G of the Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990, as revised. In addition to the Program Reporting Requirements set forth in 45 CFR part 98, subpart H, the regulations at 45 CFR 98.65(g) and 98.67(c)(1) authorize the Secretary to require financial reports as necessary.

    The form provides specific data regarding claims and provides a mechanism for States to request Child Care grant awards and to certify the availability of State matching funds. Failure to collect this data would seriously compromise ACF's ability to monitor Child Care and Development Fund expenditures. This information is also used to estimate outlays and may be used to prepare ACF budget submissions to Congress.

    The previous information collection requirements related to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, (Pub. L. 111-5) have been deleted from this reporting form.

    Respondents: States and Territories

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    ACF-696 56 4 5 1120

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1120.

    Additional Information: Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201. Attention Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection. Email address: [email protected]

    OMB Comment: OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project, Email: [email protected], Attn: Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Robert Sargis, Reports Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17359 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health AGENCY:

    Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given that a meeting is scheduled for the Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health (the “Advisory Group”). This meeting will be open to the public. Information about the Advisory Group and the agenda for this meeting can be obtained by accessing the following Web site: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/priorities/prevention/advisorygrp/advisory-group-meetings.html.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 26, 2016, from 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST.

    ADDRESSES:

    This meeting will be held at the CDC Washington Office, Room 9000, 395 E Street SW., Washington DC 20201. Space to accommodate public in-person attendance is very limited. Therefore, arrangements are being made for the public to have access to the meeting by teleconference. Teleconference information will be published closer to the meeting date at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/priorities/prevention/advisorygrp/advisory-group-meetings.html. Individuals planning to attend the meeting by teleconference must register. The registration procedure is included in this notice under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Office of the Surgeon General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201; 202-205-9517; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Advisory Group is a non-discretionary federal advisory committee that was initially established under Executive Order 13544, dated June 10, 2010, to comply with the statutes under Section 4001 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148. The Advisory Group was terminated on September 30, 2012, by Executive Order 13591, dated November 23, 2011. Authority for the Advisory Group to be re-established was given under Executive Order 13631, dated December 7, 2012. Authority for the Advisory Group to continue to operate until September 30, 2017, was given under Executive Order 13708, dated September 30, 2015.

    The Advisory Group was established to assist in carrying out the mission of the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (the Council). The Advisory Group provides recommendations and advice to the Council.

    It is authorized for the Advisory Group to consist of no more than 25 non-federal members. The Advisory Group currently has 21 members who were appointed by the President. The membership includes a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who have expertise in (1) worksite health promotion; (2) community services, including community health centers; (3) preventive medicine; (4) health coaching; (5) public health education; (6) geriatrics; and (7) rehabilitation medicine.

    A meeting description and relevant materials will be published closer to the meeting date at: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/priorities/prevention/advisorygrp/advisory-group-meetings.html. Members of the public have the opportunity to participate in the meeting and/or provide comments via teleconference to the Advisory Group on September 26, 2016. Public comment will be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Individuals who wish to participate in the meeting and/or provide comments via teleconference must register by 12:00 p.m. EST on September 19, 2016. In order to register, individuals must send their full name and affiliation via email to [email protected] Individuals who need special assistance and/or accommodations, i.e., sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should indicate so when they register. Members of the public who wish to have materials distributed to the Advisory Group members at these scheduled meetings should submit those materials when they register.

    Dated: July 5, 2016. Brigette Ulin, MPH, Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative and Public Health, Office of the Surgeon General.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17385 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 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 a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIAAA.

    Date: September 13-14, 2016.

    Time: 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 5625 Fishers Lane, 5th Floor, Conference Room, Rockville, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: George Kunos, Ph.D., M.D., Scientific Director, National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5625 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852 301-443-2069 [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: July 18, 2016. Melanie J. Gray, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17298 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; 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 grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Drug Development and Optimization.

    Date: July 28, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Peter B. Guthrie, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4142, MSC 7850, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-1239, [email protected]

    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 18, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17297 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Treatment; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given that the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) National Advisory Council (NAC) will meet on August 24, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. (EDT) and will include a session that is closed to the public.

    The open session of the meeting will be held from 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. and will include consideration of minutes from the SAMHSA CSAT NAC meeting of February 24, 2016, the Director's report, discussions of SAMHSA's role regarding treatment of mental illness, substance use disorders, and a budget update.

    The closed meeting will include the review of grant applications, which contain budget information, including the description of how an agency prices its services, information on proposed business relationships and subcontracts. Grant applications also contain personal information and contact information on agency principles. Since the closed meeting will include discussion and evaluation of grant applications reviewed by Initial Review Groups and involve an examination of confidential financial and business information as well as personal information concerning the applicants, it will be closed to the public from 4:05 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. as determined by the Principal Deputy SAMHSA Administrator, in accordance with Title 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) and Title 5 U.S.C. App. 2, Section 10(d).

    The meeting will be held at the SAMHSA 5600 Fishers Lane, Conference Room 5 E29, Rockville, MD 20857. Attendance by the public will be limited to space available and will be limited to the open sessions of the meeting. Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the Council. Written submissions should be forwarded to the contact person on or before August 15, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled at the conclusion of the meeting. Individuals interested in making oral presentations are encouraged to notify the contact person on or before August 15, 2016. Five minutes will be allotted for each presentation.

    The open meeting session may be accessed via telephone. To attend on site, obtain the call-in number and access code, submit written or brief oral comments, or request special accommodations for persons with disabilities, please register on-line at http://nac.samhsa.gov/Registration/meetingsRegistration.aspx, or communicate with the CSAT national Advisory Council Designated Federal Officer; Tracy Goss (see contact information below).

    Meeting information and a roster of Council members may be obtained by accessing the SAMHSA Committee Web site at http://www.samhsa.gov/about-us/advisory-councils/csat-national-advisory-council or by contacting the CSAT National Advisory Council Designated Federal Officer; Tracy Goss (see contact information below).

    Council Name: SAMHSA's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, National Advisory Council.

    Date/Time/Type: August 24, 2016, 9:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. EDT, OPEN; August 24, 2016, 4:05 p.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT, CLOSED.

    Place: SAMHSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857.

    Contact: Tracy Goss, Designated Federal Officer, CSAT National Advisory Council, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857 (mail), Telephone: (240) 276-0759, Fax: (240) 276-2252, Email: [email protected]

    Summer King, Statistician, SAMHSA.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17346 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY U.S. Customs and Border Protection Extension of the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) Pilot Program AGENCY:

    U.S. Customs and Border Protection, DHS.

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    On October 24, 2012, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) published a notice in the Federal Register that announced the formalization and expansion of the Air Cargo Advance Screening (ACAS) pilot program that would run for six months. CBP subsequently published several notices extending the pilot period and/or reopening the application period to new participants for limited periods. The most recent notice extended the pilot period through July 26, 2016. This document announces that CBP is extending the pilot period for an additional year. The ACAS pilot is a voluntary test in which participants submit a subset of required advance air cargo data to CBP at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States.

    DATES:

    CBP is extending the ACAS pilot program through July 26, 2017. Comments concerning any aspect of the announced test may be submitted at any time during the test period.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments concerning program, policy, and technical issues may be submitted via email to [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please use “Comment on ACAS pilot”.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Craig Clark, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs & Border Protection, via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On October 24, 2012, CBP published a general notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 65006, corrected in 77 FR 65395) 1 announcing that CBP is formalizing and expanding the ACAS pilot to include other eligible participants in the air cargo environment. The notice provides a description of the ACAS pilot, sets forth eligibility requirements for participation, and invites public comments on any aspect of the test. In brief, the ACAS pilot revises the time frame for pilot participants to transmit a subset of mandatory advance electronic information for air cargo. CBP regulations implementing the Trade Act of 2002 specify the required data elements and the time frame for submitting them to CBP. Pursuant to title 19, Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR) 122.48a, the required advance information for air cargo must be submitted no later than the time of departure of the aircraft for the United States (from specified locations) or four hours prior to arrival in the United States for all other locations.

    1 This Federal Register notice, published on October 26, 2012, corrected the email address under the ADDRESSES heading for submitting applications or comments. The correct email address is [email protected]

    The ACAS pilot is a voluntary test in which participants agree to submit a subset of the required 19 CFR 122.48a data elements (ACAS data) at the earliest point practicable prior to loading of the cargo onto the aircraft destined to or transiting through the United States. The ACAS data is used to target high-risk air cargo. CBP is considering possible amendments to the regulations regarding advance information for air cargo. The results of the ACAS pilot will help determine the relevant data elements, the time frame within which data must be submitted to permit CBP to effectively target, identify and mitigate any risk with the least practicable impact on trade operations, and any other related procedures and policies.

    Extension of the ACAS Pilot Period

    The October 2012 notice announced that the ACAS pilot would run for six months. The notice provided that if CBP determined that the pilot period should be extended, CBP would publish another notice in the Federal Register. The October 2012 notice also stated that applications for new ACAS pilot participants would be accepted until November 23, 2012. CBP subsequently published several notices extending the pilot period and/or reopening the application period to new participants for limited periods. On December 26, 2012, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (77 FR 76064) reopening the application period for new participants until January 8, 2013. On January 3, 2013, the Federal Register published a correction (78 FR 315) stating that the correct date of the close of the reopened application period was January 10, 2013. On April 23, 2013, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 23946) extending the ACAS pilot period through October 26, 2013, and reopening the application period through May 23, 2013. On October 23, 2013, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (78 FR 63237) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2014, and reopening the application period through December 23, 2013. On July 28, 2014, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 43766) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2015, and reopening the application period through September 26, 2014. Finally, on July 27, 2015, CBP published a notice in the Federal Register (80 FR 44360) extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2016, and reopening the application period through October 26, 2015.

    Each extension of the pilot period and reopening of the application period has allowed for a significant increase in the diversity and number of pilot participants. The current pilot participants now represent a strong sample size of the air cargo community and new pilot participants will not be accepted.

    CBP intends to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking to incorporate ACAS as an ongoing regulatory program taking into account the results of the pilot and has begun work on that process. CBP would like the pilot to continue during the rulemaking process. This will provide continuity in the flow of advance air cargo security information and serve as a stop-gap measure to address the vulnerability of the air cargo supply chain identified by the October 2010 Yemen cargo plot. CBP would also like to provide pilot participants with the additional opportunity to adjust and test business procedures and operations in preparation for the forthcoming rulemaking.

    For these reasons, CBP is extending the ACAS pilot period through July 26, 2017.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Todd C. Owen, Executive Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17366 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-14-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY [Docket ID DHS-2016-0040] The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) will meet via teleconference on Wednesday, August 10, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The NSTAC will meet on Wednesday, August 10, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). Please note that the meeting may close early if the committee has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance to attend, please email [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 9, 2016.

    Members of the public are invited to provide comment on the issues that will be considered by the committee as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Associated briefing materials that participants may discuss during the meeting will be available at www.dhs.gov/nstac for review as of August 1, 2016. Comments may be submitted at any time and must be identified by docket number DHS-2016-0040. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected] Include the docket number DHS-2016-0040 in the subject line of the email message.

    Fax: 703-235-5961, Attn: Helen Jackson.

    Mail: Designated Federal Officer, Stakeholder Engagement and Critical Infrastructure Resilience Division, National Protection and Programs Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, 245 Murray Lane, Mail Stop 0604, Arlington, VA 20598-0604.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Department of Homeland Security” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information that has been provided.

    Docket: For access to the docket and comments received by the NSTAC, please go to www.regulations.gov and enter docket number DHS-2016-0040.

    A public comment period will be held during the conference call on August 10, 2016, from 2:30 p.m. to 2:40 p.m. EDT. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must register in advance by no later than August 9, 2016, at 5:00 p.m. EDT by emailing NSTAC at [email protected] Speakers are requested to limit their comments to three minutes and will speak in order of registration. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last request for comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Helen Jackson, NSTAC Designated Federal Officer, Department of Homeland Security, 703-235-5321.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. appendix. The NSTAC advises the President on matters related to national security and emergency preparedness (NS/EP) telecommunications policy.

    Agenda: The NSTAC will hold a conference call on August 10, 2016, to discuss issues and challenges related to NS/EP communications, which will include discussions with high-level Government stakeholders and a review of on-going NSTAC work, including an update on the Emerging Technologies Strategic Vision Subcommittee.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Helen Jackson, Designated Federal Officer for the NSTAC.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17392 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-9P-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5915-N-06] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment: Evaluation of the Office of Public and Indian Housing's (PIH) Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) Program AGENCY:

    Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: September 20, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Evaluation of the Office of Public and Indian Housing's (PIH) Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) Program.

    OMB Approval Number: None.

    Type of Request: This is a new request.

    Form Number: None.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The information is being collected to explore and document the effectiveness and value of HUD's Energy Performance Contracting (EPC) program. EPCs are an innovative financing technique designed to provide Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) with cost-effective energy improvements that are installed with little or no up-front expenditures, wherein the costs of the improvements are typically borne by the performance contractor and repaid using a portion of the cost savings resulting from the improvements. HUD has approved approximately 315 EPCs, totally nearly $1.5 billion in investments, since this type of financing began in the 1980s. EPCs have been executed in all ten HUD Regions and in very small (less than 250 units) to very large (more than 6,599 units) PHAs; however to date, no substantive review of the program's performance has been conducted. The proposed data collection instrument is a web-based survey that will be supported by follow-up telephone interviews to a subset of the study's participants.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Employees of housing organizations receiving funding from HUD, specifically public housing authorities.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 492 (consisting of PHAs that have: (1) Executed an EPC, (2) begun the EPC application process but didn't execute the EPC, and (3) never been associated with an EPC),

    Estimated Number of Responses: 394 (based on an 80% response rate, web survey or telephone interviews).

    Frequency of Response: 1.

    Average Hours per Response: 0.79 (weighted average).

    Total Estimated Burdens: 312.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual burden
  • hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    Web Survey 328 1 1 0.75 246 $44.15 $10,861 Telephone Interview 66 1 1 1 66 44.15 2,914 Total 394 312 13,775
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) 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) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: May 11, 2016. Matthew E. Ammon, General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17391 Filed 7-21-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5907-N-30] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, unde