Federal Register Vol. 81, No.142,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 142 (July 25, 2016)

Page Range48315-48685
FR Document

81_FR_142
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 48317 - Delegation of Authority Under Sections 614(a)(1) and 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961PDF
81 FR 48315 - Delegation of Authority Under Section 610 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961PDF
81 FR 48464 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 48443 - Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248 (WPA Sale 248); MMAA104000PDF
81 FR 48442 - Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting: Manufactured Housing Consensus CommitteePDF
81 FR 48366 - Continuum of Care Program: Solicitation of Comment on Continuum of Care FormulaPDF
81 FR 48449 - Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Western Planning Area (WPA) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248; MMAA104000PDF
81 FR 48384 - Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 48387 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 48384 - Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015PDF
81 FR 48364 - Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2306F; Yuma Proving Ground, AZ.PDF
81 FR 48390 - Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty OrdersPDF
81 FR 48462 - Notice of Public Comment Period on Proposed Uniform Language for Testimony and ReportsPDF
81 FR 48369 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and Hancock, MIPDF
81 FR 48329 - Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CTPDF
81 FR 48327 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, DePere to Oshkosh, WIPDF
81 FR 48408 - Extension of Public Comment Period on the Environmental Assessment Addressing the Consolidation and Renovation at Marine Corps Forces Reserve Center Brooklyn, New YorkPDF
81 FR 48404 - Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Closure of Former Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Moffett Field Located in Santa Clara County, CaliforniaPDF
81 FR 48417 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 48419 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 48427 - Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes National Indian Health Outreach and Education-Health Reform Funding OpportunityPDF
81 FR 48377 - Public Availability of FY 2015 Service Contract InventoriesPDF
81 FR 48375 - Pike/San Isabel National Forests; Colorado; Pike/San Isabel National Forests Travel Management PlanPDF
81 FR 48426 - Health Center ProgramPDF
81 FR 48376 - North Gifford Pinchot Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 48426 - Findings of Research MisconductPDF
81 FR 48437 - Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Proposed Information Collection: Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific NorthwestPDF
81 FR 48398 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48462 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water Act and the Oil Pollution ActPDF
81 FR 48500 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 48498 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Information Collection; Submission for OMB Review; Reduction of Permanent Capital NoticePDF
81 FR 48499 - Minority Depository Institutions Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 48499 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related AgreementsPDF
81 FR 48408 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48377 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance ProgramPDF
81 FR 48381 - Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Repowering Assistance ProgramPDF
81 FR 48365 - Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations; Extension of Comment PeriodPDF
81 FR 48401 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 48421 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 48421 - Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking ActivitiesPDF
81 FR 48421 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 48423 - Submission for OMB Review; Contract Funding-Limitation of Costs/FundsPDF
81 FR 48424 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48396 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 48464 - Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review, Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 48421 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48414 - Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, To Vacate Authority, and Errata During June 2016PDF
81 FR 48405 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 48393 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48498 - Limitation on Claims Against a Proposed Public Transportation ProjectPDF
81 FR 48502 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 48490 - Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter FY 2016PDF
81 FR 48399 - 36(b)(1) Arms Sales NotificationPDF
81 FR 48502 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 14693PDF
81 FR 48501 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation Project.PDF
81 FR 48496 - Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption; Daimler Trucks North America (Daimler)PDF
81 FR 48496 - Hours of Service of Drivers: WestRock Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Compliance DatePDF
81 FR 48464 - Advisory Committee on Presidential Library-Foundation PartnershipsPDF
81 FR 48495 - Hours of Service of Drivers: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE); FAST Act Extension of Expiration DatePDF
81 FR 48493 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; VisionPDF
81 FR 48404 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48407 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48490 - Oklahoma Disaster # OK-00105PDF
81 FR 48420 - Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10499, Columbia Savings Bank, Cincinnati, OhioPDF
81 FR 48395 - International Whaling Commission; 66th Meeting; Announcement of Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 48395 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 48394 - Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 48485 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Adjustments to Its Options Regulatory FeePDF
81 FR 48475 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Make Adjustments to Nasdaq's Options Regulatory FeePDF
81 FR 48465 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Reporting of U.S. Treasury Securities to the Trade Reporting and Compliance EnginePDF
81 FR 48482 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Order Approving Proposed Rule Change To Establish a Link With EuroclearPDF
81 FR 48477 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 1.1 To Establish an Official Closing Price for Exchange-Listed Securities if the Exchange Is Unable To Conduct a Closing AuctionPDF
81 FR 48487 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7018PDF
81 FR 48321 - Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. Turbofan Engines Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034ENPDF
81 FR 48441 - Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal AgenciesPDF
81 FR 48331 - Security Zone, Delaware River, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PAPDF
81 FR 48371 - Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III)PDF
81 FR 48386 - U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council EstablishmentPDF
81 FR 48450 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated PhotonicsPDF
81 FR 48449 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.PDF
81 FR 48462 - Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993-OpenDaylight Project, Inc.PDF
81 FR 48450 - United States v. VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Capital Master Fund, LP, and ValueAct Co-Invest International, LP; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact StatementPDF
81 FR 48490 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Florida Air TransportPDF
81 FR 48491 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; AirNet IIPDF
81 FR 48319 - Special Conditions: Avmax Aviation Services Inc., Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery SystemsPDF
81 FR 48323 - Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters to Use the New York North Shore Helicopter RoutePDF
81 FR 48415 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 48438 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 48438 - Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 48439 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 48440 - National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 48439 - Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for LicensingPDF
81 FR 48348 - Extension of Deadline for Action on the Section 126 Petition From ConnecticutPDF
81 FR 48440 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48350 - Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM2.5PDF
81 FR 48409 - Applications for New Awards; Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind ProgramPDF
81 FR 48373 - Notification of Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture; Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide ApplicatorsPDF
81 FR 48335 - Final Priority-Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind ProgramPDF
81 FR 48425 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 48394 - Marine Mammals; File No. 20481PDF
81 FR 48647 - Migratory Bird Hunting; Seasons and Bag and Possession Limits for Certain Migratory Game BirdsPDF
81 FR 48362 - Radio Experimentation and Market Trials-Streamlining RulesPDF
81 FR 48356 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing IndustryPDF
81 FR 48372 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing IndustryPDF
81 FR 48333 - Safety Zone; Illinois River Mile 69.3 to 69.8; Meredosia, ILPDF
81 FR 48346 - Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control DistrictPDF
81 FR 48619 - Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Ceiling FansPDF
81 FR 48491 - Notice of Final Federal Agency Actions on Proposed Transportation Projects in FloridaPDF
81 FR 48597 - Program Integrity and ImprovementPDF
81 FR 48505 - Community Reinvestment Act; Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment; GuidancePDF
81 FR 48557 - Small Business Mentor Protégé ProgramsPDF

Issue

81 142 Monday, July 25, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Forest Service

See

Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department

See

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Antitrust Division Antitrust Division NOTICES Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement: United States v. VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Capital Master Fund, LP, and ValueAct Co-Invest International, LP, 48450-48461 2016-17432 Membership Changes under the National Cooperative Research and Production Act: Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc., 48449-48450 2016-17434 Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics, 48450 2016-17435 OpenDaylight Project, Inc., 48462 2016-17433 Census Bureau Census Bureau PROPOSED RULES 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations, 48365-48366 2016-17484 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48424-48425 2016-17478 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48425 2016-17403 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Fox River, DePere to Oshkosh, WI, 48327-48329 2016-17541 Safety Zones: Illinois River Mile 69.3 to 69.8; Meredosia, IL, 48333-48335 2016-17240 Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT, 48329-48331 2016-17543 Security Zones: Delaware River, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA, 48331-48333 2016-17440 PROPOSED RULES Drawbridge Operations: Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and Hancock, MI, 48369-48371 2016-17544 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency RULES Guidance: Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment, 48506-48556 2016-16693 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Disclosure and Reporting of CRA-Related Agreements, 48499-48500 2016-17488 Interagency Guidance on Asset Securitization Activities, 48500-48501 2016-17491 Reduction of Permanent Capital Notice, 48498-48499 2016-17490 Charter Renewals: Minority Depository Institutions Advisory Committee, 48499 2016-17489 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board PROPOSED RULES Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III), 48371-48372 2016-17437 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48398-48399, 48404-48405, 48407-48408 2016-17456 2016-17457 2016-17493 Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds, 48423-48424 2016-17479 Arms Sales, 48396-48407 2016-17466 2016-17472 2016-17476 2016-17483 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Addressing the Closure of Former Defense Fuel Support Point Moffett Field Located in Santa Clara County, CA, 48404 2016-17504
Education Department Education Department RULES Final Priorities: Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program, 48335-48346 2016-17404 PROPOSED RULES Program Integrity and Improvement, 48598-48617 2016-17068 NOTICES Applications for New Awards: Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program, 48409-48414 2016-17406 Energy Department Energy Department RULES Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Ceiling Fans, 48620-48646 2016-17139 NOTICES Approvals to Import and Export Natural Gas, 48414-48415 2016-17473 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District, 48346-48348 2016-17192 Clean Air Act Requirements: Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California—South Coast, 48350-48356 2016-17410 Extension of Deadline for Action on the Section 126 Petition from Connecticut, 48348-48350 2016-17412 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 48356-48362 2016-17293 PROPOSED RULES National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, 48372-48373 2016-17292 Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators: Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture, 48373-48374 2016-17405 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: CFM International, S.A. Turbofan Engines Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034EN, 48321-48323 2016-17442 Extension of Requirement for Helicopters to Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route, 48323-48327 2016-17427 Special Conditions: Avmax Aviation Services Inc., Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems, 48319-48321 2016-17428 PROPOSED RULES Establishment of Restricted Area R-2306F: Yuma Proving Ground, AZ, 48364-48365 2016-17558 NOTICES Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: AirNet II, 48491 2016-17429 Florida Air Transport, 48490-48491 2016-17430 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Radio Experimentation and Market Trials: Streamlining Rules, 48362-48363 2016-17319 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48415-48420 2016-17426 2016-17502 2016-17503 Federal Deposit Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation RULES Guidance: Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment, 48506-48556 2016-16693 NOTICES Terminations of Receivership: Columbia Savings Bank, Cincinnati, OH, 48420-48421 2016-17453 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration NOTICES Final Federal Agency Actions: Florida Proposed Transportation Projects, 48491-48493 2016-17110 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Commercial Driver's License Standards; Applications for Exemption: Daimler Trucks North America, 48496-48498 2016-17463 Hours of Service of Drivers: U.S. Department of Energy; FAST Act Extension of Expiration Date, 48495-48496 2016-17459 WestRock Exemption; FAST Act Extension of Compliance Date, 48496 2016-17462 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Vision, 48493-48495 2016-17458 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System RULES Guidance: Interagency Questions and Answers Regarding Community Reinvestment, 48506-48556 2016-16693 NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 48421 2016-17482 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 48421 2016-17480 Proposals to Engage in or to Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities, 48421 2016-17481 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48421-48423 2016-17474 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Limitations on Claims Against a Proposed Public Transportation Project, 48498 2016-17469 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service RULES Migratory Bird Hunting: Seasons and Bag and Possession Limits for Certain Migratory Game Birds, 48648-48685 2016-17330 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: North Gifford Pinchot Resource Advisory Committee, 48376-48377 2016-17496 Travel Management Plan: Pike/San Isabel National Forests, 48375-48376 2016-17498 General Services General Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds, 48423-48424 2016-17479 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Indian Health Service

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Research Misconduct, 48426-48427 2016-17495
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Health Center Program, 48426 2016-17497 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department PROPOSED RULES Continuum of Care Program: Continuum of Care Formula, 48366-48369 2016-17567 NOTICES Meetings: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee, Teleconference, 48442-48443 2016-17568 Indian Health Indian Health Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific Northwest, 48437-48438 2016-17494 Funding Availabilities: National Indian Health Outreach and Education—Health Reform Funding Opportunity, 48427-48437 2016-17500 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48501-48503 2016-17464 2016-17465 2016-17468 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China, 48384-48386 2016-17565 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China, 48387-48390 2016-17563 Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan, 48390-48393 2016-17557 Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China, 48384 2016-17562 Establishment of the U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council, 48386-48387 2016-17436 Justice Department Justice Department See

Antitrust Division

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Proposed Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports, 48462-48464 2016-17551 Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Water and Oil Pollution Act, 48462 2016-17492
Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds, 48423-48424 2016-17479 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Charter Renewals: Advisory Committee on Presidential Library-Foundation Partnerships, 48464 2016-17460 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing, 48439 2016-17419 Meetings: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 48438-48439 2016-17422 2016-17423 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council, 48440 2016-17420 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 48439-48440 2016-17421 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48393-48394 2016-17471 Applications: Marine Mammals; File No. 20481, 48394 2016-17402 Meetings: Caribbean Fishery Management Council, 48394-48396 2016-17450 2016-17451 International Whaling Commission, 48395 2016-17452 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48408 2016-17487 Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Consolidation and Renovation at Marine Corps Forces Reserve Center Brooklyn, NY, 48408-48409 2016-17537 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 48464 2016-17619 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Records of Decisions: Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf, Western Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248, 48449 2016-17566 Sales: Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248, 48443-48448 2016-17574 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Delegation of Authority Under Section 610 (Memorandum of July 13, 2016), 48315 2016-17639 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; Delegation of Authority Under Sections 614(a)(1) and 610 (Memorandum of July 13, 2016), 48317 2016-17640 Procurement Procurement and Property Management Office, Agriculture Department NOTICES Fiscal Year 2015 Service Contract Inventories, 48377 2016-17499 Railroad Retirement Railroad Retirement Board NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48464-48465 2016-17475 Rural Business Rural Business-Cooperative Service NOTICES Funding Availabilities: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 48377-48381 2016-17486 Repowering Assistance Program, 48381-48384 2016-17485 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria: NASDAQ BX, Inc., 48485-48487 2016-17448 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Depository Trust Co., 48482-48485 2016-17445 Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 48465-48475 2016-17446 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 48475-48477, 48487-48490 2016-17443 2016-17447 NYSE Arca, Inc., 48477-48482 2016-17444 Small Business Small Business Administration RULES Small Business Mentor Protege Programs, 48558-48595 2016-16399 NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Oklahoma, 48490 2016-17454 Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loans Interest Rate for Fourth Quarter Fiscal Year 2016, 48490 2016-17467 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 48440-48441 2016-17411 Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards to Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies, 48441-48442 2016-17441 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 48506-48556 2016-16693 Federal Reserve System, 48506-48556 2016-16693 Treasury Department, Comptroller of the Currency, 48506-48556 2016-16693 Part III Small Business Administration, 48558-48595 2016-16399 Part IV Education Department, 48598-48617 2016-17068 Part V Energy Department, 48620-48646 2016-17139 Part VI Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service, 48648-48685 2016-17330 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.

81 142 Monday, July 25, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-1087; Special Conditions No. 25-622-SC] Special Conditions: Avmax Aviation Services Inc., Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 Series Airplanes; Installed Rechargeable Lithium Batteries and Battery Systems AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by Avmax Aviation Services Inc. (Avmax), will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is rechargeable lithium batteries to replace the existing nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for these design features. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

This action is effective on Avmax July 25, 2016. We must receive your comments by September 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1087 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2432; facsimile 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

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

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

Background

On September 8, 2015, Avmax Aviation Services Inc. applied for a supplemental type certificate (STC) for the installation of rechargeable lithium batteries to replace the existing nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries in Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes.

The Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes are transport-category, twin-engine turboprops with a maximum capacity of 37 (100 and 200 series) or 50 (300 series) passengers and a maximum takeoff weight of 36,300 lbs (100 and 200 series) or 43,000 lbs (300 series).

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Avmax must show that the Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A13NM, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.”

In addition, if the regulations incorporated by reference do not provide adequate standards regarding the change, the applicant must comply with certain regulations in effect on the date of application for the change.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the other model.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes, as modified by Avmax, will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature: Installed rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems.

Rechargeable lithium batteries are a novel or unusual design feature in transport-category airplanes. This type of battery has certain failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries currently approved for installation on transport-category airplanes.

Discussion

The current regulations governing installation of batteries in large transport-category airplanes were derived from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) part 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. The recodified battery requirements, § 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), basically reworded the CAR requirements.

Increased use of nickel-cadmium batteries in small airplanes resulted in increased incidents of battery fires and failures that led to additional rulemaking affecting large transport-category airplanes as well as small airplanes. On September 1, 1977, and March 1, 1978, with Amendments 25-41 and 25-42, respectively, the FAA added paragraphs (c)(5) and (c)(6) to § 25.1353, governing nickel-cadmium battery installations on large transport-category airplanes. On December 10, 2007, Amendment 25-123 moved the contents of paragraph (b) in § 25.1353 to the new subpart H, resulting in the relocation of the regulations governing the installation of batteries in § 25.1353 from paragraph (c) to paragraph (b).

The proposed use of rechargeable lithium batteries for equipment and systems on airplanes prompted the FAA to review the adequacy of these existing battery regulations. Our review indicates that the existing regulations do not adequately address several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of lithium batteries, which could affect the safety and reliability of the lithium battery installations.

At present, the airplane industry has limited experience with the use of lithium batteries in applications involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology, ranging from wireless-telephone manufacturers to the electric-vehicle industry, have noted safety problems with rechargeable lithium batteries. These problems include overcharging, over-discharging, and flammability of cell components.

1. Overcharging

In general, lithium batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This condition is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation (by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. In addition, the severity of thermal runaway, due to overcharging, increases with increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in large batteries.

2. Over-Discharging

Discharge of some types of lithium battery cells beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts), can cause corrosion of the electrodes of the cell, resulting in loss of battery capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly available to flightcrews as a means of checking battery status—a problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.

3. Flammability of Cell Components

Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of lithium batteries use liquid electrolytes that are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if there is a breach of the battery container.

These problems, which users of lithium batteries experience, raise concerns about the use of these batteries in commercial aviation. The intent of these special conditions is to establish appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium battery installations in the Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes and to ensure, as required in §§ 25.601 and 25.1309, that these battery installations are not hazardous or unreliable.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes as modified by Avmax. Should Avmax apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. A13NM incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would significantly affect the certification of the airplane, which is imminent, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal Register. The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Authority:

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

The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes modified by Avmax Aviation Services Inc.

In lieu of the requirements of 14 CFR 25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4) at Amendment 25-51, all rechargeable lithium batteries and battery systems on Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 airplanes, as modified by Avmax Aviation Services Inc., must be designed and installed as follows:

1. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during any foreseeable charging or discharging condition and during any failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be extremely remote. The rechargeable lithium battery installation must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.

2. Design of the rechargeable lithium batteries must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure.

3. No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any rechargeable lithium battery in normal operation, or as the result of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or battery installation which is not shown to be extremely remote, may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Installations of rechargeable lithium batteries must meet the requirements of § 25.863(a) through (d).

5. No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any rechargeable lithium battery may damage surrounding structure or any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition, in accordance with § 25.1309(b) and applicable regulatory guidance.

6. Each rechargeable lithium battery installation must have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or essential systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual cells.

7. Lithium battery installations must have a system to control the charging rate of the battery automatically, designed to prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and,

a. A battery-temperature sensing and over-temperature warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,

b. A battery-failure sensing and warning system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the event of battery failure.

8. Any rechargeable lithium battery installation, the function of which is required for safe operation of the airplane, must incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable for dispatch of the airplane.

9. The instructions for continued airworthiness required by § 25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to assure that the battery is sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer that contain the rechargeable lithium battery or rechargeable lithium battery system. This is required to ensure that rechargeable lithium batteries and rechargeable lithium battery systems will not degrade below specified ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the airplane systems for intended applications. The instructions for continued airworthiness must also contain procedures for the maintenance of batteries in spares storage to prevent the replacement of batteries with batteries that have experienced degraded charge retention ability or other damage due to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the FAA. Precautions should be included, in the instructions for continued airworthiness maintenance instructions, to prevent mishandling of the rechargeable lithium battery and rechargeable lithium battery systems, which could result in short-circuit, or other unintentional impact damage caused by dropping batteries or other destructive means that could result in personal injury or property damage.

Note 1:

The term “sufficiently charged” means that the battery will retain enough of a charge, expressed in ampere-hours, to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged. A battery cell may be damaged by lowering the charge below a point where the battery experiences a reduction in the ability to charge and retain a full charge. This reduction would be greater than the reduction that may result from normal operational degradation.

Note 2:

These special conditions are not intended to replace § 25.1353(c) in the certification basis of Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes. These special conditions apply only to rechargeable lithium batteries and lithium battery systems and their installations on Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes, as modified by Avmax. The requirements of § 25.1353(c) remain in effect for batteries and battery installations on Bombardier Model DHC-8-100/-200/-300 series airplanes that do not use lithium batteries.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 15, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17428 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2012-1289; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-43-AD; Amendment 39-18591; AD 2016-14-10] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; CFM International, S.A. Turbofan Engines Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034EN AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding airworthiness directive (AD) 2013-02-02 for certain CFM International, S.A. CFM56-3, CFM56-3B, and CFM56-3C turbofan engines. AD 2013-02-02 required removal from service of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) disks manufactured by Global Material Solutions of Pratt & Whitney, at reduced maximum life limits. This AD corrects the serial numbers (S/Ns) listed in AD 2013-02-02. This AD was prompted by reports that certain HPT disk S/Ns in AD 2013-02-02 and in certain Pratt & Whitney service information are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained release of multiple turbine blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 9, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of August 9, 2016.

We must receive any comments on this AD by September 8, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

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

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

Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-7700; fax: 860-565-1605. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2012-1289.

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-2012-1289; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information, regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

On January 14, 2013, we issued AD 2013-02-02, Amendment 39-17323 (78 FR 5712, January 28, 2013), (“AD 2013-02-02”) for all CFM56-3, CFM56-3B, and CFM56-3C turbofan engines modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034EN, with certain HPT disks, installed. AD 2013-02-02 required removal from service of certain high-pressure turbine (HPT) disks manufactured by Global Material Solutions of Pratt & Whitney, at reduced maximum life limits. AD 2013-02-02 resulted from a report of a forging process error during manufacture of these HPT disks. We issued AD 2013-02-02 to prevent uncontained release of multiple turbine blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2013-02-02 Was Issued

Since we issued AD 2013-02-02, we received reports that certain HPT disk S/Ns GLKBAA9307, GLKBAA9335, GLKBAA9404, GLKBAA9407, and GLKBAA9409, in AD 2013-02-02 and in certain Pratt & Whitney service information are incorrect. The correct S/Ns are: GKLBAA9307, GKLBAA9335, GKLBAA9404, GKLBAA9407, and GKLBAA9409.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

We reviewed Pratt & Whitney Corp. Special Instruction No. 6F-12, Revision A, dated May 17, 2016. The Special Instruction describes procedures for reducing the maximum life limit for affected HPT disks. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

This AD requires removal from service of affected HPT disks at certain recalculated reduced maximum life limits.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

No domestic operators use this product. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2012-1289; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-43-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of those comments.

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

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 0 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about 61 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about $0 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $0.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD) 2013-02-02, Amendment 39-17323 (78 FR 5712, January 28, 2013), (“AD 2013-02-02”), and adding the following new AD: 2016-14-10 CFM International, S.A. Turbofan Engines Modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034EN: Amendment 39-18591; Docket No. FAA-2012-1289; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-43-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 9, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD supersedes AD 2013-02-02.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to CFM International, S.A. CFM56-3, CFM56-3B, and CFM56-3C turbofan engines, modified by Supplemental Type Certificate SE00034EN, with a high-pressure turbine (HPT) disk, part number (P/N) 880026, serial number (S/N) GKLBAA9307, GKLBAA9335, GKLBAA9404, GKLBAA9407, or GKLBAA9409, installed.

(d) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports that certain HPT disk serial numbers in AD 2013-02-02 and in certain Pratt & Whitney service information are incorrect. We are issuing this AD to prevent uncontained release of multiple turbine blades, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) For CFM56-3, CFM56-3B, and CFM56-3C turbofan engines operating to 20,100 lbs maximum takeoff (MTO) thrust, remove the HPT disk from service on or before accumulating 8,000 cycles-since-new (CSN).

(2) For CFM56-3B and CFM56-3C turbofan engines operating to 22,100 lbs MTO thrust, remove the HPT disk from service on or before accumulating 8,000 CSN.

(3) For CFM56-3C turbofan engines operating to 23,500 lbs MTO thrust, remove the HPT disk from service on or before accumulating 4,000 CSN.

(4) For HPT disks that have been used in multiple models or thrust installations, use the formula in the ADDED DATA section of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction 6F-12, Revision A, dated May 17, 2016 to calculate the remaining life on the disk.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-238-7765; fax: 781-238-7199; email: [email protected]

(h) 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) Pratt & Whitney Corp. Special Instruction No. 6F-12, Revision A, dated May 17, 2016.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Pratt & Whitney service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-7700; fax: 860-565-1605.

(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-238-7125.

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

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 11, 2016. Colleen M. D'Alessandro, Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17442 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 93 [Docket No.: FAA-2010-0302; Amdt. No. 93-99] RIN 2120-AK84 Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters to Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This rulemaking amends the expiration date of the final rule requiring pilots operating civil helicopters under Visual Flight Rules to use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route when operating along that area of Long Island, New York. The current rule expires on August 6, 2016. The FAA finds it necessary to extend the rule for an additional four years to preserve the current operating environment while the FAA conducts ongoing helicopter research that will be considered to determine appropriate future actions.

DATES:

This final rule is effective August 7, 2016, through August 6, 2020.

ADDRESSES:

For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking documents and other information related to this final rule, see “How To Obtain Additional Information” in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace and Rules Team, AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3396; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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.

The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to regulate the operation of aircraft, the use of the navigable airspace and to establish safety standards for and regulate the certification of airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq., 40103(b)). The FAA's authority for this rule is contained in 49 U.S.C. 40103 and 44715. Under section 40103, the Administrator of the FAA has authority to “prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for . . . (B) protecting individuals and property on the ground. (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2)(B)). In addition, section 44715(a), provides that to “relieve and protect the public health and welfare from aircraft noise,” the Administrator of the FAA, “as he deems necessary, shall prescribe . . . (ii) regulations to control and abate aircraft noise . . .”

Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice

Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule. The current rule expires on August 6, 2016. To prevent confusion among pilots using the route and avoid disruption of the current operating environment, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.

I. Background

In response to concerns from a large number of local residents regarding noise from helicopters operating over Long Island, the FAA issued the New York North Shore Helicopter Route final rule (77 FR 39911, July 6, 2012). The rule requires civil helicopter pilots operating Visual Flight Rules (VFR), whose route of flight takes them over the north shore of Long Island between the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD) waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to use the North Shore Helicopter Route, as published in the New York Helicopter Chart (“the Chart”). The rule was promulgated to maximize use of the route, as published per the Chart, to secure and improve upon decreased levels of noise that had been voluntarily achieved. Under the rule, pilots are permitted to deviate from the route and altitude requirements when necessary for safety, weather conditions, or transitioning to or from a destination or point of landing. In addition, the rule is based on a voluntary VFR route that was developed by the FAA, working with the Eastern Region Helicopter Council. The voluntary route originally was added to the Chart on May 8, 2008.

The rule originally had a two-year duration and was set to terminate on August 6, 2014. The FAA limited the duration of the rule because, at the time of promulgation, the FAA did not have data on the current rate of compliance with the voluntary route nor the circumstances surrounding an operator's decision not to use the route. The FAA concluded there would be no reason to retain the rule if the FAA determined the noise situation along the North Shore of Long Island did not improve. Accordingly, the Agency decided that the rule would expire in two years, if it was determined there is no meaningful improvement in the effects of helicopter noise on quality of life or that the rule was otherwise unjustified. Specifically, the FAA stated that should there be such an improvement, the FAA may, after appropriate notice and opportunity for comment, decide to make the rule permanent. Likewise, should the FAA determine that reasonable modification could be made to the route to better address noise concerns (and any other relevant concerns), the FAA may choose to modify the rule after notice and comment.

On June 23, 2014, the FAA issued a two-year extension of the rule's termination date to provide additional time for the Agency to assess the rule's impact and consider whether to make the mandatory use of the route permanent (79 FR 35488). Since then, the FAA has been engaged in a variety of helicopter research initiatives that could inform the Agency's future actions on this rule. Topics addressed by these research efforts, described in more detail below, include modeling of helicopter performance and noise, helicopter noise-abatement procedures, and community response to helicopter noise.

The FAA has initiated efforts to improve helicopter performance-modeling capabilities for more accurate operational impact analysis. This research is scheduled to be completed in 2016, with an implementation plan for incorporation into the FAA's Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT).1 Also, through the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Transportation Review Board (TRB), a research project was initiated through the Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) to provide helicopter noise-modeling guidance. The project reviewed, evaluated, and documented current helicopter noise prediction models and identified potential improvements to AEDT to better capture the unique complexity of helicopter operations. The research was published in January 2016. The FAA is currently reviewing the findings and will consider making modeling improvements in AEDT based on those findings. Improved modeling will allow better quantification of the noise impacts of helicopter operations and better inform decisions on measures to abate helicopter-noise impacts.

1 AEDT is the FAA's tool for computing noise, emissions and fuel burn.

The FAA's Center of Excellence, called the Aviation Sustainability Center (ASCENT), has funded Pennsylvania State University to conduct modeling of helicopters to identify potential noise-abatement procedures that may result in quieter operations. The first phase of this project focuses on integrating the tools needed to predict helicopter-source noise and providing the necessary integration within AEDT to be able to illustrate potential noise impacts of such noise abatement procedures. The second phase of the project is focused on developing noise-abatement procedures for either individual helicopters or classes of helicopters. These phases of the research are scheduled to be completed by August 2017. At that time, the FAA will need to determine whether to initiate and support flight tests during 2018, which would be necessary prior to advancing the use of the procedures with helicopter operators.

The FAA is also engaged in research and collaboration with helicopter operators, seeking to educate pilots on the benefits of noise-abatement procedures, when to institute them, and the piloting procedures for achieving quieter operations. This project addresses noted issues by developing a strategy for pilot awareness of noise-abatement techniques, looking at ways to illustrate the benefits through modeling, and examining the potential for video training on how to incorporate noise-abatement procedures. This research will utilize the findings of the ASCENT project described above.

Finally, the FAA has two projects to review methodologies to determine community response to helicopter operations. One project is administered through the ACRP. The objectives of the ACRP research project are to: (1) Determine the significance of acoustical and non-acoustical factors that influence community annoyance to helicopter noise, (2) describe how these factors compare to those contributing to fixed-wing aircraft community annoyance, and (3) develop and validate a research method to relate helicopter-noise exposure to surveyed community annoyance. This project is two-thirds complete, and ACRP expects the project to be completed in late 2016. Further, the FAA has initiated a second project in an effort to test a different methodology for gathering information on community annoyance for residents in the vicinity of helicopter operations. The FAA has gathered data for this project, and the analysis is underway. The goal is to report on the methodology in late 2016, and when completed, it will provide an alternative method for developing an annoyance survey for helicopters.

Both of these projects provide an opportunity for the FAA to compare methodologies and determine the most effective approach for conducting a helicopter noise-annoyance survey. At the completion of the projects, the FAA intends to select the most effective, survey methodology and determine if a larger scale, community survey would better inform the FAA on appropriate methods to address concerns over helicopter noise. The FAA will then consider the need for a comprehensive helicopter community annoyance survey. While the research reaches maturity by the end of 2017, applying the research will take longer.

II. The Final Rule

This final rule extends for an additional four years (i.e., to August 6, 2020) the requirement for pilots of civil helicopters to use the North Shore Helicopter Route when transiting along the north shore of Long Island. The FAA expects that four years will be sufficient time to consider results of the described research efforts in determining appropriate future actions on the rule. Extending the requirement to use the North Shore Helicopter Route during this period will continue to foster maximum use of the North Shore Helicopter Route and avoid disruption of the current operating environment. Therefore, the FAA finds that a four-year extension of the current rule is warranted.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.

Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations. If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared. Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning for this determination follows:

This final rule extends for an additional four years (i.e., to August 6, 2020) the requirement for pilots of civil helicopters to use the North Shore Helicopter Route when transiting along the north shore of Long Island. Extending the current rule for four years is expected to provide the FAA with sufficient time to consider results of the described research efforts in determining appropriate future actions on the rule. The FAA determined the 2012 final rule would impose minimal costs because many of the existing operators were already complying with the final rule requirements. As this final rule extends those requirements, the FAA expects this final rule imposes only minimal costs.

The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a “significant regulatory action” as defined in section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not “significant” as defined in DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA) establishes “as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions subject to regulation.” To achieve this principle, agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given serious consideration.” The RFA covers a wide range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA. However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.

The FAA believes that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. With this final rule, the regulatory provisions already in place will be extended four years to provide the FAA with sufficient time to consider results of the described research efforts in determining appropriate future actions on the rule. The final regulatory flexibility analysis for the 2012 final rule determined that it had a minimal cost impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule extends those requirements. Thus, the FAA expects a minimal economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also requires consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that the rule will preserve the current operating environment and is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more (in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate is deemed to be a “significant regulatory action.” The FAA currently uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100 million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that there is no new requirement for information collection associated with this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices that correspond to these proposed regulations.

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” identifies FAA actions that, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, are categorically excluded from requiring an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rule qualifies for the categorical exclusion in paragraph 5-6.6.f of that Order, which includes “[r]egulations. . . excluding those that if implemented may cause a significant impact on the human environment. There are no extraordinary circumstances that warrant preparation of an EA or EIS.

IV. Executive Order Determinations A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under the executive order and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

V. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the Internet by—

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

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

3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.

Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680. Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this rulemaking.

All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item (1) above.

B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93

Air traffic control, Airspace, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

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

PART 93-SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES 1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.

2. Add § 93.101 to read as follows:
§ 93.101 Applicability.

This subpart prescribes a special air traffic rule for civil helicopters operating VFR along the North Shore, Long Island, New York, between August 6, 2012, and August 6, 2020.

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016. Michael P. Huerta, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17427 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0256] RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, DePere to Oshkosh, WI AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is modifying the operating schedule for all drawbridges over the Fox River between DePere, WI and Oshkosh, WI. This rule will establish drawbridge schedules that coincide with lock schedules during the boating season and standard winter drawbridge schedules.

DATES:

This rule is effective August 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0256. In the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code WIS-DOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation FRNSA Fox River Navigational System Authority CN-RR Canadian National Railroad II. Background Information and Regulatory History

On May 6, 2016, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox River, DePere to Oshkosh, WI, in the Federal Register (81 FR 27373). We did receive one comment on this rule.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. Currently, the regulation for Fox River drawbridges (33 CFR 117.1087) includes the opening schedule for drawbridges in Green Bay, WI, where large commercial vessel traffic continues to transit. This rule does not include any changes to the schedules for drawbridges over the commercial ship channel in Green Bay.

The sections of the current regulation that includes all other drawbridges between river mile 7.13 in DePere, WI at the DePere Pedestrian bridge, to river mile 58.3 in Oshkosh, WI, describe inconsistent dates and times for required drawbridge openings, particularly for the four highway drawbridges in Oshkosh. They also include reference to the George Street bridge at mile 7.27. The George Street bridge has been removed in the past 15 years. In the current regulation, the Oshkosh drawbridges contain exemptions during certain dates and times where the drawbridges are not required to open for vessels or vessels must provide advance notice prior to passing during nighttime hours.

This rule establishes the requirement for all drawbridges, except the Canadian National Railroad (CN-RR) bridge at mile 55.72 in Oshkosh, to open on signal between the hours of 8 a.m. and midnight each day from April 27 to October 7 every year. This schedule will match the lock schedule established by FRNSA and drawbridge schedules used by WIS-DOT. Between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m., except for the CN-RR bridge in Oshkosh, all drawbridges would open for vessels if at least 2-hours advance notice of arrival is provided.

The CN-RR bridge at mile 55.72 in Oshkosh is located where Fox River feeds into the southwest section of Lake Winnebago. The portion of Fox River in the Oshkosh area, and Lake Winnebago, are among the busiest portions of the Fox River System for recreational vessel traffic. The CN-RR bridge provides 6 feet of vertical clearance in the closed position and prevents most vessels from passing under the bridge, thereby requiring the drawbridge to open regularly for vessels. This is also the location of first responders and public safety vessels that may require the bridge to open at any time to perform rescue or emergency operations on Lake Winnebago. Vessels in distress or seeking shelter from weather on Lake Winnebago may also need the CN-RR bridge to open at any time. A delay in bridge openings at this location may endanger life or property and is therefore exempted from the proposed 2-hour advance notice requirement from vessels for all other drawbridges between midnight and 8 a.m.

All drawbridges would be required to open if at least 12-hours advance notice is provided prior to passing between October 8 and April 26 each year.

This rule removes the George Street bridge from the regulation, establishes consistent annual dates for drawbridge schedules between river miles 7.13 and 58.3, eliminates currently exempted bridge opening times during certain days and times in Oshkosh, makes permanent the requirement for vessels to provide 2-hours advance notice between midnight and 8 a.m., and establishes the winter bridge operating schedules throughout the entire river system.

The dates, times, and conditions have been employed by local authorities for approximately 10 years and are generally accepted by vessel operators in the area as established conditions. The dates, times, and conditions have also been reviewed and accepted by WIS-DOT and FRNSA during the development of this rule.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

The Coast Guard provided a comment period of 45 days and received one comment. Canadian National Railway Company (CN-RR) wished to clarify for the record that the bridge described in the NPRM as the “CN-RR bridge at Mile 55.72 over Fox River in Oshkosh, WI” should reflect Wisconsin Central Ltd. as the entity holding common carrier responsibilities at this location. The Coast Guard recognizes that Wisconsin Central, Ltd. is owned by CN-RR, but for consistency in describing bridge owners throughout the Fox River system in official publications, and since the bridges are locally known and referred to as “Canadian National” bridges, we will continue to describe the railroad drawbridge at Mile 55.72 in Oshkosh as the CN-RR bridge.

Additionally, CN-RR commented on the disparity of proposed bridge operations between nearby highway bridges and the CN-RR bridge at Mile 55.72 in Oshkosh, WI. The NPRM excluded the CN-RR bridge at Mile 55.72 in Oshkosh from operating with the same schedule as the nearby highway bridges requiring 2-hours advance notice for openings between the hours of midnight and 8am due to the low vertical clearance (6-feet) of the bridge in the closed position that restricts most vessels from passing underneath, the proximity of the CN-RR bridge at the entrance to Fox River from Lake Winnebago, the location of nearby first-responders, and the need to open for vessels seeking shelter from weather on Lake Winnebago. The exclusion of the CN-RR bridge from the same conditions as the nearby highway bridges in Oshkosh is due to safety concerns for vessel operators and is retained in this final rule.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice during times when vessel traffic is at its lowest. This rule provides a drawbridge schedule that is virtually the same as has been used by vessel operators in the area for approximately 10 years.

B. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard did not receive any comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule standardizes drawbridge schedules that have been in place and would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator because the bridges will open with advance notice during low traffic times on the waterway or when ice conditions hinder normal navigation.

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

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

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

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

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

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

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

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

2. In § 117.1087, revise paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows:
§ 117.1087 Fox River.

(b) All drawbridges between mile 7.13 in DePere and mile 58.3 in Oshkosh, except the Canadian National Railroad bridge at mile 55.72, shall open as follows:

(1) From April 27 through October 7, the draws shall open on signal, except between the hours of midnight and 8 a.m., the draws shall open if at least 2-hours advance notice is given.

(2) From October 8 through April 26, the draws shall open if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.

(c) The draw of the Canadian National Railroad bridge at mile 55.72 shall open on signal, except from October 8 through April 26; the draw shall open if at least 12-hours advance notice is given.

Dated: July 12, 2016. J.E. Ryan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-17541 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2015-1088] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Pleasure Beach, Bridgeport, CT for Pleasure Beach Bridge. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters. This regulation prohibits entry into, transit through, mooring or anchoring within the safety zone unless authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound.

DATES:

This rule is effective without actual notice from July 25, 2016 until December 31, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice from July 1, 2016 until July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2015-1088 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, contact Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone (203) 468-4446, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations COTP Captain of the Port DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register LIS Long Island Sound NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking NAD 83 North American Datum 1983 II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard was made aware of damage to Pleasure Beach Bridge which creates a hazard to navigation. A temporary final rule entitled, “Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT” was published in the Federal Register (80 FR 79480).

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable, given the imminent conclusion of the previous safety zone and the ongoing repairs. This rule is necessary to protect the safety of waterway users.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231.

On December 09, 2015, the Coast Guard was made aware of damage sustained to Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT that has created a hazard to navigation. After further analysis of the bridge structure, the Coast Guard concluded that the overall condition of the structure created a continued hazard to navigation. The COTP Sector LIS has determined that the safety zone established by this temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The safety zone established by this rule will cover all navigable waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. This safety zone will be bound inside an area that starts at a point on land at position 41-10.2N, 073-10.7W and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.57N, 073-9.54W and then south across the channel to a point on land at position 41-9.52N, 073-9.58W and then west along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.52N, 073-10.5W and then north across the channel back to the point of origin.

This rule prohibits vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone during the period of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or designated representative.

The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a significant regulatory action for the following reasons: 1) persons or vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; and 2) the Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of this safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This temporary rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination, a Categorical Exclusion Determination, and EA Checklist, will be in the docket for review. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T01-0503 to read as follows:
§ 165.T01-0503 Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT bound inside an area that starts at a point on land at position 41°10′02.964″ N., 073°10′08.148″ W. and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41°09′57.996″ N., 073°09′54.324″ W. and then south across the channel to a point on land at position 41°09′52.524″ N., 073°09′58.861″ W. and then west along the shoreline to a point on land at position 41°09′52.776″ N., 073°10′04.944″ W. and then north across the channel back to the point of origin.

(b) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 12:00 a.m. on July 1, 2016 to 12:00 a.m. January 1, 2017.

(c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A “designated representative” is any commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or loudhailer. “Official patrol vessels” may consist of any Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound. In addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform vessel operators of this regulation.

(d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in § 165.23 apply.

(2) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP, Long Island Sound.

(3) Operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at 203-468-4401 (Sector Sector Long Island Sound Command Center) or the designated representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.

(4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.

(5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.

Dated: June 28, 2016. E. J. Cubanski, III, Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2016-17543 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0363] RIN 1625-AA87 Security Zone, Delaware River, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary Final Rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones in the waters of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek, in Philadelphia, PA. These temporary zones are intended to restrict vessels from portions of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek during the Democratic National Convention from July 25, 2016, to July 29, 2016. During the enforcement period, no unauthorized vessels or people will be permitted to enter or move within the security zone without permission from the Captain of the Port or his designated representative. This security zone is necessary to provide security for the Democratic National Convention.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. on July 25, 2016, to 1:00 a.m. on July 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0363 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Tom Simkins, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (215)271-4851, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the final details for the Democratic National Convention were not known until July 12, 2016. Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM and holding a comment period would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life on the navigable waters and protection of the Democratic Nation Convention and the accompanying high-ranking government officials.

For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay has determined that these temporary security zones are necessary to provide for the security of the Democratic Nation Convention and the accompanying high-ranking government officials, and to protect against sabotage or terrorist attacks to human life, vessels, mariners, and waterfront facilities at or near this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

The Democratic National Convention will take place in Philadelphia, PA from July 25, 2016 until July 29, 2016. During this event many high-ranking government officials will be arriving in Philadelphia, PA. The Coast Guard is establishing several security zones in portions of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek in Philadelphia, PA.

The first security zone includes all the waters of the Delaware River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line, beginning at the west end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill River;

The second security zone includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the I-95 Bridge and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge.

The third security zone includes all waters of Darby Creek inside a boundary described as originating from 500 yards south of the Conrail Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.

Access to this security zone will be restricted while the zone is being enforced. Only vessels or people specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative may enter or remain in the regulated area. These security zones will be enforced with actual notice by the United States Coast Guard representatives on scene, as well as other methods listed in 33 CFR 165.7.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-year of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone which will impact a small designated area of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek in Philadelphia, PA for less than 12 hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 identifying the security zone locations and describing the process in which vessels can request permission to transit the security zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves three security zones which will be enforced for less than 12 hours at any one time and includes all the waters of the Delaware River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line, beginning at the west end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill River; all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the I-95 bridge and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge; and all waters of Darby Creek inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the Darby Creek Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.

It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T05-0363 to read as follows:
§ 165.T05-0363 Security Zone; Delaware River, and Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA.

(a) Location. The following areas are security zones:

(1) The first security zone includes all the waters of the Delaware River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line, beginning at the est end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill River;

(2) The second security zone includes all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the I-95 Bridge and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge.

(3) The third security zone includes all waters of Darby Creek inside a boundary described as originating 500 yards south of the Conrail Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel; as well as a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the security zone.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in subpart D of this part, no person or vessel may enter the security zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement period: This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. on July 25, 2016, to 1:00 a.m. on July 29, 2016.

Dated: July 19, 2016. Benjamin A. Cooper, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2016-17440 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0678] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Illinois River Mile 69.3 to 69.8; Meredosia, IL AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Illinois River from mile 69.3 to mile 69.8. This safety zone is needed to protect persons, property and infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with work being performed on new power lines across the river. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Upper Mississippi River (COTP). Deviation from the safety zone may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

DATES:

This rule is effective from July 25, 2016 through August 16, 2016. This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. daily beginning on July 25, 2016 through August 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0678 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 314-269-2332, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule because Ameren, the company performing the power line operations, notified the Coast Guard on July 8, 2016 of the dates for these operations, requiring helicopters to stretch power lines across the river. This notice did not allow for the full NPRM process to be completed. Due to the risks associated with power line work crossing the navigational channel, a safety zone is needed to protect persons and property on the waterway. It would be impracticable to publish a NPRM because the safety zone must be established beginning July 25, 2016. Broadcast Notice to Mariners and information sharing with waterway users will update mariners of the safety zone and enforcement times during the operations.

We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days notice would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to protect persons and property from the hazards associated with power line work crossing the navigable channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The COTP has determined that potential hazards associated with using helicopters to stretch power lines across the navigational channel presents safety concerns for anyone within this limited area of the waterway. This rule provides additional safety measures, to protect persons and vessels, in the form of a safety zone from mile 69.3 to mile 69.8 on the Illinois River to protect those in the area and for the Coast Guard to maintain navigational safety.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone prohibiting access to the Illinois River from mile 69.3 to mile 69.8, extending the entire width of the river from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. daily, beginning on July 25, 2016 and scheduled to end on August 16, 2016, or until conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. Deviation from the safety zone may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at 314-269-2332 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

This regulatory action determination is based on the limited location, enforcement periods and impacts on navigation. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone limiting access to a one-half mile area on the Illinois River from mile 69.3 to mile 69.8, for 12 hours each day for approximately 3 weeks. The impacts on navigation will be limited to ensure the safety of mariners and vessels during the period that helicopters will be pulling power lines across the navigational channel. Notifications of enforcement times will be communicated to the marine community via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Deviation requests will be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

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

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

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone on the Illinois River from mile 69.3 to mile 69.8. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

2. Add § 165.T08-0678 to read as follows:
§ 165.T08-0678 Safety Zone; Illinois River 69.3 to 69.8; Meredosia, IL.

(a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of the Illinois River mile 69.3 to 69.8, extending the entire width of the river.

(b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.

(c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi River at 314-269-2332. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

(d) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. daily beginning on July 25, 2016 through August 16, 2016.

Dated: July 18, 2016. M.L. Malloy, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-17240 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 34 CFR Chapter III [Docket ID ED-2016-OSERS-0005; CFDA Number: 84.160C.] Final Priority—Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program AGENCY:

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Final priority.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services announces a final priority under the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program. The Assistant Secretary may use this priority for competitions in fiscal year 2016 and later years. We take this action to provide training and technical assistance to better prepare novice interpreters to become highly qualified nationally certified sign language interpreters.

DATES:

This priority is effective August 24, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5062, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email: [email protected]

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to establish interpreter training programs or to provide financial assistance for ongoing interpreter training programs to train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters throughout the country. The grants are designed to train interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate using spoken, visual, and tactile modes of communication; ensure the maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and provide opportunities for interpreters to improve their skills in order to meet both the highest standards approved by certifying associations and the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.

Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(f).

Applicable Program Regulations: 34 CFR part 396.

We published a notice of proposed priority (NPP) for this competition in the Federal Register on April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20268). That notice contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priority.

Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 26 parties submitted comments on the proposed priority. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the applicable statutory authority. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priority.

Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priority since publication of the NPP follows.

State-Level Certification or Licensure

Comment: A few commenters suggested broadening the proposed outcomes for the Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center (Center) beyond national certification to include State-level certification or licensure. These commenters noted that, in some States, the State certification system is used to prepare interpreters for advancement to national-level certification. Other States use the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) and the Board for Evaluation of Interpreters (BEI) for certification or licensure to offer interpreting services within the State. Finally, one commenter stated that acknowledging the variability in State-to-State licensure and certification requirements is essential in meeting the goal of novice interpreters in the experiential learning program achieving national certification.

Discussion: One goal of this program is to increase the number and quality of nationally certified interpreters. We do not agree that modification of the proposed outcomes to include State-level certification or licensure is appropriate for the Center.

First, designating national certification as a desired outcome for novice interpreters in the experiential learning program will ensure consistency in the training of these interpreters, as well as the competencies these interpreters will possess by the end of the training period. This will also ensure that novice interpreters will effectively meet the evolving needs of youth and adults in the United States who are deaf and hard of hearing or are deaf-blind, including those who are consumers of the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) system.

Second, there is limited information available on the reliability and validity of assessments used by States to confer certifications and licensures. For example, in some cases, an individual pays a fee to receive a license to work as an interpreter in a State, regardless of skill or competency. In other cases, assessments, such as the BEI, are State specific, and there is no information about how the specific levels of skills and competencies they assess compare with the level of skills and competencies required to pass other State-level licensure tests, let alone the national interpreter certification exam. Conversely, national certification assessments have undergone psychometric evaluation to ensure consistency, reliability, and validity of results.

Finally, the EIPA does not apply to the training we intend to be offered by the Center. The EIPA focuses on interpreting competencies that are necessary to effectively interpret in elementary and secondary general education settings. We intend for the Center to train interpreters with specific competencies that are necessary to effectively interpret for youth and adults who are deaf 1 or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including those who are VR consumers in transition from school to post-school activities in postsecondary education, employment, and community settings. None of this, however, prohibits applicants from using State certification or licensure as an internal benchmark, if applicable, for tracking participant progress towards achieving national certification.

1As used in this notice, the word “deaf” refers to (1) “deaf” and “Deaf” people, i.e. to the condition of deafness; (2) to “deaf, hard of hearing, and Deaf-Blind”; and (3) to individuals who are culturally Deaf and who use American Sign Language (ASL). When we use “Deaf,” we refer only to the third group.

Change: None.

Prospective Applicants

Comment: Many commenters addressed the proposed requirement that the lead applicant must be accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE). Many commenters recommended removing this requirement because (1) CCIE accreditation is voluntary, (2) CCIE is not accredited by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which is the body that accredits and sets standards for organizations that review and accredit higher education programs, and (3) attending a CCIE accredited interpreter education program is not a requirement for becoming a credentialed interpreter.

Several other commenters were concerned that the requirement would limit the pool of eligible applicants because only about one-third of 44 baccalaureate interpreting programs nationwide are CCIE accredited. In addition, there are five CCIE accredited associate of the arts (AA) degree interpreting programs.

A few commenters stated that the proposed requirement would mean that programs on the path to accreditation, private entities that do not possess or have such accreditation available to them, and non-CCIE accredited programs offering rigorous, high-quality instruction in American Sign Language (ASL)-English interpretation would not be eligible to serve as a lead applicant.

Several commenters stated that CCIE accreditation standards do not include several areas that are significant to the proposed priority, including accessibility of, access to, interaction with, and immersion in the Deaf community; having an available Deaf population to promote student training; and standards such as ASL fluency.

One commenter estimated the cost of accreditation from CCIE at $10,000 or more and noted that some organizations are not in a position to support CCIE-related costs at this time.

Finally, one commenter suggested that CCIE accreditation be considered as a secondary qualification, rather than a requirement for the lead applicant.

Discussion: We believe the proposed requirement for the lead applicant to be accredited by CCIE aligns with the goal of the Center to improve the quality of interpreters nationwide and therefore should be maintained in the priority.

While we recognize CCIE is not accredited by CHEA, we do not believe this will adversely impact the lead applicant's ability to effectively design and implement this Center because each accreditation has a different purpose. CHEA focuses on the quality of higher education institutions and programs in order for the public to know that an institution or program provides an overall quality education.

By contrast, the mission of CCIE is focused specifically on professionalism in the field of interpreter education through the accreditation of professional preparation programs, the development and revision of interpreter education standards, the encouragement of excellence in program development, a national and international dialogue on the preservation and advancement of standards in the field of interpreter and higher education, and the application of knowledge, skills, and ethics of the profession. There are currently 13 CCIE-accredited programs 2 across the country that would meet the lead applicant requirement for this competition. At present, CCIE is the only entity in the field of interpreter education that measures the standards of interpreter education programs.

2www.discoverinterpreting.com/?Find_an_ASL-English_Interpreting_program.

We recognize that these standards are the minimum requirements for CCIE accreditation and a program may exceed these standards in many areas, including those indicated by the comments. One of the goals of the Center is to increase accessibility of and access to interaction and immersion in the Deaf community, having an available Deaf population to promote student training, and standards such as ASL fluency. As such, we believe the requirements in the priority support this goal.

We acknowledge that CCIE accreditation is voluntary and that attending a CCIE-accredited interpreter education program is not a requirement for becoming a credentialed interpreter. However, we believe that the interpreter education program should be accredited. The Center is then better positioned to incorporate interpreter education standards into the design and delivery of training and to evaluate its effectiveness in increasing the number of certified interpreters.

While non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree English-ASL programs are not eligible as the lead applicant, they may serve as members of the consortium. We respect and value non-CCIE accredited programs offering rigorous, high-quality interpreter education. We are also sensitive to budgetary and other constraints that may limit institutions pursuing CCIE accreditation. We encourage eligible lead applicants to consider a number of appropriate entities, including high-quality non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree interpreter education programs, to carry out the work of the consortium.

Change: None.

Consideration of Other Eligible Applicants

Comment: Some commenters suggested consideration of other eligible lead applicants or as members of the consortium such as AA programs, associate in applied sciences (AAS) programs, and master's degree interpreter education programs that prepare interpreter educators in addition to hosting baccalaureate degree programs that prepare students to work in kindergarten through grade 12 (K-12) settings upon graduation.

Discussion: The proposed priority did not specify that programs offering both a bachelor's and master's degree in interpreter education could serve as lead applicants if the program holds CCIE accreditation. We agree that these programs should be eligible lead applicants and may also serve as members of the consortium, and we are revising the priority accordingly.

However, AA/AAS programs are not eligible lead applicants. Since July 2012, there has been an educational requirement for an individual to sit for the Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf National Interpreter Certification test. Specifically, candidates must possess, at a minimum, a bachelor's degree in any field or major, or a demonstrated educational equivalency. We want to ensure that, while the individuals served by the Center require additional skills training to be provided by the Center, they otherwise meet the requirements to sit for the National Certification examination.

Programs that prepare students to work in K-12 settings are not eligible lead applicants or members of the consortium because the focus of this program is to prepare novice interpreters to work in VR settings. We believe this focus was implied in the background section of the priority but recognize it was not clearly stated within the proposed priority. Therefore, we take this opportunity to provide further explanation to support the focus of this program.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) emphasizes support to transition-age youth and adults with disabilities through such activities as funding various VR services and training of qualified personnel. The final priority aligns with the WIOA framework by focusing on the training of qualified interpreters to work with transition-age youth and adults who are deaf, hard of hearing, or deaf-blind. Thus, programs that prepare students to work in K-12 settings are not eligible applicants or members of the consortium because WIOA funds do not support training of interpreters to work in K-12 settings, with the exception of transition services.

Change: Under the purpose of the priority, we have clarified that the Center must prepare novice interpreters to work in VR settings.

In paragraph (a) under “Establish a consortium” in the Project Activities section of the priority, we have clarified that an eligible consortium can be comprised of a designated lead applicant that operates both bachelor's and master's degree programs in interpreter education that are recognized and accredited by CCIE.

Members of a Consortium

Comment: A number of commenters asked that we clarify which entities must be represented in the consortium. One commenter recommended maintaining the proposed entities in order to gain the broadest analysis of effective models and practices possible.

In addition, commenters also stated that the entities participating in the consortium should be required to include individuals who are experienced and qualified interpreters, interpreter educators, trained mentors, and individuals who are deaf, as well as those who can model native (first language) fluency in ASL. One commenter stated that the most successful experiential learning programs include coaching, mentoring, and explicit instruction that focuses specifically on the skills for interacting in diverse cultural milieus.

Discussion: We agree that we need to clarify paragraph (b) under “Establish a consortium” and the types of entities that must be represented in the consortium. When we stated in the proposed priority that “members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, and trained mentors with the capability in providing feedback and guidance to novice interpreters, and in serving as language models,” we meant that members of the consortium must have on staff, or have access to, individuals who are deaf and who can model native (first language) fluency in ASL.

Applicants are encouraged to include in their consortium other appropriate entities such as VR agencies, community-based organizations, and State commissions. Applicants could develop at least one partnership with a community-based entity (for example, with a Commission for the Deaf that is knowledgeable and involved in the delivery of interpreter services), at least one partnership with industry or government agencies (e.g., State VR agencies or American Job Centers) and at least one partnership with post-secondary settings (e.g., universities that serve a large number of deaf and hard of hearing students). Each of these partnerships would yield different types of learning and coaching contexts and allow for dynamic application of new ideas and structures for possible replication. In addition, non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree English-ASL programs may serve as members of the consortium.

We agree that training for novice interpreters must include skills for interacting in diverse cultural milieus and, as such, members of the consortium must represent diverse linguistic and cultural minority backgrounds and be qualified to provide instruction on best practices for interpreting in diverse cultural and linguistic settings.

Change: In paragraph (b) under “Establish a consortium” in the Project Activities section of the priority, we clarified that members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, individuals who are deaf, trained mentors, and first language models in ASL. We added that consortium members must represent diverse linguistic and cultural minority backgrounds and be qualified to provide instruction on best practices in interpreting in diverse cultural and linguistic settings.

Consortium Expectations in Terms of Cost Match

Comment: One commenter asked whether consortium members or other identified partners must contribute to the cost of implementation, either through direct or indirect contributions.

Discussion: The proposed priority did not address this question. The responsibility for costs associated with all aspects of the Center, such as program design, implementation, training activities, and evaluation, as well as oversight and management of the Center, will be determined and agreed upon by the lead applicant, members of the consortium, and other identified partners. This also applies to determining any direct or indirect costs or in-kind contributions made by the lead applicant, members of the consortium, and other identified partners. The notice inviting applications will specify whether there is a cost-matching requirement and, if so, it will confirm the percentage of the match. Regardless of how the lead applicant, consortium members, and other identified partners determine shared costs, it is ultimately the responsibility of the lead applicant to meet the cost-matching requirement.

Change: None.

Team Comprised of Native Language Users, Qualified Interpreters, and Trained Mentors

Comment: We received several comments about the proposed requirement for the consortium to establish a team of native language users, qualified interpreters, and trained mentors to partner with novice interpreters during and after successful completion of the experiential learning program. Overall, commenters recommended maintaining separation of these positions but indicated a need for clear definitions, roles, responsibilities, and the training and qualifications necessary for each position within the team. Rather than the Department developing its own definitions, one commenter recommended the Department use applicable definitions developed by the Office of Personnel Management when defining the roles of these team members. Two commenters stated that native language users not only include deaf individuals but also those individuals who have grown up using the language and are fluent in it (e.g., children of deaf adults). In addition to serving as language models, native language users should provide mentorship in linguistic and cultural competencies. Another commenter suggested combining the roles of native language user and trained mentor.

Discussion: We will not further specify who must be a member of the team to work with novice interpreters. We believe applicants are best suited to assemble an inclusive and appropriate team. Applicants may define team members and determine the roles, responsibilities, and qualifications of these positions. While we acknowledge that some roles among team members may be shared or combined, we expect, however, the team to include, at minimum, native language users, qualified interpreters, and trained mentors, as well as other appropriate members. By not requiring other specific team members, we will also avoid inadvertently excluding potential team members.

The Department acknowledges there are interpreter-related definitions available through other Federal agencies. However, we want to ensure that any interpreter-related definitions are appropriate for the Center and align with the statute and regulations for this program.

In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register on April 16, 2015 (80 FR 20988), we proposed to amend the definition of a “qualified professional” to mean an individual who has (1) met existing certification or evaluation requirements equivalent to the highest standards approved by certifying associations; and (2) successfully demonstrated interpreting skills that reflect the highest standards approved by certifying associations through prior work experience.” The term “qualified interpreter” used throughout the proposed priority is synonymous with “qualified professional.” A notice of final rulemaking is anticipated to publish in late July.

Change: We replaced the term “qualified interpreter” with “qualified professional” for accuracy and consistency with our regulations. Under Training Activities, in paragraph (a)(1), we added that applicants must describe in their application the roles and responsibilities for each team member.

Project Timelines

Comment: Commenters generally supported the proposed timeline to plan and design the curriculum, develop training modules, and to implement a pilot experiential learning program within the first two years of the grant period. However, one commenter cautioned that expecting students to become ready-to-work interpreters by attending a four-year program is unrealistic. Another commenter reasoned that a sustainable program needs two to three years to design, implement, evaluate, revise, and continue implementation with three to four graduated cohorts in order to generate evidence of impact.

Discussion: We recognize that graduates from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter training programs may not be immediately ready to work and that is why we are establishing a model demonstration center to better prepare novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters. We also agree that adequate time is needed to analyze evidence and assess the program. One of the reasons for piloting the program in a single site by year two is to identify and resolve issues and challenges that may arise, as well as to make improvements to the content and delivery of the training based on feedback from the team working with the novice interpreters and the novice interpreters participating in the first pilot. This Center is a demonstration and, at the conclusion of the grant, we will assess program outcomes and determine whether or not an experiential learning approach had an impact in improving the preparation of novice interpreters. For these reasons, we believe the proposed timelines are reasonable.

Change: None.

Project Activities

Comment: Several commenters suggested that we include in the priority additional project activities that are associated with long-term success for ASL-English interpreters. Some examples of additional project activities included: (1) Volunteer interpreting experiences pairing experienced interpreters who agree to volunteer with novice interpreters; (2) in-service training programs built around individualized skills development activities/modules determined after a comprehensive diagnostic assessment to increase novice practitioner performance; (3) scripted training exercises involving real-life scenarios with actors/mentors from the Deaf community; (4) curricular modifications and differentiation strategies to serve novice interpreters who are children of deaf adults (CODAs), particularly CODAs of color; (5) socialization with the Deaf community; and (6) field-based induction programs that employ more direct supervision of work experiences than is typically available through mentorship.

Discussion: Applicants must meet the minimum proposed project activities and may add or incorporate other specific activities, including the activities described in the comments, as appropriate, in order to strengthen the design, curriculum, and training developed and delivered by the Center. We encourage applicants to include in their proposed project any additional activities that they believe would improve the preparation of novice interpreters.

Change: None.

Measures for Assessing the Improvement in Interpreting Skills of Novice Interpreters

Comment: Several commenters suggested that, to assess outcomes more effectively and in a way that goes beyond self-reported “meaningfulness,” we require in the priority the use of specific assessment tools to measure the improvement in interpreting skills of novice interpreters, such as diagnostic assessments/reviews; tools that address the proficiency of educational interpreters, such as the Educational Interpreter Performance Assessment (EIPA) developed by Boys Town National Research Hospital; assessments used by the American Council for Teaching Foreign Languages, Texas Board for Evaluators of Interpreters, and Utah Interpreting Program; pre- and post-program scores on the American Sign Language Proficiency Inventory; or general assessment instruments like the Cultural Intelligence Scale, Intercultural Development Inventory, or other well-reviewed measures of intercultural competence. One commenter stated that measurement of instruction in core dispositions of novice interpreters is needed because without instruction in and measurement of elements of essential professional attributes, a novice interpreter may become more of a “language technician” but not a true mediator.

Discussion: We acknowledge there are several assessment tools that may be appropriate to measure the improvement in interpreting skills of novice interpreters, and we believe that applicants are better positioned to determine which tools are most appropriate for their proposed projects. Nothing in this priority prevents applicants from choosing to use any valid or reliable assessment tool to gauge the progress of novice interpreters. Any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument.

Change: We have added the requirements that any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable, and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument, to paragraphs (b)(9) and (c) of the Training Activities section and paragraph (c)(1) in the Application Requirements section.

Pilot Sites

Comment: A few commenters asked that we clarify which entities are eligible to be pilot sites. More specifically, one commenter noted that the proposed priority indicated in one place that a partner organization may be a pilot site, while providing in another place that the pilot site must be an existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation program.

Discussion: We agree there was an inconsistency in the proposed priority. The pilot site entity must be hosted by a baccalaureate degree ASL-English program. This is essential to the priority because we believe these specific programs demonstrate the ability to effectively recruit and select cohort participants, as well as track and evaluate participants. However, to provide applicants with more flexibility, we also want to clarify that applicants may either identify eligible pilot sites in their application or describe the process and criteria they will use to identify eligible pilot sites upon award. We also clarify that partner organizations may serve as experiential learning sites.

Changes: We have revised paragraph (b)(1) in the Training Activities section of the priority to require applicants to identify at least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs to host the pilot sites. We have also added to paragraph (b)(1) that applicants may describe the process and criteria they will use to identify the pilot sites upon award.

Cohort Participants

Comment: Several commenters asked that the Department clarify the qualifications of novice interpreter applicants who would be selected to participate in the pilot sites. One commenter recommended removing the requirement for cohort participants to have a bachelor's degree in any field or major (as required to sit for the National Interpreter Certification exam). The commenter proposed that cohort participants who do not have a bachelor's degree could, instead, demonstrate equivalent knowledge and skills in ASL-English interpretation. Other commenters suggested that cohort participants include: (1) Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who are preparing for the Certification of Deaf Interpreter (CDI) exam; (2) graduates of partner organizations preparing K-12 interpreters; and (3) graduates of baccalaureate degree programs who have not yet obtained program accreditation from the CCIE. One commenter stressed the importance of diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and of ensuring recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-blind students, and children of deaf adults.

Discussion: We agree that, to the extent possible, applicants must ensure diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and ensure recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-blind students, and children of deaf adults. While this was implied in the proposed priority, it was not explicitly stated and to clarify this we are adding paragraph (b)(5) in the Training Activities section of the priority.

We also agree that we need to clarify the required cohort participants. We intend for the Center to train interpreters with specific competencies that are necessary to effectively interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including those who are VR consumers, in transition from school to post-school activities, postsecondary education, employment, and community settings. Therefore, graduates of partner organizations preparing K-12 interpreters are not appropriate to participate in the pilot.

Eligible cohort participants may include deaf individuals, students in their final one or two semesters of completing their degree from a CCIE- or non-CCIE-accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter program, recent graduates of CCIE- and non-CCIE-accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter education programs, and working novice interpreters who intend to obtain national certification and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR system. The recruitment and selection of cohort participants will be determined by the Center.

Change: We have expanded the list of possible cohort participants by deleting the requirement for the cohort to comprise graduates from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs who are preparing for, or have not passed, the National Interpreter Certification knowledge and performance exams and who intend to work as interpreters, which was in paragraph (b)(2) of the Training Activities section of the proposed priority. We have also expanded the list of possible cohort participants by adding paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) under the Training Activities section. Under paragraph (b)(4), applicants must ensure cohort participants intend to obtain national certification and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR system. We have provided that eligible cohort participants may include deaf individuals, students in their final one or two semesters of completing their degree from a CCIE or non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter program, recent graduates of CCIE and non-CCIE accredited baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpreter education programs, and working novice interpreters. Under paragraph (b)(5), applicants must, to the extent possible, ensure diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and ensure recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-blind students, and children of deaf adults.

Comment: None.

Discussion: Upon further review of paragraph (b) of the Training Activities section of the priority, we believe that we should clarify the requirements for recruiting and selecting cohort participants and align this paragraph with other revisions we are making to this section.

Change: We have made several revisions to paragraph (b) of the Training Activities section of the priority. First, we have moved the requirement, in proposed paragraph (b)(2), that applicants provide a plan to ensure that at least one cohort is completed in each pilot site prior to the end of the project period into a new paragraph (b)(3). Second, we have moved a portion of paragraph (b)(3) into a new paragraph (b)(6) and added a provision requiring that applicants establish processes and procedures for recruitment and selection of cohort participants, including criteria to ensure cohort participants demonstrate the capability to successfully complete the program and obtain national certification. Third, we have added paragraph (b)(7) to require that applicants establish procedures to identify and provide technical assistance to cohort participants who may be “at risk” of dropping out of the program. Finally, we have added paragraph (b)(11) to provide that, upon award, all successful applicants must develop and effectively communicate to all cohort participants policies and procedures related to participation in the experiential learning program.

Cost of Cohorts

Comment: Some commenters disagreed with the proposed requirement that all activities must be offered at no cost to participants during the program. Commenters indicated that offering the experiential learning program at no cost does not allow buy-in from participants who may drop the program at any time since there is no penalty for doing so. One commenter suggested a reasonable fee be required for cohort participants and that, upon successful completion of the program, the fee could be refunded to the participant.

Discussion: We agree for the reasons commenters stated that it can be appropriate to charge reasonable fees and applicants may do so. Charging reasonable fees may not be appropriate in all circumstances, however. Some cohort participants may be fully capable of completing the program and attaining national certification but may not be in a position to pay even reasonable fees, and we would not want to exclude them from participating. Therefore, we encourage applicants that choose to charge reasonable fees to consider a process for waiving these fees on a case-by-case basis.

If an applicant chooses to charge reasonable fees, it must describe in the application how this fee will be determined. If successful, upon award, the applicant must develop internal policies and procedures for collecting and effectively managing these fees. Any fees retained as a result of a participant dropping out are considered program income. Therefore, applicants should refer to 2 CFR 200.307 for applicable regulations for program income.

Change: In paragraph (a)(1) of the Training Activities section of the priority, we have removed the proposed requirement that all activities must be offered at no cost to participants during the program. We have added paragraph (b)(10) to provide that applicants may choose to charge reasonable fees to cohort participants but must describe in their application how these fees will be determined. In addition, we have provided that, upon award, applicants must develop internal policies and procedures for collecting and effectively managing these fees, and for waiving these fees for a cohort participant if there is a financial hardship. Any fees retained as a result of a participant dropping out are considered program income.

Number of Cohorts

Comment: Several commenters recommended a specific number of cohorts and a number of novice interpreters per cohort. Generally, commenters supported cohorts of 8 to 12 novice interpreters based on the Conference of Interpreter Trainers' recommended classroom size for interpreter education classes. One commenter recommended following CCIE guidelines of up to 12 in a cohort. Other commenters suggested 3 to 4 cohorts with anywhere from 8 to 12 novice interpreters. One commenter indicated that class sizes need to be on the smaller side so that students can get more personalized and in-depth attention. Another commenter recommended the Department should not require a certain number of novice interpreters per cohort since this number could vary greatly among each program. However, the commenter suggested the Department could require the applicant to establish guidelines basing the number of interpreters in each cohort on the applicant's program size.

Discussion: We agree that the number of novice interpreters per cohort may vary depending on the pilot site. We also agree that novice interpreters will require personalized and in-depth attention. We revised the priority to allow applicants to provide a plan in their application for how they will determine the number of cohorts for each pilot site and the number of participants in each cohort upon award. Applicants should plan accordingly for all cohorts to complete the training program before the end of the project in order to evaluate and report on outcomes of each cohort in each pilot site.

Change: In paragraph (b)(2) of the Training Activities section of the priority, we have added the option for applicants to provide a plan for how they will determine the number of cohorts for each pilot site and the number of participants in each cohort upon award, rather than requiring that all applicants make this determination in the application.

General Comments

Comment: A couple of commenters suggested participants in the cohort should receive college credit or continuing education units for participation in an effort to elevate interest and recruitment into the program.

Discussion: We anticipate a number of cohort participants will be students in their final semester of completing their baccalaureate degree English-ASL program and, therefore, may not benefit from additional college credit. However, nothing in the priority prevents applicants from proposing to award college credits or continuing education units to participants. Should they choose to award such credits, applicants are expected in their application to describe their plans to do so.

Change: We have added paragraph (b)(8) in the Training Activities section of this priority to clarify that applicants may determine whether to award college credits or continuing education units to cohort participants, as appropriate, and to require applicants to describe any plans for awarding college credits or continuation education units in their application.

Comment: One commenter recommended an invitational priority or competitive preference for novice applicants.

Discussion: A novice applicant priority already exists under 34 CFR 77.225, so it is not necessary to establish one in this NFP. If we use the novice priority in a competition, we will provide notification in the applicable notice inviting application published in the Federal Register.

Change: None.

Comment: Two commenters recommended the priority support two additional areas to address unmet needs in the field. The first commenter indicated that research has provided a snapshot into the unmet needs of deaf or hard of hearing individuals and individuals who are deaf-blind, and, therefore, recommended we include a robust needs assessment (which was part of the 2010 interpreter training grants) within this priority. The second commenter recommended that we require grantees to undertake the research necessary to develop a psychometrically valid instrument because, they stated, no domain-specific instrument exists yet in the sign language interpreting field for evaluating intercultural competency.

Discussion: These activities are outside the purpose and intent of this priority.

Change: None.

Comment: While the majority of comments support the goals and intent of the proposed priority, five commenters recommended maintaining the current national and regional interpreter education centers.

Discussion: We do not believe maintaining the current structure of national and regional interpreter education centers is in the best interest of the field. The Department has funded interpreter training programs since 1964 to meet the needs of VR consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. At each critical juncture, we have re-evaluated the interpreter training program to determine how to best meet the needs of consumers of interpreting services. In the course of this ongoing re-evaluation, we concluded that, since 2005, when the current priorities were established for the national and regional centers, the training needs of interpreters have changed as a result of new and emerging issues facing VR consumers who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The Department gave serious consideration to how we could continue to effectively use our funds to influence the field of interpreter education and ultimately meet the current and future needs of VR consumers.

As we noted in the background section in the NPP, we believe the need for interpreting services continues to exceed the available supply of qualified interpreters. Interpreters must be qualified to work with both individuals with a range of linguistic competencies from a variety of cultural backgrounds and individuals with disabilities. Interpreters need additional education, training, and experience in order to meet certification standards, to bridge the graduation-to-credential gap, and to gain sufficient skills to interpret effectively. Therefore, we believe establishing a Model Demonstration Center will better prepare novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters in order to meet the needs of individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.

Change: None.

Comment: Several commenters offered additional strategies beyond the required logic model and project evaluation to ensure that grantees are evaluating their programs throughout planning, designing, and implementing the experiential learning curriculum. For example, commenters suggested that applicants could supplement or strengthen their evaluation using secondary sources such as research and investigative books, journal articles, and dissertations, and use national certifications such as the BEI or EIPA, portfolios, consumer endorsement, and other relevant methods of design.

Discussion: We acknowledge there are other potential strategies that could be used to ensure a program evaluation framework includes the planning, designing, and implementing of the experiential learning curriculum. Applicants may propose unique or additional strategies beyond the required logic model and program evaluation. Applicants should provide rationale in their application to support these additional strategies.

Change: None.

FINAL PRIORITY:

This notice contains one final priority.

Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation Programs.

Final Priority:

The purpose of this priority is to fund a cooperative agreement for the establishment of a model demonstration center (Center) to: (1) Develop an experiential learning program that could be implemented through baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs or through partner organizations, such as community-based organizations, advocacy organizations, or commissions for the deaf or deaf-blind that work with baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs to provide work experiences and mentoring; (2) pilot the experiential learning program in three baccalaureate degree ASL-English programs and evaluate the results; and (3) disseminate practices that are promising or supported by evidence, examples, and lessons learned.

The Center must prepare novice interpreters to work in VR settings and be designed to achieve, at a minimum, the following outcomes:

(a) Increase the number of certified interpreters.

(b) Reduce the average length of time it takes for novice interpreters to become nationally certified after graduating from baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs; and

(c) Increase the average number of hours that novice interpreters, through the experiential learning program, interact with and learn from the local deaf community.

Project Activities

To meet the requirements of this priority, the Center must, at a minimum, conduct the following activities:

Establish a consortium

(a) The applicant must establish a consortium of training and technical assistance (TA) providers or use an existing network of providers to design and implement a model experiential learning program. An eligible consortium must be comprised of a designated lead applicant that operates a baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation program that is recognized and accredited by CCIE or that operates both bachelor's and master's degree programs in interpreter education that are recognized and accredited by CCIE; and

(b) Members of the consortium must be staffed by or have access to experienced and certified interpreters, interpreter educators, individuals who are deaf, trained mentors, and first language models in ASL. The consortium must also represent members with diverse linguistic and cultural minority backgrounds who are qualified to provide instruction on best practices in interpreting in diverse cultural and linguistic settings. All consortium members must demonstrate the capability to provide training, mentoring, and feedback in person or remotely to novice interpreters who are geographically dispersed across the country, including the territories.

Training Activities

(a) In years one and two, design and implement an experiential learning program that is based upon promising and best practices or modules in the preparation of novice interpreters to become certified interpreters. The program design must, at a minimum:

(1) Include a team that comprises native language users, qualified professionals, and trained mentors to partner with novice interpreters during and after successful completion of the experiential learning program. Applicants must describe in their application the roles and responsibilities for each team member. Roles for team members must include but are not limited to:

(i) Native language users who will serve as language models;

(ii) Qualified professionals who will act in an advisory role by observing, providing feedback, and discussing the novice interpreter's ability to accurately interpret spoken English into ASL and ASL into spoken English in a variety of situations for a range of consumers; and

(iii) Provide mentoring to novice interpreters, as needed. This may include one-on-one instruction to address specific areas identified by the advisor as needing further practice, as well as offering tools, resources, and guidance to novice interpreters to prepare them for potential challenges they may encounter as they grow and advance in the profession. One-on-one instruction may address, but is not limited to, meaning transfer (e.g., accurately providing an equivalent message, appropriately handling register), ethical behavior, meeting the consumer's linguistic preference, managing the flow of information (e.g., pace, density, turn-taking), and other related aspects of the interpreting task.

(2) Provide multiple learning opportunities, such as an internship with a community program, mentoring, and intensive site-specific work. Intensive site-specific work may task a novice interpreter, under close direction from the advisor interpreter, with providing interpreting services to deaf individuals employed at a work site, or to deaf students taking courses at college or enrolled in an apprenticeship program. Other learning modalities may be proposed and must include adequate justification.

(3) Emphasize innovative instructional delivery methods, such as distance learning or block scheduling (i.e., a type of academic scheduling that offers students fewer classes per day for longer periods of time) that would allow novice interpreters to more easily participate in the program (i.e., participants who need to work while in the program, have child care or elder care considerations, or live in geographically isolated areas);

(4) Provide experiential learning that engages novice interpreters with different learning styles;

(5) Provide interpreting experiences with a variety of deaf consumers who have different linguistic and communication needs and preferences, and are located in different settings, including VR settings (e.g., VR counseling, assessments, job-related services, training, pre-employment transition services, transition services, post-employment services, etc.), American Job Centers, and other relevant workforce partner locations;

(6) Require novice interpreters to observe, discuss, and reflect on the work of the advisor interpreter;

(7) Require novice interpreters to interpret in increasingly more complex and demanding situations. The advisor interpreter must provide written and oral feedback that includes strengths and areas of improvement, as well as a discussion with the novice interpreter about interpretation options, ethical behavior, and how best to meet the communication needs of a particular consumer; and

(b) Pilot the experiential learning program in a single site by year two and expand to additional sites beginning in year three. Applicants must:

(1) Identify at least three existing baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs to host the pilot sites. The baccalaureate programs must use a curriculum design that is based upon current best practices in the ASL-English Interpreter Education profession. Applicants may identify the pilot sites in the application or describe the process and criteria they will use to identify the pilot sites upon award;

(2) Indicate in the application the number of cohorts for each pilot site and the number of participants in each cohort or provide a plan in the application for how this will be determined upon award;

(3) Provide a plan in the application to ensure that at least one cohort is completed in each pilot site prior to the end of the project period;

(4) Ensure cohort participants intend to obtain national certification and interpret for adults who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind, including deaf consumers of the VR system. Cohort participants may include deaf individuals, students within one or two semesters of completing their interpreter education program, recent graduates of interpreter education programs, and working novice interpreters;

(5) To the extent possible, ensure diversity and inclusion among cohort participants and ensure recruitment of students of color, trilingual students, deaf and deaf-blind students, and children of deaf adults;

(6) Establish processes and procedures for recruitment and selection of cohort participants, including criteria to ensure cohort participants demonstrate the capability to successfully complete the program and obtain national certification. This may include, but is not limited to, submission of an application, relevant assessments, interviewing prospective participants, and obtaining recommendations from faculty at baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs and other appropriate entities;

(7) Establish procedures to identify and provide technical assistance to cohort participants who may be “at risk” of dropping out of the program;

(8) Determine if college credits or continuing education units will be awarded to cohort participants, as appropriate. Should applicants choose to do so, they must describe any plans for awarding college credits or continuation education units in their application;

(9) Describe any assessment tools that will be used to gauge the progress of novice interpreters. Any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument;

(10) Describe in their application how any reasonable fees that the applicant proposes to charge cohort participants will be determined. If successful, upon award, applicants must develop internal policies and procedures for collecting and effectively managing these fees, as well for waiving fees for a cohort participant if there is a financial hardship. Any fees retained as a result of a participant dropping out are considered program income. Therefore, applicants should refer to 2 CFR 200.307 for applicable regulations for program income; and

(11) Develop and effectively communicate to all cohort participants the policies and procedures related to participation in the experiential learning program.

(c) Conduct a formative and summative evaluation. Any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument. At a minimum, this must include:

(1) An assessment of participant outcomes from each cohort that includes, at a minimum, level of knowledge and practical skill levels using pre- and post-assessments; feedback from novice interpreters, from interpreter advisors, including written feedback from observed interpreting situations, from deaf consumers, from trained mentors, including written feedback from mentoring sessions, and from others, as appropriate;

(2) Clear and specific measureable outcomes that include, but are not limited to:

(i) Improvement in specific linguistic competencies, as identified by the applicant, in English and ASL;

(ii) Improvement in specific competencies, as identified by the applicant, in ASL-English interpretation;

(iii) Outcomes in achieving national certification; and

(iv) The length of time for novice interpreters to become nationally certified sign language interpreters after participating in this project compared to the national average of 19-24 months.

Technical Assistance and Dissemination Activities

Conduct TA and dissemination activities that must include:

(a) Preparing and broadly disseminating TA materials related to practices that are promising or supported by evidence and successful strategies for working with novice interpreters;

(b) Establishing and maintaining a state-of-the-art information technology (IT) platform sufficient to support Webinars, teleconferences, video conferences, and other virtual methods of dissemination of information and TA.

Note:

All products produced by the Center must meet government- and industry-recognized standards for accessibility, including section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.

(c) Developing and maintaining a state-of-the-art archiving and dissemination system that—

(1) Provides a central location for later use of TA products, including curricula, audiovisual materials, Webinars, examples of practices that are promising or supported by evidence, and any other relevant TA products; and

(2) Is open and available to the public.

(d) Providing a minimum of two Webinars or video conferences over the course of the project to describe and disseminate information to the field about results, challenges, solutions, and practices that are promising or supported by evidence.

Note:

In meeting the requirements for paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the Center either may develop new platforms or systems or may modify existing platforms or systems, so long as the requirements of this priority are met.

Coordination Activities

(a) Establish an advisory committee. To effectively implement the Training Activities section of this priority, the applicant must establish an advisory committee that meets at least semi-annually. The advisory committee must include representation from all affected stakeholder groups (i.e., interpreters, interpreter training programs, deaf individuals, and VR agencies) and may include other relevant groups. The advisory committee will advise on the strategies for establishing sites to pilot the experiential learning program, the approaches to the experiential learning program, modifications to experiential learning activities, TA, sustainability planning, and evaluating the effectiveness of the program, as well as other relevant areas as determined by the consortium.

(b) Establish one or more communities of practice 3 that focus on project activities in this priority and that act as vehicles for communication and exchange of information among participants in the experiential learning program, as well as other relevant stakeholders;

3 A community of practice (CoP) is a group of people who work together to solve a persistent problem or to improve practice in an area that is important to them and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis. CoPs exist in many forms, some large in scale that deal with complex problems, others small in scale that focus on a problem at a very specific level. For more information on communities of practice, see: www.tadnet.org/pages/510.

(c) Communicate, collaborate, and coordinate, on an ongoing basis, with other relevant Department-funded projects, as applicable; and

(d) Maintain ongoing communication with the RSA project officer and other RSA staff as required.

Application Requirements

To be funded under this priority, applicants must meet the application requirements in this priority. RSA encourages innovative approaches to meet the following requirements:

(a) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Significance of the Project,” how the proposed project will address the need for nationally certified sign language interpreters. To meet this requirement, the applicant must:

(1) Demonstrate knowledge of English/ASL competencies that novice interpreters must possess in order to enter and to complete an experiential learning program and, at the end of the program, to successfully obtain national certification;

(2) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in training novice interpreters; and

(3) Demonstrate knowledge of practices that are promising or supported by evidence in providing experiential learning.

(b) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of Project Services,” how the proposed project will—

(1) Ensure equal access and treatment for members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability in accessing postsecondary education and training;

(2) Identify the needs of intended recipients of training; and

(3) Ensure that project activities and products meet the needs of the intended recipients by creating materials in formats and languages that are accessible;

(4) Achieve its goals, objectives, and intended outcomes. To meet this requirement, the applicant must identify and provide—

(i) Measurable intended project outcomes;

(ii) Evidence of an existing Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the lead applicant, members of the consortium, other proposed training and TA providers, and other relevant partners to establish a consortium that includes a description of each proposed partner's anticipated commitment of financial or in-kind resources (if any), how each proposed provider's current and proposed activities align with those of the proposed project, how each proposed provider will be held accountable under the proposed structure, and evidence to demonstrate a working relationship between the applicant and its proposed partners and key stakeholders and other relevant groups; and

(iii) A plan for communicating, collaborating, and coordinating with an advisory committee; key staff in State VR agencies, such as State Coordinators for the Deaf; State and local partner programs; Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf, Inc.; RSA partners, such as the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind; and relevant programs within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS).

(3) Use a conceptual framework to design experiential learning activities, describing any underlying concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, or theories, as well as the presumed relationships or linkages among these variables and any empirical support for this framework.

(4) Be based on current research and make use of practices that are promising or supported by evidence.

To meet this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the current research about adult learning principles and implementation science will inform the proposed TA; and

(ii) How the proposed project will incorporate current research and practices that are promising or supported by evidence in the development and delivery of its products and services.

(5) Develop products and provide services that are of high quality and sufficient intensity and duration to achieve the intended outcomes of the proposed project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe its proposed activities to identify or develop the knowledge base for practices that are promising or supported by evidence in experiential learning for novice interpreters.

(6) Develop products and implement services to maximize the project's efficiency. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) How the proposed project will use technology to achieve the intended project outcomes; and

(ii) With whom the proposed project will collaborate and the intended outcomes of this collaboration.

(c) In the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Evaluation Plan,” include an evaluation plan for the project. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(1) Evaluation methodologies, including instruments, data collection methods, and analyses that will be used to evaluate the project. Any proposed instruments must be valid and reliable, and the applicant must submit rationale to support the use of each instrument;

(2) Measures of progress in implementation, including the extent to which the project's activities and products have reached their target populations; intended outcomes or results of the project's activities in order to evaluate those activities; and how well the goals and objectives of the proposed project, as described in its logic model,4 have been met;

4 A logic model communicates how the project will achieve its intended outcomes and provides a framework for both the formative and summative evaluations of the project.

(3) How the evaluation plan will be implemented and revised, as needed, during the project. The applicant must designate at least one individual with sufficient dedicated time, experience in evaluation, and knowledge of the project to support the design and implementation of the evaluation. Tasks may include, but are not limited to, coordinating with the advisory committee and RSA to revise the logic model to provide for a more comprehensive measurement of implementation and outcomes, to reflect any changes or clarifications to the logic model discussed at the kick-off meeting, and to revise the evaluation design and instrumentation proposed in the grant application consistent with the logic model (e.g., developing quantitative or qualitative data collections that permit both the collection of progress data and the assessment of project outcomes);

(4) The standards and targets for determining effectiveness;

(5) How evaluation results will be used to examine the effectiveness of implementation and progress toward achieving the intended outcomes; and

(6) How the methods of evaluation will produce quantitative and qualitative data that demonstrate whether the project activities achieved their intended outcomes.

(d) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Adequacy of Project Resources,” how—

(1) The proposed project will encourage applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have historically been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability, as appropriate;

(2) The proposed key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors have the qualifications and experience to provide experiential learning to novice interpreters and to achieve the project's intended outcomes;

(3) The applicant and any key partners have adequate resources to carry out the proposed activities; and

(4) The proposed costs are reasonable in relation to the anticipated results and benefits.

(e) Demonstrate, in the narrative section of the application under “Quality of the Management Plan,” how—

(1) The proposed management plan will ensure that the project's intended outcomes will be achieved on time and within budget. To address this requirement, the applicant must describe—

(i) Clearly defined responsibilities for key project personnel, consultants, and subcontractors, as applicable; and

(ii) Timelines and milestones for accomplishing the project tasks;

(2) Key project personnel and any consultants and subcontractors allocated to the project and how these allocations are appropriate and adequate to achieve the project's intended outcomes, including an assurance that such personnel will have adequate availability to ensure timely communications with stakeholders and RSA;

(3) The proposed management plan will ensure that the products and services provided are of high quality; and

(4) The proposed project will benefit from a diversity of perspectives, including the advisory committee, as well as other relevant groups in its development and operation.

(f) Address the following application requirements. The applicant must—

(1) Include, in Appendix A, a logic model that depicts, at a minimum, the goals, activities, outputs, and intended outcomes of the proposed project;

(2) Include, in Appendix A, a Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the lead applicant, members of the consortium, other proposed training and TA providers, and other relevant partners;

(3) Include, in Appendix A, a conceptual framework for the project;

(4) Include, in Appendix A, person-loading charts and timelines as applicable, to illustrate the management plan described in the narrative;

(5) Include, in the budget, attendance at the following:

(i) A one and one-half day kick-off meeting in Washington, DC, after receipt of the award;

(ii) An annual planning meeting in Washington, DC, with the RSA project officer and other relevant RSA staff during each subsequent year of the project period; and

(iii) A one-day intensive review meeting in Washington, DC, during the third quarter of the third year of the project period.

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note:

This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use this priority, we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the Department provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on respondents.

This final priority contains information collection requirements that are approved by OMB under the National Interpreter Education program 1820-0018; this final priority does not affect the currently approved data collection.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing this final priority only on a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Through this priority, experiential learning and TA will be provided to novice interpreters in order for them to achieve national certification. These activities will help interpreters to more effectively meet the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind. The training ultimately will improve the quality of VR services and the competitive integrated employment outcomes achieved by individuals with disabilities. This priority will promote the efficient and effective use of Federal funds.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. Information about Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs under Executive Order 12372 is in the application package for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

Dated: July 19, 2016. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-17404 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0105; FRL-9947-69-Region 9] Limited Approval, Limited Disapproval of California Air Plan Revisions, Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District (EKAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted from motor vehicle and mobile equipment refinishing operations. Under the authority of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves a local rule that regulates these emission sources and directs California to correct rule deficiencies.

DATES:

This rule will be effective on August 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0105 for this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901. While all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Arnold Lazarus, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3024, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. Proposed Action II. Public Comments and EPA Responses III. EPA Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population I. Proposed Action

On April 15, 2016 (81 FR 22204), the EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California SIP.

Table 1—Submitted Rule Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted EKAPCD 410.4A Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations 03/13/14 07/25/14

We proposed a limited approval because we determined that this rule improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions include the following:

• Paragraph VI(A), “VOC Content Limits,” provides VOC limits for cavity wax, deadener, gasket/gasket sealing material, lubricating wax/compounds and trunk interior coatings. However, in conflict with long-standing guidance on enforceability such as discussed in the Bluebook, these terms are not defined in the rule.1

1See “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,” (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988. P2-7.

Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, the EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of the rule.

This final limited disapproval does not trigger sanctions or a federal implementation plan (FIP) clock. Sanctions will not be imposed under CAA 179(b) because the submittal of Rule 410.4A is discretionary (i.e., not required to be included in the SIP), and EPA will not promulgate a FIP in this instance under CAA 110(c)(1) because the disapproval does not reveal a deficiency in the SIP for the area that such a FIP must correct. Specifically, there is no EPA control techniques guidelines (CTG) for Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations and, according to CARB's Facility Search Engine, there are no facilities that emit VOC in the EKAPCD for this category for the most recent database year of 2013. Accordingly, the failure of the EKAPCD to adopt revisions to Rule 410.4A would not adversely affect the SIP's compliance with the CAA's requirements, such as the requirements for section 182 ozone reasonably available control technology (RACT), reasonable further progress, and attainment demonstrations. Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the EKAPCD and the EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also does not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the EKAPCD rule described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents available electronically through www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA because this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those imposed by state law.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

The EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

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 23, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule 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. 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, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: June 3, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, 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 F—California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(231)(i)(B) (9) and (c)(447)(i)(D)(5) to read as follows:
§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

(c) * * *

(231) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(9) Previously approved on November 13, 1998 in paragraph (c)(231)(i)(B)(4) and now deleted with replacement in (c)(447)(i)(D)(5) Rule 410.4A amended on March 7, 1996.

(447) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(5) Rule 410.4A, “Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Refinishing Operations,” amended on March 13, 2014.

[FR Doc. 2016-17192 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0347; FRL-9949-42-OAR] Extension of Deadline for Action on the Section 126 Petition From Connecticut AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is determining that 60 days is insufficient time to complete the technical and other analyses and public notice-and-comment process required for our review of a petition submitted by the state of Connecticut pursuant to section 126 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The petition requests that the EPA make a finding that the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station located in York County, Pennsylvania, emits air pollution that significantly contributes to nonattainment and interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in Connecticut. Under section 307(d)(10) of CAA, the EPA is authorized to grant a time extension for responding to the petition if the EPA determines that the extension is necessary to afford the public, and the agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of the section 307(d)'s notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements. By this action, the EPA is making that determination. The EPA is therefore extending the deadline for acting on the petition to no later than January 25, 2017.

DATES:

This final rule is effective on July 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0347. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Gobeail McKinley, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-04), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, telephone number (919) 541-5246, email: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Legal Requirements for Interstate Air Pollution

This is a procedural action to extend the deadline for the EPA to respond to a petition from the state of Connecticut filed pursuant to CAA section 126(b). The EPA received the petition on June 1, 2016. The petition requests that the EPA make a finding under section 126(b) of the CAA that the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station located in York County, Pennsylvania is operating in a manner that emits air pollutants in violation of the provisions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

Section 126(b) of the CAA authorizes states to petition the EPA to find that a major source or group of stationary sources in upwind states emits or would emit any air pollutant in violation of the prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) 1 by contributing significantly to nonattainment or maintenance problems in downwind states. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA prohibits emissions of any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other state with respect to any NAAQS. The petition asserts that emissions from Brunner Island's three major boiler units are linked to downwind nonattainment and maintenance ozone receptor sites in Connecticut for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and that this impact would be mitigated by regulation of nitrogen oxide emissions at the plant or shutting down the plant.

1 The text of CAA section 126 codified in the United States Code cross references CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) instead of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). The courts have confirmed that this is a scrivener's error and the correct cross reference is to CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). See Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 249 F.3d 1032, 1040-44 (D.C. Cir. 2001).

Pursuant to CAA section 126(b), the EPA must make the finding requested in the petition, or must deny the petition, within 60 days of its receipt. Under CAA section 126(c), any existing sources for which the EPA makes the requested finding must cease operations within 3 months of the finding, except that the source may continue to operate if it complies with emission limitations and compliance schedules (containing increments of progress) that the EPA may provide to bring about compliance with the applicable requirements as expeditiously as practical but no later than 3 years from the date of the finding.

CAA section 126(b) further provides that the EPA must hold a public hearing on the petition. The EPA's action under section 126 is also subject to the procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d). See CAA section 307(d)(1)(N). One of these requirements is notice-and-comment rulemaking, under section 307(d)(3)-(6).

In addition, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides for a time extension, under certain circumstances, for a rulemaking subject to CAA section 307(d). Specifically, CAA section 307(d)(10) provides:

Each statutory deadline for promulgation of rules to which this subsection applies which requires promulgation less than six months after date of proposal may be extended to not more than six months after date of proposal by the Administrator upon a determination that such extension is necessary to afford the public, and the agency, adequate opportunity to carry out the purposes of the subsection.

CAA section 307(d)(10) may be applied to section 126 rulemakings because the 60-day time limit under CAA section 126(b) necessarily limits the period for promulgation of a final rule after proposal to less than 6 months.

II. Final Rule A. Rule

In accordance with CAA section 307(d)(10), the EPA is determining that the 60-day period afforded by CAA section 126(b) for responding to the petition from the state of Connecticut is not adequate to allow the public and the agency the opportunity to carry out the purposes of CAA section 307(d). Specifically, the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to complete the necessary technical review, develop an adequate proposal, and allow time for notice and comment, including an opportunity for public hearing, on a proposed finding regarding whether the Brunner Island Steam Electric Station identified in the CAA section 126 petition contributes significantly to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in Connecticut. Moreover, the 60-day period is insufficient for the EPA to review and develop response to any public comments on a proposed finding, or testimony supplied at a public hearing, and to develop and promulgate a final finding in response to the petition. The EPA is in the process of determining an appropriate schedule for action on the CAA section 126 petition. This schedule must afford the EPA adequate time to prepare a proposal that clearly elucidates the issues to facilitate public comment, and must provide adequate time for the public to comment and for the EPA to review and develop responses to those comments prior to issuing the final rule. As a result of this extension, the deadline for the EPA to act on the petition is January 25, 2017.

B. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

This document is a final agency action, but may not be subject to the notice-and-comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The EPA believes that, because of the limited time provided to make a determination, the deadline for action on the CAA section 126 petition should be extended pursuant to section 307(d)(10) of CAA. Congress may not have intended a CAA section 307(d)(10) extension determination to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent that this extension determination otherwise would require notice and opportunity for public comment, there is good cause within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) not to apply those requirements here. Providing for notice and comment of this extension determination under section 307(d)(10) of CAA would be impracticable because of the limited time provided for making this determination, and would be contrary to the public interest because it would divert agency resources from the substantive review of the CAA section 126 petition.

C. Effective Date Under the APA

This action is effective on July 25, 2016. Under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has good cause to mandate an earlier effective date. This action—a deadline extension—must take effect immediately because its purpose is to extend by 6 months the deadline for action on the petition. As discussed earlier, the EPA intends to use the 6-month extension period to develop a proposal on the petition and provide time for public comment before issuing the final rule. It would not be possible for the EPA to complete the required notice and comment and public hearing process within the original 60-day period noted in the statute. These reasons support an immediate effective date.

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

This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition and does not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. It does not contain any recordkeeping or reporting requirements.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements because the agency has invoked the APA “good cause” exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This good cause final action simply extends the date for the EPA to take action on a petition and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this rule as discussed in Section II.B of this document, including the basis for that finding.

IV. Statutory Authority

The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections 110, 126 and 307 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7426 and 7607).

V. Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final rule is available only by the filing of a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 2016. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements that are the subject of this final rule may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Administrative practices and procedures, Air pollution control, Electric utilities, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated: July 14, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17412 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0708; FRL-9949-47-Region 9] Clean Data Determination for 1997 PM2.5 Standards; California—South Coast; Applicability of Clean Air Act Requirements AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to determine that the South Coast air quality planning area in California has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour fine particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This determination is based upon complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured and certified ambient air monitoring data showing that the area has monitored attainment of the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2011-2013 monitoring period, and that all complete data available since that time period indicate that the area continues to attain. Based on the above determination, the requirements for this area to submit certain state implementation plan (SIP) revisions related to attainment shall be suspended for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 standards.

DATES:

This rule is effective on August 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0708. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted materials, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Wienke Tax, (415) 947-4192, or by email at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

Table of Contents I. Summary of Proposed Action II. Evaluation of 2014 and 2015 Data III. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses IV. Final Action V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Summary of Proposed Action

On December 9, 2014 (79 FR 72999), the EPA proposed to determine that the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin (“South Coast”) nonattainment area had attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS or “standards”) for fine particles (generally referring to particles less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter, PM2.5)(“1997 PM2.5 NAAQS”).1 Herein, we refer to our December 9, 2014 proposed rule as the “proposed rule.”

1 The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).

In our proposed rule, we explained that in making an attainment determination, the EPA generally relies on complete, quality-assured and certified data gathered at State and Local Air Monitoring Stations (SLAMS) and entered into the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.2 Under 40 CFR 50.7 (“National primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for PM2.5”) and appendix N to 40 CFR part 50 (“Interpretation of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM2.5”), the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when each monitoring site in the area has a design value at or below the standard.34

2 AQS is EPA's repository for ambient air quality data. Data completeness requirements for a given year are met when at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days for each quarter have valid data.

3 The annual PM2.5 standard design value is the 3-year average of annual mean concentration, and the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the annual standard design value at each eligible monitoring site is less than or equal to 15.0 µg/m3. In 2012, we established a more stringent annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 12.0 µg/m3, 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013) (“2012 PM2.5 NAAQS”), but the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS remains in effect.

4 The 24-hour PM2.5 standard design value is the 3-year average of annual 98th percentile 24-hour average values recorded at each eligible monitoring site, and the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is met when the 24-hour standard design value at each monitoring site is less than or equal to 65 µg/m3. In 2006, we established a more stringent 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3, 71 FR 61144 (October 17, 2006) (“2006 PM2.5 NAAQS”), but the 1997 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS remains in effect.

The EPA proposed the determination of attainment for the South Coast area based upon a review of the monitoring network operated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the data collected at the monitoring sites operating during the most recent three-year period from which data was available at the time of the proposed rule (i.e., 2011 to 2013). Based on this review, the EPA found that complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured and certified data for the South Coast showed that the annual and 24-hour design values for the 2011-2013 period were equal to or less than 15 micrograms per cubic meter (µ/m3) and 65 µ/m3, respectively, at all monitoring sites and that, therefore, the South Coast had attained the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See the data summary tables on pages 73003 and 73004 of our proposed rule.

In conjunction with and based upon our proposed determination that the South Coast had attained the standard, the EPA also proposed to determine that the obligation under the Clean Air Act (CAA or “Act”) to submit any remaining attainment-related SIP revisions arising from classification of the South Coast as a Moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D (of title I of the Act) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS was not applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These attainment-related requirements include, but are not limited to, the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the reasonably available control measures (RACM) provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C) and the reasonable further progress (RFP) provisions of section 189(c). In so doing, we proposed to apply the EPA's Clean Data Policy to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS to suspend the attainment-related SIP submittal obligations under subpart 4 of part D (of title I of the CAA), since the South Coast nonattainment area is considered a “Moderate” nonattainment area under subpart 4. See page 73005 of our proposed rule. In proposing to apply the Clean Data Policy to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, we explained that we are applying the same statutory interpretation with respect to the implications of clean data determinations that the Agency has long applied in regulations for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS and in individual rulemakings for the 1-hour ozone, coarse particle (PM10) and lead NAAQS.

Please see the proposed rule for more detailed information concerning the PM2.5 NAAQS, designations of PM2.5 nonattainment areas, the regulatory basis for determining attainment of the NAAQS, the SCAQMD's PM2.5 monitoring network, the EPA's review and evaluation of the data and the rationale and implications for application of the Clean Data Policy to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.

II. Evaluation of 2014 and 2015 Data

We noted in our proposed rule that, at that time, AQS included no PM2.5 data for year 2014 for the South Coast, but that several quarters of preliminary data were expected to be uploaded to AQS prior to the EPA's final action. See page 73003 of the proposed rule. We also indicated that we would review the preliminary 2014 data prior to taking final action to ensure that 2014 data are consistent with the determination of attainment. In the paragraphs that follow, before we discuss the data for 2014 and 2015, we discuss changes to the SCAQMD PM2.5 ambient monitoring network and the EPA's determination regarding eligibility of data from certain collocated monitors for comparison to the NAAQS.

At the time of our proposed rule, the PM2.5 monitoring network in the South Coast consisted of 18 SLAMS. Monitoring networks frequently change over time in response to changing circumstances, requirements and needs. Since our proposed rule, the SCAQMD has discontinued monitoring at three sites (Burbank, Riverside (Magnolia) and Ontario (Fire Station)) and has established near-road PM2.5 monitoring sites along Route 710 in Long Beach and along Route 60 in Ontario.5 During at least portions of 2014 and 2015, SCAQMD operated collocated filter-based Federal Reference Method (FRM) and Federal Equivalent Method (FEM) Beta Attenuation Method (BAM) samplers at seven sites: Anaheim, Burbank, Central Los Angeles, North Long Beach, South Long Beach, Rubidoux and Mira Loma.

5 See SCAQMD, Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, July 2015, pages 16 and 17. SCAQMD submitted the 2015 network plan to the EPA on July 1, 2015. See letter from Rene M. Bermudez, Principal Air Quality Instrument Specialist, SCAQMD, to Meredith Kurpius, Ph.D., EPA Region IX, July 1, 2015.

With respect to the discontinued sites, SCAQMD has requested approval from the EPA to suspend monitoring at the Burbank and Riverside (Magnolia) sites until suitable replacement sites can be located.6 SCAQMD is not planning to replace the Ontario (Fire Station) site but rather to consolidate measurements from that site with nearby sites and thus has requested approval from the EPA to discontinue, rather than suspend, monitoring at the Ontario (Fire Station) site. The EPA has not taken action on the requests due to insufficient information, but is working with the SCAQMD to provide the basis to resolve the requests by including sufficient information in SCAQMD's upcoming 2016 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan (due for submittal to the EPA in July 2016). None of the three discontinued sites (Burbank, Riverside (Magnolia) and Ontario (Fire Station)) was ever the design value site in the South Coast for PM2.5, and given that the determination of attainment is based on the concentrations measured at the design value site, the fact that the EPA has not yet approved the relocation or closure of the three monitoring sites does not preclude taking final action on the attainment determination.

6Id., at appendix D, pages 1 and 2.

With respect to the two newly-established near-road PM2.5 monitoring sites, the EPA has approved the sites and has determined that, with the addition of the near-road sites, the SCAQMD network of PM2.5 monitoring sites continues to meet the minimum requirements of our monitoring regulations even in the absence of the three discontinued sites.7

7 See letter and enclosures from Gretchen Busterud, Acting Deputy Director, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Matt Miyasato, Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, dated October 29, 2015.

With respect to the eligibility of data from collocated monitors for comparison with the NAAQS, our regulations provide that monitoring agencies must assess data from PM2.5 FEM monitors using certain performance criteria where the data are identified as not of sufficient comparability to a collocated FRM, and the monitoring agency requests that the FEM data should not be used for comparison to the NAAQS.8 As described on page 73003 of the proposed rule, the SCAQMD requested that the 2011-2013 data from the collocated PM2.5 FEM monitors at seven monitoring sites in the PM2.5 monitoring network be considered not eligible for comparison to the NAAQS as part of its 2014 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan. The EPA approved the request by letter dated September 9, 2014. Similarly, as part of the 2015 Annual Air Quality Monitoring Network Plan, the SCAQMD submitted an ineligibility determination request for data from collocated FEM monitors over the 2012-2014 period, and on May 2, 2016, the EPA approved that request.9 Both determinations were made based on assessments of the data showing that bias in the FEM data (relative to collocated FRM data) exceeded EPA's performance criteria for acceptable slope and intercept as defined in 40 CFR 58.11(e).

8 40 CFR 58.11(e).

9 See letter from Meredith Kurpius, Manager, Air Quality Analysis Office, Air Division, EPA Region IX, to Jason Low, Ph.D., South Coast Air Quality Management District, dated May 2, 2016.

In the South Coast, SCAQMD has designated the PM2.5 FRM samplers as the primary monitors where FRM and FEM monitors are collocated at a given site. Under our regulations, comparisons with the PM2.5 NAAQS are made on a site-level, not a monitor-level basis, and the default dataset for a site is based on the designated primary monitor's recorded concentrations.10 Collocated monitors may be used to augment the default dataset to fill in data gaps; however, collocated monitor data are ineligible for this purpose if the EPA has approved a request from a district to approve a determination that such data are ineligible for NAAQS comparison purposes. In this instance, the EPA has approved such ineligibility requests for collocated PM2.5 FEM monitoring data for both the 2011-2013 and 2012-2014 periods.

10 40 CFR part 50, appendix N, section 3.0(d).

With respect to the data, all four quarters for 2014 and 2015 have now been uploaded, and the SCAQMD has certified that 2014 and 2015 data are quality-assured.11 As part of the 2014 and 2015 data review process, we reviewed raw data reports for SCAQMD monitoring sites. With respect to 2014 data, we noted that significant portions of the 2014 data had been flagged with a number of Quality Assurance (QA) qualifier flags. Specifically, portions of the 2014 data in quarters one, two, three and four were flagged with “QX” (does not meet QC criteria) and portions of data in quarter four were flagged with “1” (deviation from a CFR/critical criteria requirement).12 An in-depth review of the data revealed that the “1” and “QX” flags were associated with deviations from the criteria in 40 CFR part 50 appendix L, sections 8.3.6 and 8.3.5, respectively. Some of the QA issues during 2014 stem from arrangements made by SCAQMD in anticipation of the agency's temporary closure of its weighing room to allow for an upgrade to that facility and in response to construction delays associated with that project. The SCAQMD's weighing room reopened on December 4, 2014, and the QA issues affecting 2014 data did not affect data collected in 2015.

11 For the letter of certification of 2014 data, see the letter from Matt M. Miyasato, Ph.D., Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, dated May 1, 2015. For the letter of certification of 2015 data, see the letter from Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D., P.E., Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Science and Technology Advancement, SCAQMD, to Deborah Jordan, Air Division Director, EPA Region IX, April 29, 2016.

12 See 2014 Raw Data Report (AMP 350, April 14, 2016, SouthCoast_PM2.5_RawDataReport_2014.pdf).

The requirements in 40 CFR part 50, appendix L, section 8.3.6 state that post-sample conditioning and weighing shall not exceed 30 days. This refers to the amount of time between when the sample is collected and when the sample is post-weighed. This is commonly referred to as the “post-sample hold time requirement” and, per EPA guidance (“QA Handbook”), is considered a “critical criteria”.13 Adherence to this requirement is important because loss of mass is possible with excessive post-sample hold times, which would likely bias data low.

13 See EPA's Quality Assurance Handbook for Air Pollution Measurement Systems, Volume II, May, 2013 (EPA-454/B-13-003).

As described in section 17.3.3 and appendix D of the QA Handbook, for PM2.5, critical criteria are the specific requirements in 40 CFR 50 appendix L and 40 CFR 58 appendix A that have been deemed critical to maintaining the integrity of a sample or group of samples. The QA handbook further explains that observations that do not meet each and every criterion on the Critical Criteria Table should be invalidated unless there are compelling reasons and justification for not doing so. Since a portion of the 2014 data in quarter four has not met a critical criterion, as defined by the QA Handbook, SCAQMD has invalidated these data. Therefore these data will not be considered as valid data for the purposes of this action.14 Given the extent of invalidated data, the dataset for quarter four of 2014 is incomplete from all of the monitoring sites, resulting in an incomplete year for 2014.

14 On May 5, 2016, SCAQMD replaced the data code “1” with the null data code “AR” (lab error) for post-sample hold time requirement noncompliant data and therefore removed the data from the regulatory data record. See 2014 Raw Data Report (AMP 350), May 5, 2016. SouthCoast_PM2.5_RawDataReport_PostSample_Removed.pdf.

Unlike the data for 2014, however, the data collected during 2015 are complete (or nearly complete) for all four quarters from all monitors.15 For 2015, the basin-wide high-site annual average and (98th percentile) 24-hour-average PM2.5 concentrations are 14.5 µg/m3 and 43 µg/m3, respectively, based on complete or nearly complete datasets for 2015. During 2015, the high site for the annual average was the near-road Ontario (Route 60) site, and the high site for the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration was the Mira Loma site. Because the concentrations fall below the relevant NAAQS (15.0 µg/m3, annual average and 65 µg/m3, 24-hour average), they are consistent with the 2011-2013 data upon which the determination of attainment is based.

15 The data from all quarters of 2015 from all of the monitoring sites are complete (i.e., 75 percent or greater sampling days with valid data) except for: (1) Quarter one at the Long Beach—Route 710 near-road monitor (AQS ID #06-037-4008) during which 74 percent of sampling days have valid data; and (2) quarter four at the Anaheim monitor (AQS ID # 06-059-0007) during which 43 percent of sampling days have valid data. The Long Beach—Route 710 near-road monitor began operating in 2015. The Anaheim monitor has been operating for many years but has never been the design value site within the South Coast.

Lastly, we find further support for the conclusion that the South Coast has attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard in a review of the long-term trends in PM2.5 concentrations in the South Coast as summarized below in Table 1.

Table 1—South Coast Basin-Wide High Annual and 24-Hour PM2.5 Concentrations, 2001-2015 Year Annual
  • average
  • (µg/m3) a
  • 98th Percentile
  • 24-hour
  • average
  • (µg/m3) b
  • 2001 31.0 74 2002 27.5 66 2003 24.8 77 2004 22.1 72 2005 20.9 58 2006 20.8 54 2007 20.9 71 2008 18.3 47 2009 17.2 43 2010 15.2 36 2011 15.3 37 2012 15.1 36 2013 14.1 38 2014 2015 14.5 43 a Basin-wide high annual-average concentration is from the Rubidoux site for 2001-2005, the Mira Loma site from 2006-2013, and the Ontario (Route 60) site for 2015. Bold values represent exceedances of the applicable 1997 standard. b Basin-wide high 98th percentile 24-hour average concentration is from the Rubidoux site for 2001-2003, 2005, and 2006; the San Bernardino site for 2004 and 2007; the Mira Loma site for 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013, and 2015; the Azusa site for 2009; and the Fontana site for 2012. Bold values represent exceedances of the applicable 1997 standard. Source: AQS Design Value Reports, dated October 6, 2014, October 7, 2014, and May 5, 2016.

    As shown in Table 1, basin-wide high-site PM2.5 concentrations in the South Coast declined rapidly from 2001 to 2009. In more recent years, the decline has been more gradual and has even started to level out; however, the level reached in recent years are below the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS of (less than or equal to) 15.0 µg/m3 (annual average) and 65 µg/m3 (98th percentile 24-hour average). We have concluded that South Coast attained the 1997 PM2.5 standard by the end of 2013, and this conclusion is supported by the data collected during 2015 and the long-term trend data of PM2.5 concentrations in the South Coast that show signs of leveling out at a level consistent with attainment of that standard.

    III. Public Comments and the EPA's Responses

    The EPA's proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period. Upon request, we extended the comment period 14 days, from January 8th to January 22nd, 2015.16 We received one set of comments on our proposed rule, a letter from Earthjustice on behalf of a group that Earthjustice refers to collectively as “Health Advocates”.17 We summarize the comments from Health Advocates and respond to them below.

    16 See 80 FR 449 (January 6, 2015).

    17 See letter, Elizabeth Forsyth, Earthjustice, and Maya Golden-Krasner, Communities for a Better Environment, to Wienke Tax, EPA Region IX, dated January 22, 2015. Earthjustice submitted the comments on our proposed rule on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, WildEarth Guardians, Medical Advocates for Healthy Air, and Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles. Earthjustice's letter included four attachments: (1) EPA's technical support document and response to comments document for action on the 2007 South Coast Air Quality Management Plan; (2) comments on the 2011 Air Monitoring Network Plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management District; (3) a draft report prepared by Greg Gould, “Near Roadway Emissions: Measures, Exposure, and Monitoring;” and a report prepared by E.H. Pechan & Associations, Inc., “Estimating Contributions of On-Road Emissions to Near Highway PM2.5 Concentrations.”

    Comment #1: Health Advocates assert that 2014 monitoring data demonstrate that the South Coast is not attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards, and because the South Coast is not attaining the standard, suspension of attainment-related SIP submittal requirements, as proposed by the EPA, is inappropriate.

    In support of their assertion, Health Advocates present annual average PM2.5 data for six monitoring sites in the South Coast for year 2014 downloaded from the California Air Resources Board's (CARB's) Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (AQMIS) Web site (http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqmis2.php). Specifically, Health Advocates present the following data downloaded from AQMIS:

    Monitoring site 2014 Annual mean
  • (µg/m3)
  • Central Los Angeles—Los Angeles (Main Street) 18.8 Metropolitan Riverside County—Rubidoux 15.6 Riverside—Magnolia 16.3 Mira Loma—Mira Loma (Van Buren) 19.2 Burbank—W Palm Ave 19.8 San Bernardino—Upland 17.9

    Lastly, Health Advocates assert that, in light of 2014 data showing violations of the 1997 PM2.5 standard, the EPA must reclassify the South Coast as a “Serious” nonattainment area under CAA section 188(b)(2) and require the South Coast to prepare a “Serious” area plan.

    Response to Comment #1: We note that Health Advocates do not challenge our evaluation of South Coast PM2.5 data for 2011-2013, our proposed determination that the design values in the South Coast for that period are less than the 1997 PM2.5 standards or our proposed suspension of any remaining SIP submittal requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 standards. Rather, Health Advocates assert that data for 2014 made available since publication of our proposed rule precludes our final determination of attainment because the 2014 data purportedly shows that the South Coast is not currently attaining the 1997 PM2.5 standards. We disagree.

    First, CARB's AQMIS combines preliminary (real-time) data with official (historical) data. By their nature, preliminary data are subject to change and may be subject to adjustment, substitution or exclusion under applicable monitoring regulations. In this instance, the annual average PM2.5 concentrations cited by Health Advocates at four of the monitoring sites (Central Los Angeles, Rubidoux, Mira Loma and Burbank) reflect data collected by continuous PM2.5 FEM monitors for which the SCAQMD has requested an ineligibility determination (i.e., for comparison to the NAAQS), and because the EPA has approved the SCAQMD's request, the continuous PM2.5 FEM data are excluded from NAAQS attainment determinations. With respect to the annual average PM2.5 concentrations cited by Health Advocates at the two other monitoring sites (Riverside (Magnolia) and Upland), the data reflect non-FEM methods and are therefore not eligible for comparison with the PM2.5 NAAQS.18

    18 Under 40 CFR 50.7(a)(1), the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS are defined in terms of ambient air measurements made by FRMs or FEMs.

    Second, as discussed in detail in section II of this document, a review of the only complete, quality-assured data available after the 2011-2013 period, that is, the 2015 PM2.5 ambient data collected in the South Coast, supports EPA's determination that the area is attaining the NAAQS. As a result, our suspension of attainment-related SIP submittal requirements is appropriate, and reclassification of the area to “Serious” for the 1997 PM2.5 standards is not warranted.

    Lastly, with respect to reclassification of the South Coast to Serious, we note that the EPA has reclassified the South Coast from Moderate to Serious for the more stringent 2006 (24-hour) PM2.5 NAAQS. See 81 FR 1514 (January 13, 2016). As a result of that action, California is required to submit, by August 14, 2017, additional SIP revisions to satisfy the statutory requirements that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment areas, including the requirements of subpart 4 of part D, title I of the Act. The Serious area plan must provide for attainment of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than December 31, 2019, in accordance with the requirements of part D of title I of the Act.

    Moreover, notwithstanding the suspension of attainment-related SIP requirements related to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS arising from today's action, California must continue to develop such plans not just for the more stringent 2006 (24-hour) PM2.5 NAAQS cited above, but also for the more stringent 2012 (annual average) PM2.5 NAAQS for which the South Coast has been classified as Moderate nonattainment effective April 15, 2015. See 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015). The new South Coast plan addressing Moderate area requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS is due no later than October 15, 2016. See CAA section 189(a)(2)(B).

    Comment #2: Health Advocates contend that the EPA cannot make a clean data determination for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast because the data the EPA considered for its proposed determination exclude data from near-roadway monitors. In support of their contention, Health Advocates cite CAA section 107(a), which requires states to assure air quality within the entire geographic area and note that Congress did not exempt areas near highways, where evidence cited by the commenters indicates much higher levels of PM2.5 within 300 meters of the highway. Thus, they assert that the inclusion of near-roadway monitoring data is necessary to protect the people who live, work and go to school within 300 meters of a highway in the South Coast and cite changes in the EPA's monitoring regulations that require near-roadway monitoring in certain urban areas.

    Health Advocates also cite a case pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in which community and environmental groups are challenging the EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast, in part, on the grounds that the attainment demonstration does not address the near-highway environment. Health Advocates contend that the EPA should not make a clean data determination before the court has ruled on this issue.19

    19 The case cited is Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles v. EPA, 9th Cir., No. 12-70079.

    Response to Comment #2: CAA section 107(a) provides that each state shall have the primary responsibility for assuring air quality within the entire geographic area comprising such state by submitting a SIP that will specify the manner in which the NAAQS will be achieved and maintained in such state. CAA section 107(a) does not specify how the EPA must determine whether an area within a state has attained the NAAQS. Such determinations are governed by the applicable sections of 40 CFR parts 50, 53 and 58, and in the proposed rule at page 73001, the EPA identifies the specific regulations governing our proposed determination of attainment for the South Coast for the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

    Health Advocates cite changes made by the EPA to the Agency's monitoring regulations to require states to establish near-road PM2.5 monitors in certain urban areas as support for their assertion that the EPA's proposed determination of attainment for the South Coast in essence denies thousands of people who live near highways from the protections of the Clean Air Act. We agree that the EPA's monitoring regulations have been revised to require near-road PM2.5 monitoring in Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) having one million or greater persons. See 40 CFR part 58, appendix D, section 4.7.1(b), as added by the EPA's final action published at 78 FR 3086, at 3282 (January 15, 2013).

    The South Coast encompasses two such areas, the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA CBSA and the Riverside-San Bernardino, CA CBSA. Given that both CBSAs exceed 2.5 million people, the first PM2.5 monitors specifically located to measure the near-road environment were required to be operational as of January 1, 2015. In response to the revised monitoring requirements, beginning January 1, 2015, the SCAQMD began monitoring ambient PM2.5 concentrations at two near-road sites: the Long Beach Route 710 site (AQS ID 06-037-4008) is located near Route 710 in Long Beach, and the Ontario Route 60 Near-Road site (06-071-0027) is located near Route 60 in Ontario. We now have one year's worth of data from the two near-road PM2.5 monitors.20 At the Long Beach Route 710 site, the annual average PM2.5 concentration was 12.9 µ/m3 during 2015, and the 98th percentile 24-hour PM2.5 concentration was 36 µ/m3. At the Ontario Route 60 site, the corresponding concentrations were 14.5 µ/m3 and 40 µ/m3, respectively. In summary, the ambient concentrations were less than the corresponding 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and are consistent with continued attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.

    20 See AQS Design Value Report, dated May 5, 2016.

    Also, as noted in our proposed rule, the EPA's evaluation of whether the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is based in part on our review of the adequacy of the PM2.5 monitoring network in the nonattainment area and the reliability of the data collected by the network. During the relevant time period in which the data that we relied upon for the proposed determination of attainment were collected (i.e., 2011-2013), the PM2.5 monitoring network in the South Coast was not required to include near-road PM2.5 monitors. Therefore, the lack of a near-road PM2.5 monitor during the 2011-2013 period does not undermine our determination of attainment of the standard based on the data collected during those years. Moreover, as noted above, the near-road ambient PM2.5 data that are now available are consistent with continued attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in the South Coast.

    Lastly, Health Advocates are correct that a lawsuit was filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in which near-road PM2.5 concentrations were at issue. See Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles v. EPA, Ninth Circuit, No. 12-70079. However, the action that is challenged in that case is the EPA's approval of the attainment demonstration for the 1997 PM2.5 standards in the South Coast that relies on modeling results to predict future ambient concentrations. Today's action does not rely on future modeled concentrations but rather on past monitored concentrations collected by a monitoring network that, as explained above, is adequate and consistent with the EPA's monitoring requirements for the relevant period.

    In any event, on June 9, 2015, the court issued a memorandum denying the petition for review in the Physicians for Social Responsibility case. As relevant here, the court held that the South Coast PM2.5 plan does not impermissibly ignore pollution in the near-highway areas because the monitoring guidelines explicitly specify that states generally need not monitor “microscale” or “middle scale” areas, which include “traffic corridors” and areas “along traffic corridors.” See Physicians for Social Responsibility—Los Angeles v. EPA, No. 12-70079, memorandum opinion at 3 (9th Cir., June 9, 2015). Thus, the case presents no reason to delay final action on the determination of attainment for the South Coast for the 1997 PM2.5 standards.

    IV. Final Action

    For the reasons stated above, the EPA is taking final action to determine that the South Coast nonattainment area in California has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS based on complete (or otherwise validated), quality-assured and certified data in AQS for 2011-2013. We also find that the most recent quality-assured and certified data in AQS show that this area continues to attain the standards.

    In conjunction with and based upon our final determination that the South Coast has attained and is currently attaining the standard, the EPA is taking final action to determine that the obligation to submit any remaining attainment-related SIP revisions arising from classification of the South Coast as a Moderate nonattainment area under subpart 4 of part D (of title I of the Act) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS is not applicable for so long as the area continues to attain the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. These attainment-related requirements include, but are not limited to, the part D, subpart 4 obligations to provide an attainment demonstration pursuant to section 189(a)(1)(B), the RACM provisions of section 189(a)(1)(C) and the RFP provisions of section 189(c).

    Today's final action does not constitute a redesignation of the South Coast nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS under CAA section 107(d)(3) because we have not yet approved a maintenance plan for the South Coast as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA or determined that the area has met the other CAA requirements for redesignation. The classification and designation status in 40 CFR part 81 remains Moderate nonattainment for this area until such time as the EPA determines that California has met the CAA requirements for redesignating the South Coast nonattainment area to attainment.

    If the South Coast nonattainment area continues to monitor attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the requirements for the area to submit an attainment demonstration and associated RACM, an RFP plan, contingency measures and any other planning requirements related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS will remain suspended. If, after today's action, the EPA subsequently determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking in the Federal Register, that the area has violated the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the basis for the suspension of the attainment planning requirements for the area would no longer exist, and the area would thereafter have to address such requirements.

    V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final action makes a determination of attainment based on air quality and suspends certain federal requirements, and thus, this action would not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For this reason, the final action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this final action does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do not apply to Indian Tribes, and thus this action will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 23, 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. 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, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, 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 F—California 2. Section 52.247 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
    § 52.247 Control strategy and regulations: Fine Particle Matter.

    (g) Determination of Attainment: Effective August 24, 2016, the EPA has determined that, based on 2011 to 2013 ambient air quality data, the South Coast PM2.5 nonattainment area has attained the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination suspends the requirements for this area to submit an attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available control measures, a reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures and other planning SIPs related to attainment for as long as this area continues to attain the 1997 annual and 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. If the EPA determines, after notice-and-comment rulemaking, that this area no longer meets the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the corresponding determination of attainment for the area shall be withdrawn.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17410 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9949-46-OAR] RIN 2060-AS98 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final action to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. This direct final rule provides, for a period of 1 year, an additional compliance alternative for sources that would otherwise be required to use an HCl CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the HCl emissions limit. This compliance alternative is needed due to the current unavailability of a calibration gas used for quality assurance purposes. This direct final rule also restores regulatory text requiring the reporting of clinker production and kiln feed rates that was deleted inadvertently.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective on September 8, 2016 without further notice, unless the EPA receives significant adverse comment by August 24, 2016. If the EPA receives significant adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Organization of This Document. The information in this preamble is organized as follows:

    I. General Information A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule? B. Does this direct final rule apply to me? C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA? II. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule? III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations K. Congressional Review Act (CRA) I. General Information A. Why is the EPA using a direct final rule?

    The EPA is publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and do not anticipate significant adverse comment. However, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposed rule to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry, if EPA receives significant adverse comments on this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the ADDRESSES section of this document.

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

    B. Does this direct final rule apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this direct final rule include:

    Category NAICS Code 1 Portland cement manufacturing facilities 327310 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this direct final rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340. If you have questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

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

    Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the 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 comments that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comments 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. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817.

    II. What are the amendments made by this direct final rule?

    In response to a concern raised by a stakeholder regarding the availability of calibration gases for HCl continuous monitoring compliance, this direct final rule amends 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(6) of the performance testing requirements for HCl by adding an alternative method for performance testing. Under the current rule, the owner or operator of a kiln subject to the emission limits for HCl in 40 CFR 63.1343 may demonstrate compliance by one of the following methods:

    • An owner or operator of a kiln may demonstrate compliance by operating a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) meeting the requirements of performance specification 15 (PS-15), PS-18, or any other PS for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60, with compliance based on a 30-kiln operating day rolling average.

    • If the kiln is controlled using a wet scrubber, tray tower, or dry scrubber, the owner or operator, as an alternative to using a CEMS, may demonstrate compliance with the HCl limit using one of two options, described below.

    Under both options, a performance test must be conducted by the owner or operator using Method 321. Under the first option, while conducting the Method 321 performance test (note Method 321 is the HCl stack testing performance method required by this rule), the owner or operator simultaneously measures a control device parameter and establishes a site-specific parameter limit that will be continuously monitored to determine compliance. If the kiln is controlled using a wet scrubber or tray tower, the owner or operator would monitor the pressure drop across the scrubber and/or liquid flow rate and pH during the HCl performance test. If the kiln is controlled using a dry scrubber, the sorbent injection rate would be monitored during the performance test. Under the second option, the owner or operator may establish sulfur dioxide (SO2) as the operating parameter by measuring SO2 emissions using a CEMS simultaneously with the Method 321 test and establishing the site-specific SO2 limit that will be continuously monitored to determine compliance with the HCl limit.

    The current rule requires that if a source chooses to monitor HCl emissions using a CEMS, they must do so in accordance with PS-15, PS-18, or any other PS for HCl CEMS in appendix B to part 60 of this chapter. (See 40 CFR part 60 appendix B.) Quality assurance procedures for HCl CEMS require that they be capable of reading HCl concentrations that span a range of possible emission levels below as well as above expected HCl emission concentrations. These quality assurance procedures require the use of National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)-traceable calibration gases for HCl.

    Following our decision to create PS-18 and Procedure 6 for HCl continuous monitoring in 2012, the EPA worked with NIST and commercial gas vendors on development of NIST-traceable HCl gas standards to support the PS-18 and Portland Cement Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) rulemaking. While some of the low HCl concentration (<10 parts per million, or ppm) NIST-traceable gases have been available on a limited basis since 2013, the full range of HCl concentrations required to support all HCl emissions monitoring technologies (including integrated path that requires concentrations 100 times higher) are not widely available at this time.

    The approach used by NIST in 2013 was to certify the Research Gas Material (RGM) cylinders as primary gas standards. These cylinders contain HCl gas and are provided to NIST by vendors for NIST certification, and subsequently used by the vendors as transfer standards to prepare the Gas Manufacturer Intermediate Standards (GMIS). The GMIS cylinders are then used to produce NIST-traceable gas cylinders that are sold commercially.1 The initial approach used by NIST to certify the RGM cylinders was not viable in the long term as the instrumentation used by NIST largely depleted the HCl RGM gas volume, leaving little gas in the cylinder for the vendors to use in preparing GMIS materials. Because of this concern, NIST initiated development of an improved RGM certification procedure. The development of both the initial and more recently improved approach has been hampered by the challenges presented in handling HCl gas. HCl gas is extremely reactive and difficult to handle in both gas cylinders and analytically. As such, it has taken considerable time for NIST to optimize the new analytical equipment and approach to achieve the necessary uncertainty requirements (e.g., <1 percent uncertainty).

    1EPA Traceability Protocol for Assay and Certification of Gaseous Calibration Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/R-12/531, May 2012.

    In addition, the commercial establishment of NIST-traceable gases is dependent on collaboration between NIST and the specialty gas vendors. There are a limited number of vendors providing the stable, accurate, low and high concentration cylinder gases to NIST to certify as RGMs. NIST is now receiving a regular supply of candidate RGM cylinders from these vendors and is beginning work on higher concentration HCl gas standards needed to support integrated path HCl monitors (IP-CEMS). Once the RGMs are available, the specialty gas vendors must complete a series of procedures to establish the certainty of their products which adds to the time to achieve wide commercial availability.

    As a result, the EPA is providing, for a period of 1 year, an additional compliance alternative for sources that would otherwise be required to use an HCl CEMS. In this alternative, the HCl CEMS is still required to be installed and operated, but actual compliance with the HCl emissions limit is determined by a three run stack test. The HCl CEMS will still provide a continuous readout of HCl emissions, but because the CEMS will not be calibrated with the required NIST-traceable calibration gases, the HCl measurement is not considered to be sufficiently accurate on an absolute basis for compliance, but would be sufficient to indicate any relative change in HCl emissions occurring subsequent to the compliance test. Therefore, the HCl CEMS under this alternative would function as a continuous parameter monitor system (CPMS) as in the case of the particulate matter (PM) CPMS requirement (see 78 FR 10014-10015, 10019-10020, February 12, 2013). Based on conversations with gas vendors and NIST, we anticipate that NIST-traceable calibration gases for HCl will be available in sufficient quantities within one year of this notice (see J. Ryan, memo to S. Johnson, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, Status of NIST-Traceable Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) Calibration Gases for Use With HCl Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) Under 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL, June 22, 2016). Thus, this alternative will expire on July 25, 2017 and owner/operators must have in place one of the original HCl compliance demonstration alternatives (we anticipate HCl CEMS operated monitoring equipment according to 40 CFR 63.1350(l)) by this date.

    Under this new, temporary alternative, the owner or operator would demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using Method 321 and would monitor compliance with an operating parameter limit through use of an HCl CPMS. For the HCl CPMS, the owner operator would use the average HCl CPMS indicated output, typically displayed as parts per million volume, wet basis HCl recorded at in-stack oxygen concentration during the HCl performance test to establish the operating limit. To determine continuous compliance with the operating limit, the owner or operator would record the indicated HCl CPMS output data for all periods when the process is operating and use all the HCl CPMS data, except data obtained during times of monitor malfunctions. Thus, continuous compliance with the operating limit would be demonstrated by using all valid hourly average data collected by the HCl CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (indicated ppm) on a 30-kiln operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. An exceedance of the kiln 30-day operating limit would trigger evaluation of the control system operation and resetting the operating limit based on a new correlation with performance testing. For kilns with inline raw mills, performance testing and monitoring HCl to establish the site specific operating limit must be conducted during both raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.

    As is the case for the PM CPMS requirements (see 40 CFR 63.1349(b)(1)(i)), this alternative includes a scaling factor of 75 percent of the emission standard as a benchmark (2.25 parts per million volume, dry basis @ 7-percent oxygen). Sources that choose this option will conduct a Method 321 test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions standard and during this testing will also monitor their HCl CPMS output in indicated ppm to determine where their HCl CPMS output would intersect 75 percent of their allowed HCl emissions, and set their operating level at that ppm output. This scaling procedure alleviates re-testing concerns for sources that operate well below the emission limit and provides greater operational flexibility while assuring continuous compliance with the HCl emission standard. For sources whose Method 321 compliance tests place them at or above 75 percent of the emission standard, their operating limit is determined by the average of three Method 321 test runs (for sources with no inline raw mill) or the time weighted average of six Method 321 test runs (for kilns with inline raw mills). We believe that by adopting a scaling factor as well as the use of 30 days of averaged HCl CPMS measurements, the parametric limit in no way imposes a stringency level higher than the level of the HCl emissions standard and will avoid triggering unnecessary retests for many facilities, especially for the lower-emitting sources.

    In addition to adding the interim testing and monitoring provisions for HCl, we are restoring a recordkeeping regulatory provision that was deleted inadvertently during one of the recent rule revisions. The provision in question is the former 40 CFR 63.1355(e). This provision relates to the recordkeeping requirements for clinker production and kiln feed rates. This requirement was added in the 2010 final amendments and was not removed or revised in subsequent amendments to the rule. This rulemaking restores this provision in the regulatory text to ensure that the regulated community has a clear understanding of the applicable compliance requirements.

    III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulation (40 CFR part 63, subpart RRR) and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0416. This action does not change the information collection requirements.

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action does not create any new requirements or burdens and no costs are associated with this direct final action.

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is aware of one tribally owned Portland cement facility currently subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL that will be subject to this direct final rule. However, the provisions of this direct final rule are not expected to impose new or substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments since the provisions in this direct final rule are adding an alternative to the HCl monitoring provisions, adding an option which provides operational flexibility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). This action does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment.

    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental Protection Agency is amending title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as follows:

    PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES 1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    Subpart LLL—National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry 2. Section 63.1349 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(6)(v) to read as follows:
    § 63.1349 Performance testing requirements.

    (b) * * *

    (6) * * *

    (v) As an alternative to paragraph (b)(6)(ii) of this section, the owner or operator may demonstrate initial compliance by conducting a performance test using Method 321 of appendix A to this part. You must also monitor continuous performance through use of an HCl CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (H) of this section. For kilns with inline raw mills, compliance testing and monitoring HCl to establish the site specific operating limit must be conducted during both raw mill on and raw mill off conditions.

    (A) For your HCl CPMS, you must establish a 30 kiln operating day site-specific operating limit. If your HCl performance test demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be less than 75 percent of your emission limit (2.25 ppmvd @7% O2), you must use the time weighted average HCl CPMS indicated value recorded during the HCl compliance test (typically measured as ppmvw HCl at stack O2 concentration, but a dry, oxygen corrected value would also suffice), your HCl instrument zero output value, and the time weighted average HCl result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. If your HCl compliance test demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit (2.25 ppmvd @7% O2), you must use the time weighted average HCl CPMS indicated value recorded during the HCl compliance test as your operating limit. You must use the HCl CPMS indicated signal data to demonstrate continuous compliance with your operating limit.

    (1) Your HCl CPMS must provide a ppm HCl concentration output and the establishment of its relationship to manual reference method measurements must be determined in units of indicated ppm. The instrument signal may be in ppmvw or ppmvd and the signal may be a measurement of HCl at in-stack concentration or a corrected oxygen concentration. Once the relationship between the indicated output of the HCl CPMS and the reference method test results is established, the HCl CPMS instrument measurement basis (ppmvw or ppmvd, or oxygen correction basis) must not be altered. Likewise, any setting that impacts the HCl CPMS indicated HCl response must remain fixed after the site-specific operating limit is set.

    (2) Your HCl CPMS operating range must be capable of reading HCl concentrations from zero to a level equivalent to 125 percent of the highest expected value during mill off operation. If your HCl CPMS is an auto-ranging instrument capable of multiple scales, the primary range of the instrument must be capable of reading an indicated HCl concentration from zero to 10 ppm.

    (3) During the initial performance test of a kiln with an inline raw mill, or any such subsequent performance test that demonstrates compliance with the HCl limit, record and average the indicated ppm HCl output values from the HCl CPMS for each of the six periods corresponding to the compliance test runs (e.g., average each of your HCl CPMS output values for six corresponding Method 321 test runs). With the average values of the six test runs, calculate the average of the three mill on test runs and the average of the three mill off test runs. Calculate the time weighted result using the average of the three mill on tests and the average of the three mill off tests and the previous annual ratio of mill on/mill off operations. Kilns without an inline raw mill will conduct three compliance tests and calculate the average monitor output values corresponding to these three test runs and not use time weighted values to determine their site specific operating limit.

    (B) Determine your operating limit as specified in paragraphs (b)(6)(i) or (iii) of this section. If your HCl performance test demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be below 75 percent of your emission limit, kilns with inline raw mills will use the time weighted average indicated HCl ppm concentration CPMS value recorded during the HCl compliance test, the zero value output from your HCl CPMS, and the time weighted average HCl result of your compliance test to establish your operating limit. Kilns without inline raw mills will not use a time weighted average value to establish their operating limit. If your time weighted HCl compliance test demonstrates your HCl emission levels to be at or above 75 percent of your emission limit, you will use the time weighted HCl CPMS indicated ppm value recorded during the HCl compliance test to establish your operating limit. Kilns without inline raw mills will not use time weighted compliance test results to make this determination. You must verify an existing operating limit or establish a new operating limit for each kiln, after each repeated performance test.

    (C) If the average of your three Method 321 compliance test runs (for kilns without an inline raw mill) or the time weighted average of your six Method 321 compliance test runs (for an kiln with an inline raw mill) is below 75 percent of your HCl emission limit, you must calculate an operating limit by establishing a relationship of the average HCl CPMS indicated ppm to the Method 321 test average HCl concentration using the HCl CPMS instrument zero, the average HCl CPMS indicated values corresponding to the three (for kilns without inline raw mills) or time weighted HCl CPMS indicated values corresponding to the six (for kilns with inline raw mills) compliance test runs, and the average HCl concentration (for kilns without raw mills) or average time weighted HCl concentration (for kilns with inline raw mills) from the Method 321 compliance test with the procedures in paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(C)(1) through (5) of this section.

    (1) Determine your HCl CPMS instrument zero output with one of the following procedures:

    (i) Zero point data for in situ instruments should be obtained by removing the instrument from the stack and monitoring ambient air on a test bench.

    (ii) If neither of the steps in paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(C)(1)(i) through (ii) of this section are possible, you must use a zero output value provided by the manufacturer.

    (2) If your facility does not have an inline raw mill you will determine your HCl CPMS indicated average in HCl ppm, and the average of your corresponding three HCl compliance test runs, using equation 11a.

    ER25JY16.018 Where: Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for the three (or six) runs constituting the performance test; Yi = The HCl concentration value for the three (or six) runs constituting the performance test; and n = The number of data points.

    (3) You will determine your HCl CPMS indicated average in HCl ppm, and the average of your corresponding HCl compliance test runs, using equation 11b. If you have an inline raw mill, use this same equation to calculate a second three-test average for your mill off CPMS and compliance test data.

    ER25JY16.019 Where: Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for the three runs constituting the mill on OR mill off performance test; Yi = The HCl concentration value for the three runs constituting the mill on OR mill off performance test; and n = The number of data points.

    (4) With your instrument zero expressed in ppm, your average HCl CPMS ppm value, and your HCl compliance test average, determine a relationship of performance test HCl (as ppmvd @7% O2) concentration per HCl CPMS indicated ppm with Equation 11c.

    ER25JY16.020 Where: R = The relative performance test concentration per indicated ppm for your HCl CPMS; Y1 = The average HCl concentration as ppmvd @7% O2 during the performance test; X1 = The average indicated ppm output from your HCl CPMS; and z = The ppm of your instrument zero determined from paragraph (b)(6)(v)(C)(1) of this section.

    (5) Determine your source specific 30 kiln operating day operating limit using HC1 CPMS indicated value from Equation 11c in Equation 11d, below. This sets your operating limit at the HC1 CPMS output value corresponding to 75 percent of your emission limit.

    ER25JY16.021 Where: Ol = The operating limit for your HCl CPMS on a 30 kiln operating day average, as indicated ppm; L = 3 ppmvd @7% O2; z = Your instrument zero, determined from paragraph (b)(6)(v)(C)(1) of this section ; and R = The relative performance test concentration per indicated ppm for your HCl CPMS, from Equation 11c.

    (D) If the average of your HCl compliance test runs is at or above 75 percent of your HCl emission limit (2.25 [email protected]% O2) you must determine your operating limit by averaging the HCl CPMS output corresponding to your HCl performance test runs that demonstrate compliance with the emission limit using Equation 11e.

    ER25JY16.022 Where: Oh = Your site specific HCl CPMS operating limit, in indicated ppm. Xi = The HCl CPMS data points for all runs i. n = The number of data points.

    (E) To determine continuous compliance with the operating limit, you must record the HCl CPMS indicated output data for all periods when the process is operating and use all the HCl CPMS data for calculations when the source is not out of control. You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit by using all quality-assured hourly average data collected by the HCl CPMS for all operating hours to calculate the arithmetic average operating parameter in units of the operating limit (ppmvw) on a 30 kiln operating day rolling average basis, updated at the end of each new kiln operating day. Use Equation 11f to determine the 30 kiln operating day average.

    ER25JY16.023 Where: 30 kiln operating day parameter average = The average indicated value for the CPMS parameter over the previous 30 days of kiln operation; Hpvi = The hourly parameter value for hour i; and n = The number of valid hourly parameter values collected over 30 kiln operating days.

    (F) If you exceed the 30 kiln operating day operating limit, you must evaluate the control system operation and re-set the operating limit.

    (G) The owner or operator of a kiln with an inline raw mill and subject to limitations on HCl emissions must demonstrate initial compliance by conducting separate performance tests while the raw mill is on and while the raw mill is off. Using the fraction of time the raw mill is on calculate your HCl CPMS limit as a weighted average of the HCl CPMS indicated values measured during raw mill on and raw mill off compliance testing using Equation 11g.

    ER25JY16.024 Where: R = HCl CPMS operating limit; b = Average indicated HCl CPMS value during mill on operations, ppm; t = Fraction of operating time with mill on; a = Average indicated HCl CPMS value during mill off operations ppm; and (1−t) = Fraction of operating time with mill off. (H) Paragraph (b)(6)(v) of this section expires on July 25, 2017 at which time the owner or operator must demonstrate compliance with paragraphs (b)(6)(i), (ii), or (iii).
    3. Section 63.1350 is amended by adding paragraph (l)(4) to read as follows:
    § 63.1350 Monitoring requirements.

    (l) * * *

    (4) If you monitor continuous performance through the use of an HCl CPMS according to paragraphs (b)(6)(v)(A) through (H) of § 63.1349, for any exceedance of the 30 kiln operating day HCl CPMS average value from the established operating limit, you must:

    (i) Within 48 hours of the exceedance, visually inspect the APCD;

    (ii) If inspection of the APCD identifies the cause of the exceedance, take corrective action as soon as possible and return the HCl CPMS measurement to within the established value; and

    (iii) Within 30 days of the exceedance or at the time of the annual compliance test, whichever comes first, conduct an HCl emissions compliance test to determine compliance with the HCl emissions limit and to verify or reestablish the HCl CPMS operating limit within 45 days. You are not required to conduct additional testing for any exceedances that occur between the time of the original exceedance and the HCl emissions compliance test required under this paragraph.

    (iv) HCl CPMS exceedances leading to more than four required performance tests in a 12-month process operating period (rolling monthly) constitute a presumptive violation of this subpart.

    4. Section 63.1355 is amended by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
    § 63.1355 Recordkeeping requirements.

    (e) You must keep records of the daily clinker production rates and kiln feed rates.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17293 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 5 [ET Docket Nos. 10-236 and 06-155; FCC 16-86] Radio Experimentation and Market Trials—Streamlining Rules AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission modifies its rules to permit program experimental radio licensees (program licensees) to experiment with radio frequency (RF)-based medical devices on certain restricted frequencies, if the medical device being tested is designed to comply with applicable Commission service rules. Adoption of this proposal facilitates access to spectrum that can be used under an experimental program license to improve the utility of this type of licensing scheme for those entities experimenting with RF-based medical devices, and thereby help to advance innovation in this area. This action will result in no harm to any qualified license applicant or licensee.

    DATES:

    Effective August 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rodney Small, Office of Engineering and Technology, 202-418-2452, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 10-236 and 06-155, FCC 16-86, adopted June 29, 2016, and released June 30, 2016. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do?numberFld=16-86&numberFld2=&docket=&dateFld=&docTitleDesc.

    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

    This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13.

    Synopsis

    1. In 2013, the Commission established in the Report and Order in this proceeding, 78 FR 25137, April 29, 2013, three new kinds of experimental licenses—including program licenses—designed to benefit the development of new technologies and expedite their introduction to the marketplace. In this Second Report and Order, the Commission adopts the proposal set forth in the Further NPRM, 80 FR 52437, August 31, 2015, by modifying section 5.303 of its rules for program licenses to permit experimentation in the restricted frequency bands for medical devices that comply with the service rules in Part 18 (Industrial, Scientific, and Medical Equipment), Part 95 Subpart H (Wireless Medical Telemetry Service), or Part 95 Subpart I (Medical Device Radiocommunication Service). This rule change will establish parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers and developers—whether they are health care institutions or medical device manufacturers—as to permissible frequencies of operation for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices. Accordingly, because the Commission finds that the proposal will serve the public interest by promoting medical innovation with no detriment to the public, it adopts that proposal. Revised section 5.303 of the rules is set forth at the end of this summary.

    Regulatory Flexibility Certification

    2. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 1 requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” 2 Modification of section 5.303 of the Commission's Rules establishes parity between all qualified medical device manufacturers as to permissible frequencies of operation for conducting basic research and clinical trials with RF-based medical devices. The Commission previously determined that “[t]he entities affected by the proposed rule change are equipment manufacturers seeking to test medical equipment designed to operate in the restricted frequency bands listed in section 15.205(a) of the rules, and such manufacturers are limited in number,” and certified that the proposed rules would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission received no comments that addressed this determination or that claimed that the proposal requires additional RFA analysis. The Commission therefore certifies that the rule revisions set forth herein will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    1See 5 U.S.C. 604. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

    2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

    Congressional Review Act

    3. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order in a report to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    Ordering Clauses

    4. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that, pursuant to sections 301 and 303 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301 and 303, and §§ 1.1 and 1.425 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.425, this Second Report and Order IS ADOPTED.

    5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that part 5 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 5, IS AMENDED, as set forth in the Rule Changes. These revisions will be effective August 24, 2016.

    6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if no applications for review are timely filed, this proceeding SHALL BE TERMINATED and the docket CLOSED.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 5

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary. Rule Changes

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 5 as follows:

    PART 5—EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE 1. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 4, 302, 303, 307, 336 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 307, 336. Interpret or apply sec. 301, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 301.

    2. Section 5.303 is revised to read as follows:
    § 5.303 Frequencies.

    (a) Licensees may operate in any frequency band, including those above 38.6 GHz, except for frequency bands exclusively allocated to the passive services (including the radio astronomy service). In addition, licensees may not use any frequency or frequency band below 38.6 GHz that is listed in § 15.205(a) of this chapter.

    (b) Exception: Licensees may use frequencies listed in § 15.205(a) of this chapter for testing medical devices (as defined in § 5.402(b) of this chapter), if the device is designed to comply with all applicable service rules in part 18; part 95, subpart H; or part 95, subpart I of this chapter.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17319 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 142 Monday, July 25, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. FAA-2016-7055; Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11] RIN 2120-AA66 Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2306F; Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to establish restricted area R-2306F in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The proposed restricted area would allow the Department of the Army to maximize the existing fixed infrastructure to support hazardous test programs and segregate these activities from non-participating aircraft at Yuma Proving Ground (YPG). These programs include ground and airborne testing of non-eye-safe lasers, high energy radars and the development of unproven weapons systems. The restricted airspace would ensure the safe testing and evaluation of these programs without impacting non-participating aircraft and the general public.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1 (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7055 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments on environmental and land use aspects should be directed to: Meg McDonald, Environmental Sciences Division, U.S. Army Garrison-Yuma, Yuma, Arizona 85365-9498. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Docket 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.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    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 the 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 a restricted area at Yuma, AZ, to enhance aviation safety and accommodate essential Army testing requirements.

    Comments Invited

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

    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7055 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Office at the address listed above. You may also submit comments through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters 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 FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-7055 and Airspace Docket No. 15-AWP-11.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. 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 through the Internet at www.regulations.gov.

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

    Background

    Yuma Proving Ground (YPG) is a Major Range and Test Facility Base that conducts the development and testing of emerging aviation weapon technologies. This testing includes both ground and air-to-ground propagation of non-eye-safe lasers, high power radars and developmental, unproven weapons systems. Testing includes the actual operation of these systems using various proven and unproven aircraft platforms. Due to the hazards of these systems, it is imperative that these activities be segregated within a restricted area. To safely and efficiently test and evaluate these technologies, YPG needs to use the existing airspace and ground infrastructure at Laguna Army Airfield. Use of the Airfield is limited to “official business only” with “prior permission required.” Therefore, hazardous testing could be conducted safely within proposed R-2306F without impacting non-participating aircraft.

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 73 to establish a new restricted area, R-2306F, extending from the surface to 1,700 feet MSL, in the vicinity of Laguna Army Airfield at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ. The proposed area would be used for the testing of various hazardous systems including non-eye-safe lasers, high energy radars and the development of experimental weapons. Testing would include the operation of these systems from various aircraft platforms. Restricted airspace is required to effectively test these complex integrated systems without posing a hazard to non-participating aircraft and/or ground personnel. Proposed R-2306F would be completely contained over YPG-owned land. No supersonic flights would be conducted within the proposed airspace.

    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 Department of Transportation (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 subjected to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

    The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

    PART 73—SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE 1. The authority citation for part 73 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.

    § 73.23 Arizona [Amended]
    2. § 73.23 is amended as follows: R-2306F, Yuma West, AZ [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 32° 51′ 52″ N., long. 114° 26′ 52″ W.; to lat. 32° 52′ 30″ N., long. 114° 21′ 03″ W.; to lat. 32° 51′ 15″ N., long. 114° 21′ 03″ W.; to lat. 32° 51′ 18″ N., long. 114° 19′ 29″ W.; then clockwise along a 3.5 NM arc centered at lat. 32° 51′ 52″ N., long. 114° 23′ 34″ W.; to lat. 32° 49′ 30″ N., long. 114° 26′ 39″ W.; to lat. 32° 49′ 51″ N., long. 114° 26′ 38″ W.; to lat. 32° 50′ 08″ N., long. 114° 26′ 33″ W.; to lat. 32° 50′ 17″ N., long. 114° 26′ 19″ W.; to lat. 32° 50′ 31″ N., long. 114° 26′ 17″ W.; to lat. 32° 50′ 42″ N., long. 114° 26′ 29″ W.; to lat. 32° 51′ 11″ N., long. 114° 26′ 34″ W.; to the point of beginning

    Designated altitudes. Surface to 1,700 feet MSL.

    Time of designation. Intermittent, 0600-1800 local time, Monday-Saturday; other times by NOTAM.

    Controlling agency. Yuma Approach Control, MCAS Yuma, AZ.

    Using agency. U.S., Army, Commanding Officer, Yuma Proving Ground, Yuma, AZ.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2016. Leslie M. Swann, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17558 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census 15 CFR Chapter I [Docket Number 160526465-6618-02] Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Criteria; Extension of Comment Period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is issuing this document to extend the comment period on the Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations, which was published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2016. The comment period for the proposed criteria, which would have ended on August 1, 2016, is now extended until September 1, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed criteria published on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42577), must be received by September 1, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments regarding the Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations to Karen Humes, Chief, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 6H174, Washington, DC 20233; or Email [[email protected]].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Population and Housing Programs Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, 6H185, Washington, DC 20233, telephone (301) 763-2381; or Email [[email protected]].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The U.S. Census Bureau is committed to counting every person in the 2020 Census once, only once, and in the right place. The fundamental reason that the decennial census is conducted is to fulfill the Constitutional requirement (Article I, Section 2) to apportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states. Thus, for a fair and equitable apportionment, it is crucial that the Census Bureau counts everyone in the right place during the decennial census.

    The residence criteria are used to determine where people are counted during each decennial census. For more information on the Proposed 2020 Census Residence Criteria and Residence Situations (also referred to as the proposed “2020 Census Residence Rule and Residence Situations” in the text of the earlier document), please see the original document of proposed criteria and request for comment published in the Federal Register on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42577).

    Because of the scope of the proposed criteria, and in response to individuals and organizations who have requested more time to review the proposed criteria, the Census Bureau has decided to extend the comment period for an additional 31 days. This document announces the extension of the public comment period to September 1, 2016.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Nancy A. Potok, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17484 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 24 CFR Part 578 [Docket No. FR-5476-N-04] RIN 2506-AC29 Continuum of Care Program: Solicitation of Comment on Continuum of Care Formula AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 31, 2012, HUD published an interim rule, for public comment, entitled “Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing: Continuum of Care Program,” a program designed to address the critical problem of homelessness through a coordinated community-based process of identifying needs and building a system of housing and services to address those needs. HUD received 551 public comments on the interim rule. Approximately 42 of the public comments addressed the Continuum of Care formula, with the majority of these commenters seeking changes to the formula. With the interim rule now in place for 3 years, HUD seeks additional comment on the Continuum of Care formula.

    Comment Due Date: September 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this rule to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC 20410-0500. Communications must refer to the above docket number and title. There are two methods for submitting public comments. All submissions must refer to the above docket number and title.

    1. Submission of Comments by Mail. Comments may be submitted by mail to the Regulations Division, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410-0500.

    2. Electronic Submission of Comments. Interested persons may submit comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. HUD strongly encourages commenters to submit comments electronically. Electronic submission of comments allows the commenter maximum time to prepare and submit a comment, ensures timely receipt by HUD, and enables HUD to make them immediately available to the public. Comments submitted electronically through the www.regulations.gov Web site can be viewed by other commenters and interested members of the public. Commenters should follow the instructions provided on that site to submit comments electronically.

    Note:

    To receive consideration as public comments, comments must be submitted through one of the two methods specified above. Again, all submissions must refer to the docket number and title of the document.

    No Facsimile Comments. Facsimile (fax) comments are not acceptable.

    Public Inspection of Public Comments. All properly submitted comments and communications submitted to HUD will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address. Due to security measures at the HUD Headquarters building, an advance appointment to review the public comments must be scheduled by calling the Regulations Division at 202-708-3055 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Copies of all comments submitted are available for inspection and downloading at www.regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Norm Suchar, Director, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410-7000; telephone number 202-708-4300 (this is not a toll-free number). Hearing- and speech-impaired persons may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Continuum of Care (CoC) Interim Rule

    On July 31, 2012, at 77 FR 45422, HUD published in the Federal Register an interim rule to implement the CoC authorized amendments to the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act). The purpose of the CoC program is to promote communitywide commitment to the goal of ending homelessness; provide funding for efforts by nonprofit providers, and State and local governments to quickly rehouse homeless individuals and families while minimizing the trauma and dislocation caused to homeless individuals, families, and communities by homelessness; promote access to and effective utilization of mainstream programs by homeless individuals and families; and optimize self-sufficiency among individuals and families experiencing homelessness.

    Section 427 of the McKinney Vento Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act, directs the Secretary to establish, by regulation, a funding formula that is based upon factors that are appropriate to allocate funds to meet the goals and objectives of the CoC program. As part of the interim rule, HUD codified the formula for establishing a CoC's Preliminary Pro Rata Need (PPRN formula) that had been used for many years prior to the interim rule to establish a CoC's PPRN. The PPRN formula is a combination of the formula used to award Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) Program grant funds and Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) funds. Under the current PPRN formula, after a .2 percent set-aside for U.S. territories and insular areas, 75 percent of the total CoC allocation is distributed to ESG entitlement communities, generally comprised of large metropolitan cities and urban counties where homelessness is more concentrated, according to the CDBG formula. The remaining 25 percent of the CoC allocation is distributed to ESG non-entitlement communities according to the CDBG formula. Within this framework, the current CDBG formula is structured as a “dual formula” system. As set forth below, Formula A allocates funds to communities based on the following weighted factors: population, poverty, and overcrowding. Formula B assigns a different weighting scheme to an alternative menu of factors: population growth lag,1 poverty, and pre-1940s housing.2 Specifically, the existing CDBG formulas 3 are weighted as follows.

    1 Population growth lag identifies slower growing communities or communities experiencing population loss as potential indicators of communities in decline and in need of development assistance.

    2 The share of housing units built before 1940 reflects the age of a community's housing stock, a potential indicator of blight.

    3 For non-entitlement communities, Formula B uses population instead of population growth lag.

    Formula A Formula B 25% * population 20% * population growth lag. 50% * poverty 30% * poverty. 25% * overcrowding 50% * pre-1940 housing.

    Pursuant to this dual formula system, HUD calculates the funding amounts for each jurisdiction under both Formulas A and B and assigns the larger of the two grant calculations, less a pro rata reduction to ensure the total amount allocated is within the amount appropriated for funding.

    Section 427 of the McKinney Vento Act, as amended by the HEARTH Act also allows HUD to adjust a CoC's formula to ensure that the formula amount is sufficient to renew existing projects in each CoC for one year, which is known as the Annual Renewal Demand (ARD). In the FY 2015 Continuum of Care Program NOFA, and in several previous Continuum of Care Program NOFAs, the amount of funding that CoCs were eligible to receive was based primarily on their ARD and the PPRN formula had little impact on the amount they were eligible to apply for. Only for a minority of CoCs that had a PPRN that was larger than their ARD did the PPRN formula affect funding, and in these cases, it only affected the amount available for new projects. The PPRN formula would only have a more significant impact on CoC funding if the amount of funding available for the CoC program nationally is significantly larger than the amount needed to renew existing projects for one year.

    Several stakeholders indicated that the existing PPRN formula was not representative of the number of individuals and families experiencing homelessness in their geographic area. Therefore, the interim rule specifically sought comment on the PPRN formula and the process for determining a CoC's maximum award amount. HUD solicited public comment through November 16, 2012 and of the 551 public comments that HUD received, approximately 42 public comments were directed to the PPRN formula. The majority of the comments on the PPRN formula were from western States, counties, and cities, and indicated that the CDBG formula was not the appropriate basis for the PPRN formula because the CDBG formula utilizes urban blight, as reflected in the age of housing stock, and population growth lag factors to allocate funds, which may measure community development needs generally, but are not specifically tailored to measure homelessness. Other commenters stated that they opposed reductions in funding for renewal projects.

    As a result of the comments received, HUD has explored several alternative factors relevant to homelessness for potential inclusion in the PPRN formula and is re-opening the public comment period on the PPRN formula established in 24 CFR 578.17(a) of the interim rule for the purpose of seeking broader input on four proposed changes to the PPRN formula described in this section of the Notice before HUD selects the formula to include in the final rule. In developing the following proposals, HUD considered the many comments received in response to the formula in the interim rule, including those stating that the current formula utilizes factors that are not necessarily correlated with homelessness such as urban blight and population growth lag, and the request that the PPRN formula be based on updated factors that are intended to specifically measure homelessness.

    In developing proposals for alternative factors to be included in the final formula, HUD sought to maintain the basic structure of the current PPRN formula, while investigating alternative data sources and measures to be included as formula factors. The characteristics of the data sources for the four proposed alternative formula factors were determined to be consistent with HUD's 2001 Report to Congress 4 on measuring need for homeless grant funding. Namely, the data sources for the proposed factors 5 are: (1) Relevant to measuring homelessness, (2) accurate, (3) timely, and (4) readily available for every jurisdiction. HUD chose not to incorporate the point-in-time count data into the formula because not all CoCs use the same methodology to conduct their counts—with some CoCs having stronger methodology than others—and because not all CoCs conduct annual PIT counts. Instead, HUD used an average of two years of PIT count data to compare how highly a factor being considered for the formula correlated with rates of homelessness. In this way, PIT counts helped quantify the relevance of potential formula factors to measuring homelessness, while insulating potential formulas from the limitations of directly including PIT counts. Further, by using factors correlated with the PIT count, the proposed formulas mitigate the risk of data fluctuations in PIT counts that may be less prevalent in large Census datasets. Finally, since PIT counts are locally-generated and self-reported by jurisdictions seeking funding under the CoC program, direct inclusion of PIT counts into an allocation formula may create perverse incentives against objective PIT count methodologies.

    4 See “Report to Congress: Measuring “Need” for HUD's McKinney-Vento Homeless Competitive Grants,” January 2001 at https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/MeasuringNeed.pdf.

    5 Including the decennial Census (population), American Community Survey 5-Year Data (poverty, overcrowding, pre-1940 housing, renter-occupied units, average gross rent, rent-to-income ratio, vacant rental units, and hybrid factor), and Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy 5-Year Data (affordability gap, rent-burdened extremely low-income households, and hybrid factor).

    Before considering any new factors, HUD reviewed the factors included in the existing PPRN formula—overcrowding, poverty, pre-1940s housing, and population—and their correlation to rates of homelessness. HUD conducted Pearson's Correlation analyses 6 and found that three of these factors had a positive and statistically significant correlation with rates of homelessness. These were: (1) Overcrowding, with a .277 correlation; (2) poverty, with a .153 correlation; and (3) pre-1940s housing, with a .113 correlation. Population was not shown to have a significant correlation with rates of homelessness in a community. In addition to analyzing factors included in the current PPRN formula, HUD also considered several other potential factors related to housing markets, affordability, and demographics, as well as a hybrid factor that combined housing market and affordability measures. Understanding these factors, along with their correlation, is necessary to understanding the formulas being proposed for consideration.

    6 Pearson's correlation coefficients range from -1 to 1. A correlation coefficient of -1 or 1 indicates a perfect linear relationship (negative or positive, respectively) between two variables, while a correlation coefficient of 0 indicates a random relationship or no linear relationship between two variables.

    Broadly speaking, the potential formula factors chosen by HUD for analysis, and described more fully below, represent important community-level determinants of homelessness identified in the research literature. Together, these factors represent three related categories of known determinants of homelessness: housing market factors, economic conditions, and housing affordability (which combines housing market and economic factors). Other categories of known community-level determinants of homelessness, such as climate factors or the robustness and quality of a community's safety net of social services for vulnerable populations, were found to lack the type of data measures (e.g., timely and readily available for each jurisdiction) necessary to be included as potential formula factors. Similarly, some demographic factors identified as possible correlates to homelessness were excluded from consideration due to data limitations. For example, population growth lag could not be readily calculated for every jurisdiction due to changes in geographic boundaries since 1960 that artificially affect population counts.

    Potential Housing Market Factors: HUD considered the following potential housing market factors:

    Renter-occupied units—HUD explored this factor because renters generally experience higher housing instability than inhabitants of owner-occupied units. They are also more vulnerable to steep or sudden increases in rent, may be more economically unstable, and are subject to evictions as a result of non-payment of rent which tend to happen more quickly than the foreclosure process. For this factor, HUD found a .444 correlation between renter-occupied units as a percentage of all occupied housing units and rates of homelessness.

    Average gross rent—HUD explored this factor because several studies have found measures of “rent level” to be significantly correlated to higher rates of homelessness. However, this aggregate measure encompasses the entire rental market and may not be a good indicator of the rent pressures specifically faced by individuals and families experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. For this factor, HUD found a .248 correlation between average gross rent (calculated by dividing aggregate gross rent by the number of renter-occupied housing units) and rates of homelessness.

    Vacant rental units—HUD explored this factor because some studies have theorized that people are at higher risk of homelessness in tight rental markets; however, HUD found no significant correlation between rental vacancy rates (calculated by dividing the number of vacant rental units by total rental units) and rates of homelessness. Therefore, it was not used in any of the proposed formulas for consideration.

    Affordability gap—This factor was created to measure the gap between the demand for and supply of rental units that are both affordable and available to Extremely Low-Income (ELI) 7 renter households. HUD considered this factor because ELI households have been shown to be at a greater risk of housing instability and homelessness. For this factor, HUD found a .310 correlation between this factor as a percentage of total housing units and rates of homelessness.

    7 ELI households consist of families with incomes that do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income.

    Potential Affordability Factors: HUD considered the following potential factors related to the cost of housing combined with renters' ability to pay:

    Rent-to-income ratio is the comparison of how much rent people pay when compared to their income in the designated geographic area. HUD found a .288 correlation with rates of homelessness.

    Rent-burdened ELI households are those ELI households that pay more than 30% of their gross income for housing. HUD found a .336 correlation with rates of homelessness.

    Hybrid Factor: HUD considered one factor, developed specifically for the purposes of this formula, that weighted an affordability factor (rent-burdened ELI households) by a housing market factor (renter-occupied units), two variables found to be correlated with homelessness (with correlations of .336 and .444, respectively). This factor was calculated by multiplying the number of rent-burdened ELI households by the ratio of: the jurisdiction's percentage of renter-occupied units divided by the national percentage of renter-occupied units. HUD found that this hybrid factor had a .393 correlation with rates of homelessness.

    II. Proposed PPRN Formula Options for Public Comment

    After reviewing the simple (bivariate) Pearson's correlations between rates of homelessness and each of the above factors, HUD considered many different options for leveraging a combination of these factors into a formula that would better capture pro-rata need than any single factor on its own. HUD considered various factor weights as representing the relative magnitude of each factor's effect on need within a particular formula combination. The proposed weights represent what HUD views to be reasonable options for weighting the relative magnitudes of factors within each formula option based on its simple correlational analyses and the theoretical relationships between sets of factors and homelessness documented in established research literature.

    HUD seeks comment on the four formula options set out in the table below. HUD believes these options are better correlated with rates of homelessness at the local level than the current PPRN formula.

    Formula A Formula B Formula C Formula D 10% * population 25% * poverty 25% * population 25% * poverty 15% * poverty 25% * affordability gap 25% * poverty 25% * affordability gap 25% * affordability gap 25% * rent-burdened ELI households 50% * hybrid factor 50% * hybrid factor 25% * rent-burdened ELI households 25% * rental units 25% * rental units

    None of these proposed PPRN formula options include the 75%/25% split between entitlement and non-entitlement communities that is a part of the current formula. In addition to comments on the proposed formulas set forth above, HUD welcomes comments on factors and corresponding weights that will target formula funding to urban and rural areas most in need of homeless assistance, whether by ESG entitlement designation, population density considerations, or otherwise. In addition, HUD welcomes comments on whether any of the four proposed options should be combined into a dual or multi-formula system similar to the dual calculation system utilized under the current PPRN formula.

    HUD has posted, on its Web site, a listing of each CoC's existing PPRN amount (as determined using the existing formula) as well as the amount that each CoC's PPRN would be using each of these four proposed formulas. HUD has also published a tool on its Web site that stakeholders can use to adjust the weights of the proposed factors and determine the resulting PPRN. This tool can be used to explore formula options, using the factors listed above, other than the four formula options already published by HUD on its Web site. Using all of this information, HUD seeks comment on the proposed formulas made available as well as any new formulas and factors relevant to the goals and objectives of the CoC program for HUD to consider.

    Additionally, HUD acknowledges that each of the proposed formula options will result in the PPRN amounts of some CoCs decreasing. To prevent against a CoC losing a substantial amount of PPRN in a given year, HUD is considering including language that would prevent a CoC from losing more than a certain portion of their PPRN. For example, if a CoC's current PPRN amount is $2.5 million and a newly adopted PPRN formula would result in the CoC's PPRN amount being reduced to $1.7 million, HUD could consider language that would provide the CoC with more than $1.7 million in PPRN, but less than $2.5 million. HUD seeks comment on this proposal and also, what the appropriate amount or portion to be protected should be.

    HUD welcomes other comments on how the CoC formula may be improved.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Harriet Tregoning, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17567 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0582 RIN 1625-AA09 Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton and Hancock, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to change the operating schedule that governs the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 over the Keweenaw Waterway between the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has requested a review of the current operating schedule of the drawbridge due to a lack of openings during the early morning hours. They have also requested to expand and modify the current winter operating schedule.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or before August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0582 using Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

    See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this proposed rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-650-5408, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security E.O. Executive order FR Federal Register MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking Pub. L. Public Law § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    MDOT has requested to change the operating schedule of the US41 bridge at mile 16.0. The US41 bridge is the only crossing over the Keweenaw Waterway and connects the towns of Houghton and Hancock, Michigan. The current operating schedule has been in place for approximately 31 years and the use of the waterway has significantly changed, prompting the request to modify the current regulation.

    Keweenaw Peninsula is the northernmost part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula projecting into Lake Superior. The Keweenaw Waterway runs northwesterly to southeasterly and separates the peninsula from the mainland making the US41 bridge the only bridge crossing for residents and visitors to the peninsula.

    The Keweenaw Waterway is used by recreational, commercial, inspected and uninspected passenger, and towing vessels. The US41 bridge is a vertical lift type drawbridge and provides a horizontal clearance of 250 feet, a vertical clearance of 103 feet in the fully open position, a vertical clearance of 7 feet in the closed position, and a vertical clearance of 35 feet in the intermediate position. The US41 bridge is a bi-level bridge originally designed with the upper level providing access for automobiles and the lower level providing access for rail, oversized vehicles, and snowmobiles.

    The rail service to the peninsula has been discontinued and oversized vehicles must provide advance notice to the state before traveling over the road to the peninsula. Most recreational and commercial vessel traffic, including passenger vessel services, end prior to November 15 each year and do not resume services until after May 7 due to the formation of ice in the waterway. Large commercial freighter vessels do not routinely pass through the Keweenaw Waterway.

    The current regulation, 33 CFR 117.635, requires the bridge to operate with a 24-hour advance notice for openings from January 1 through March 15 each year. From March 16 through December 31 the bridge opens on signal at all times.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This rule proposes to amend 33 CFR 117.635 in accordance with the below described changes. The table below shows total bridge opening data provided by MDOT, from April 16 to December 14, between the hours of midnight and 4 a.m., for the past 6 years.

    Year Openings 2010 4 2011 6 2012 6 2013 10 2014 7 2015 6

    This proposed rule would allow the bridge to operate with at least a 2-hour advance notice for openings from April 15 through December 14 between the hours of midnight and 4 a.m. During these hours no bridge tender will be required at the bridge. The bridge will be placed in the intermediate position during this 4-hour time period providing a vertical clearance of 35 feet. Vessels requiring a full bridge opening will still be able to obtain an opening with a 2-hour advance notice. Vessels may also go around the peninsula to avoid passing through the bridge.

    The table below shows the total bridge opening data provided by MDOT, between December 15 and April 15, for the past 5 years.

    Year Openings 2011 0 2012 1 2013 5 2014 0 2015 0

    This proposed rule would allow the bridge to operate with at least a 12-hour advance notice for openings from December 15 through April 14. During these hours no bridge tender will be required at the bridge. Vessels may also go around the peninsula to avoid passing under the bridge.

    At all other times, the bridge will continue to open on signal.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

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

    This regulatory action determination is based on the infrequent requests for openings and the ability of vessels to still transit the bridge given advanced notice. Additionally, vessels may go around the peninsula.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Government

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    F. Environment

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

    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    G. Protest Activities

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

    V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.

    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal Register (70 FR 15086).

    Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

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

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

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

    2. Revise § 117.635 to read as follows:
    § 117.635 Keweenaw Waterway

    The draw of the US41 bridge, mile 16.0 between Houghton and Hancock, shall open on signal; except that from April 15 through December 14, between midnight and 4 a.m., the draw shall be placed in the intermediate position and open on signal if at least 2 hours notice is given. From December 15 through April 14 the draw shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is given.

    Dated: July 12, 2016. J.E. Ryan, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17544 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 385 [Docket No. 16-CRB-0003-PR (2018-2022)] Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords (Phonorecords III) AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Copyright Royalty Judges publish for comment proposed regulations that set rates and terms applicable during the period beginning January 1, 2018, and ending December 31, 2022, for the section 115 statutory license for making and distributing phonorecords of nondramatic musical works.

    DATES:

    Comments and objections, if any, are due no later than August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The proposed rule is posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb) and on the web at Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov). Interested parties should submit electronic comments via email to [email protected] Those who chose not to submit comments electronically should see How to Submit Comments in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for physical addresses and further instructions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Whittle, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at (202) 707-7658, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Section 115 of the Copyright Act, title 17 of the United States Code, requires a copyright owner of a nondramatic musical work to grant a license (also known as the “mechanical” compulsory license) to any person who wants to make and distribute phonorecords of that work, provided that the copyright owner has allowed phonorecords of the work to be produced and distributed, and that the licensee complies with the statute and regulations. In addition to the production or distribution of physical phonorecords (compact discs, vinyl, cassette tapes, and the like), section 115 applies to digital transmissions of phonorecords, including permanent digital downloads and ringtones.

    Chapter 8 of the Copyright Act requires the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) to conduct proceedings every five years to determine the rates and terms for the section 115 license. 17 U.S.C. 801(b)(1), 804(b)(4). Accordingly, the Judges commenced the current proceeding in January 2016, by publishing notice of the commencement and a request that interested parties submit petitions to participate. See 81 FR 255 (Jan. 5, 2016).

    The Judges received petitions to participate in the current proceeding from Amazon Digital Services, Inc.; Apple, Inc.; American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP); Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI); Church Music Publishers Association; David Powell; Deezer S.A.; Digital Media Association (DiMA); Gear Publishing Co; GEO Music Group; Google, Inc.; Music Reports, Inc.; Nashville Songwriters Association International; National Music Publishers Association; Harry Fox Agency; Omnifone Group Limited; Pandora Media, Inc.; Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA); Rhapsody International, Inc.; Songwriters of North America; Sony Music Entertainment; SoundCloud Limited; Spotify USA Inc.; Universal Music Group (UMG); and Warner Music Group (WMG).

    The Judges gave notice to all participants of the three-month negotiation period required by 17 U.S.C. 803(b)(3) and directed that, if the participants were unable to negotiate a settlement, they should submit Written Direct Statements no later than October 3, 2016. On June 15, 2016, the Judges received a motion stating that several participants 1 had reached a partial settlement “among a significant portion of the sound recording and music publishing industries” regarding the rates and terms under Section 115 of the Copyright Act for physical phonorecords, permanent digital downloads, and ringtones for 2018-2022 rate period and seeking approval of that partial settlement. See Joint Motion to Adopt Partial Settlement, Docket No. 16-CRB-0003-PR (2018-2022) at 1 (June 15, 2016) (Motion).

    1 The participants filing the motion were Church Music Publishers Association, Nashville Songwriters Association International, National Music Publishers Association, Harry Fox Agency, and Songwriters of North America (collectively self-named the “Copyright Owners”), and licensees UMG and WMG.

    The settlement proposes “that the royalty rates and terms presently set forth in 37 C.F.R. Part 385 Subpart A should be continued for the rate period at issue in the Proceeding, with one minor conforming update, namely, that an outdated cross reference in section 385.4 regarding statements of account be updated, and that the continued rates should apply to “Subpart A Configurations made and distributed by or on behalf of UMG and WMG” and, in the Judges' discretion, to other licensees. Motion at 3.

    Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright Act authorizes the Judges to adopt rates and terms negotiated by “some or all of the participants in a proceeding at any time during the proceeding” provided they are submitted to the Judges for approval. This section provides that Judges shall provide notice and an opportunity to comment on the agreement to (1) those that would be bound and (2) participants in the proceeding that would be bound by the terms, rates, or other determination set by the agreement. See section 801(b)(7)(A). The Judges may decline to adopt the agreement as a basis for statutory terms and rates for participants not party to the agreement if any participant objects and the Judges conclude that the agreement does not provide a reasonable basis for setting statutory terms or rates. Id.

    If the Judges adopt rates and terms reached pursuant to a negotiated settlement, those rates and terms are binding on all copyright owners of musical works and those using the musical works in the activities described in the proposed regulations.

    Proposed Adjustments to Rates and Terms

    In publishing the parties' proposed rates and terms, the Judges are making the requested change in the cross reference because it is clearly outdated. The text of the section it refers to merely says “reserved.” In addition, the Judges propose adding the dates of the five-year period to the “General” section in order to specify the applicable dates of the rates and terms.

    In the event the Judges determine not to adopt the proposed regulations for all copyright owners of musical works licensed under section 115 for the making or distributing of physical or digital phonorecords, the parties have proposed the following revised definition of licensee2 , which would make the rates in the partial settlement applicable only to “Subpart A Configurations made and distributed by or on behalf of [licensees] UMG and WMG”:

    2 The current definition is: “Licensee is a person or entity that has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 115, and the implementing regulations, to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work, including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.” 37 CFR 385.2.

    Licensee is Capitol Christian Music Group, Inc., Capitol Records, LLC, UMG Recordings, Inc., Warner Music Inc., any of their respective successors, and any entity controlling, controlled by, or under common control with any such entity, when it has obtained a compulsory license under 17 U.S.C. 115, and the implementing regulations, to make and distribute phonorecords of a nondramatic musical work, including by means of a digital phonorecord delivery.

    The Judges solicit comments on whether they should adopt the proposed regulations, including the change in the cross reference, as statutory rates and terms relating to the making and distribution of physical or digital phonorecords of nondramatic musical works for the participants that submitted the Motion. In addition, the Judges seek comment on whether they should apply the rates and terms in the partial settlement to all copyright owners and licensees and whether they should specify the five-year period in the regulation.

    Comments and objections must be submitted no later than August 24, 2016.

    How To Submit Comments

    Interested members of the public must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. If not commenting by email or online, commenters must submit an original of their comments, five paper copies, and an electronic version in searchable PDF format on a CD.

    Email: [email protected]; or

    Online: http://www.regulations.gov; or

    U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O .Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE., and D Street NE., Washington, DC; or

    Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 385

    Copyright, Phonorecords, Recordings.

    Proposed Regulations

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 385 as follows:

    PART 385—RATES AND TERMS FOR USE OF MUSICAL WORKS UNDER COMPULSORY LICENSE FOR MAKING AND DISTRIBUTING OF PHYSICAL AND DIGITAL PHONORECORDS 1. The authority citation for part 385 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 115, 801(b)(1), 804(b)(4).

    § 385.1 [Amended]
    2. Section 385.1(a) is amended by adding “, during the period January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2022” after “17 U.S.C. 115”.
    § 385.4 [Amended]
    3. Section 385.4 is amended by removing “§ 201.19(e)(7)(i)” and adding “§ 210.16(g)(1)” in its place. Dated: July 19, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17437 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 63 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817; FRL-9949-45-OAR] RIN 2060-AS98 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to amend the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. In the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final rule, without a prior proposed rule, that corrects an inadvertent error and temporarily revises the testing and monitoring requirements for hydrochloric acid (HCl) due to the current unavailability of a calibration gas used for quality assurance purposes. If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received by August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0817, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

    Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Sharon Nizich, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-2825; fax number: (919) 541-5450; and email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Why is the EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to take action on amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants for the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry. We have published a direct final rule to amend 40 CFR part 63, subpart LLL by correcting an inadvertent error and revising the testing and monitoring requirements for HCl in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct final rule.

    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment on a distinct portion of the direct final rule, we will withdraw that portion of the rule and it will not take effect. In this instance, we would address all public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule.

    If we receive adverse comment on a distinct provision of the direct final rule, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions we are withdrawing. The provisions that are not withdrawn will become effective on the date set out in the direct final rule, notwithstanding adverse comment on any other provision. We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

    The regulatory text for this proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register. For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for this proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    II. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:

    Category NAICS Code 1 Portland cement manufacturing facilities 327310 1 North American Industry Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this proposed rule. To determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permitting authority for the entity or your EPA Regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13.

    III. Statutory and Executive Orders

    For a complete discussion of the administrative requirements applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the “Rules and Regulations” section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17292 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 171 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183; FRL-9947-75] RIN 2070-AJ20 Notification of Submission to the Secretary of Agriculture; Pesticides; Certification of Pesticide Applicators AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of submission to the Secretary of Agriculture.

    SUMMARY:

    This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) a draft regulatory document concerning the certification of pesticide applicators rule revisions. The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available by EPA.

    DATES:

    See Unit I. under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0183, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michelle Arling, Field and External Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 308-5891; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. What action is EPA taking?

    Section 25(a)(2)(B) of FIFRA requires the EPA Administrator to provide the Secretary of USDA with a copy of any draft final rule at least 30 days before signing it in final form for publication in the Federal Register. The draft final rule is not available to the public until after it has been signed by EPA. If the Secretary of USDA comments in writing regarding the draft final rule within 15 days after receiving it, the EPA Administrator shall include the comments of the Secretary of USDA, if requested by the Secretary of USDA, and the EPA Administrator's response to those comments with the final rule that publishes in the Federal Register. If the Secretary of USDA does not comment in writing within 15 days after receiving the draft final rule, the EPA Administrator may sign the final rule for publication in the Federal Register any time after the 15-day period.

    II. Do any statutory and executive order reviews apply to this notification?

    No. This document is merely a notification of submission to the Secretary of USDA. As such, none of the regulatory assessment requirements apply to this document.

    List of Subjects in Part 171

    Environmental protection, Agricultural worker safety, Applicator competency, Pesticide safety training, Pesticide worker safety, Pesticides and pests, Restricted use pesticides.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Jack E. Housenger, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17405 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 142 Monday, July 25, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Pike/San Isabel National Forests; Colorado; Pike/San Isabel National Forests Travel Management Plan AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

    SUMMARY:

    The Forest Service proposes to undertake motorized travel management planning to designate roads, trails, and areas open to public motorized vehicle use on the six districts of the Pike and San Isabel National Forests (PSI), pursuant to 36 CFR part 212, subpart B. The proposed road and trail environmental impact statement (EIS) evaluation and record of decision (ROD) will determine which roads and trails will be designated or re-designated for public motorized use and published on future motor vehicle use maps (MVUMs), as described in subpart B of the Travel Management Final Rule, dated November 9, 2005. The PSI's MVUMs display all roads and motorized trails open to the public for motorized use. This action is in direct response to the PSI MVUM settlement agreement (hereafter referred to as the settlement agreement), which is the culmination of a multi-year lawsuit brought against the Forest Service by The Wilderness Society, Quiet Use Coalition, Wildlands CPR, Center for Native Ecosystems and Great Old Broads for Wilderness. The Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, which are administered in conjunction with the Pike and San Isabel National Forests, will not be included in this EIS.

    Scoping Process: Scoping is an ongoing process used to identify important issues and determine the extent of analysis necessary for an informed decision on a proposed action. This Notice of Intent (NOI) serves as formal initiation of the scoping process.

    The Forest Service is seeking comments from individuals, organizations, and local, state, and federal agencies that may be interested in or affected by the proposed action (described below). Comments may pertain to the nature and scope of the environmental, social, and economic issues, and possible alternatives related to the development of the travel management plan and EIS. Scoping notices have been sent to potentially affected persons and those that have expressed a continued interest in this project. Other interested individuals, organizations, or agencies may have their names added to the mailing list for this project at any time by submitting a request to the PSI Forest Planner, John Dow at 719-553-1476 ([email protected]).

    DATES:

    Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by September 8, 2016. The scoping comment period commences on NOI publication date and continues for 45 days thereafter. The draft environmental impact statement is expected in early spring of 2018 and the final environmental impact statement is expected in early 2019.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments concerning this notice should be addressed to Travel Management, Pike/San Isabel National Forests, 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo, CO 81008. Comments may also be sent via email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 719-553-1440, with “PSI Travel Management” in the subject line. Comments must be readable in Microsoft Word, rich text or pdf formats.

    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and will be available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments after they are received and summarized at the travel planning Web page at: www.psitravelmanagement.org.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Dow, Forest Planner at 719-553-1476. 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.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The current PSI Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) dates back to 1984. Many changes have occurred since that time, in terms of type and volume of use, general population pressures, urban interface development, and other factors. Further, the improved precision of field measurements (i.e., global positioning system devices) and graphical depiction of route locations and management area boundaries has at times resulted in perceived conflicts with data published in 1984.

    The settlement agreement referenced herein identified a subset of MVUM designated roads and trails that were being managed contrary to Forest Plan direction. Alternatives A and B represent the issues addressed in the settlement agreement. Alternatives C and D represent issues from the settlement agreement along with revisions to certain rotues as a result of the PSI's Travel Analysis Process (TAP).

    Purpose and Need for Action

    The action's purpose and need is to improve management of motor vehicle use via evaluation of motorized route designations on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the PSI in compliance with 36 CFR parts 212, 251, 261, and 295, and all other applicable laws. The action also needs to consider effects on resources with the objective of minimizing the impacts resulting from the designated motorized trails and areas pursuant to 36 CFR 212.55(b), and to analyze the environmental impacts of all motorized routes proposed for designation, including routes in the baseline contested by the Plaintiffs as identified in the settlement agreement. The designation of roads and trails must balance the needs of the broad range of recreationalists and other legitimate users of the national forests with the need to protect natural and cultural resources.

    Proposed Action

    In accordance with 36 CFR part 212, the proposed action will analyze current designated motorized roads and trails, minus certain specific routes described in the settlement agreement. The proposed action will also analyze some priority proposed changes to the transportation system, including the inclusion of some current Forest Order transportation prohibitions associated with roads and trails on NFS lands, and including appropriate road and trail seasonal restrictions within the PSI. These analyses could result in changes to the existing transportation system on the PSI. Depending on the analyses of roads and motorized trails, i.e., which roads and trails are designated as open to the public, it may be necessary to amend the Forest Plan.

    Per the settlement agreement dated November 16, 2015, the PSI transportation system that is open to public motorized travel consists of a total of 2,004 miles of NFS roads and 507 miles of NFS trails. That November 16, 2015 system is documented through USFS databases, spreadsheets, and reports, along with spatial data, and can be accessed from the travel planning Web page at: psitravelmanagement.org.

    Possible Alternatives

    Four preliminary alternatives have been identified and are described briefly below.

    Alternative A: The No-Action Alternative, as per settlement agreement language, would consist of the public motorized routes depicted on the following MVUMs minus 30 NFS routes/route segments identified in the settlement agreement, that are either already decommissioned or would be temporarily changed to administrative use only during the interim EIS process:

    • 2010 Pikes Peak Ranger District MVUM

    • 2010 South Park Ranger District MVUM

    • 2010 Salida Ranger District MVUM

    • 2012 Leadville Ranger District MVUM

    • 2012 San Carlos Ranger District MVUM

    • 2013 South Platte Ranger District MVUM

    Alternative B: This Alternative would consist of the public motorized routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service Infrastructure (INFRA) database, as of June 16, 2016, minus routes contested by the Plaintiffs and identified in the settlement agreement.

    Alternative C: This Alternative would consitutue the routes as they are currently recorded in the official Forest Service INFRA database, as of June 16, 2016, plus certain revisions to those roads that were considered as urgent, priority changes, in conformance with the results of the PSI's TAP Addendum Reports. Over the course of the last three years, PSI resource specialists conducted TAPs covering each ranger district. A TAP is a process whereby personnel representing key resource areas assign benefit and risk ratings to each road. The results of each TAP were compiled in a TAP Addendum Report. Urgent, priority changes may include, but would not be limited to: decommissioning and/or conversion of unneeded authorized routes, elimination of mixed use modes of travel on certain roads, seasonal closures, road/trail reroutes, construction of new motorized recreational trails and/or extensions to existing trails, downgrading of maintenance levels, and other such revisions necessary for the effective management of the NFS transportation network. The goal of this alternative would be to move toward a safe, affordable, and environmentally sound transportation system, while leaving room for future site-specific revisions as needed.

    Alternative D: This Alternative would consist of all the Alternative C revisions, plus additional, non-urgent changes, which would direct the PSI toward the minimum NFS network needed for safe and efficient travel, and for administration, utilization, and protection of NFS lands per 36 CFR 212.5(b)(1). The additional changes would be made in accordance with the opportunities and recommendations provided in the TAP Addendum Reports for the individual districts on the PSI.

    Responsible Official

    The Responsible Official is Erin Connelly, Forest and Grasslands Supervisor, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands, 2840 Kachina Dr., Pueblo CO. 81008.

    Scoping Process

    The Forest Service will conduct scoping meetings to solicit comments from the public and interested parties on this proposed action.

    Meetings are currently scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the following locations and dates:

    Pueblo, CO—August 23, 2016: Pueblo Community College, Fortino Ballroom (2nd floor of student center), 900 West Orman Avenue, Pueblo, CO 81004. Salida, CO—August 24, 2016: Steam Plant Theatre and Event Center Ballroom, 220 West Sackett Street, Salida, CO 81201. Colorado Springs, CO—August 25, 2016: Colorado Springs Utilities, Pikes Peak Room, Leon Young Service Center, 1521 S. Hancock Expressway, Colorado Springs, CO 80903.

    Additional information will be posted on the travel planning Web page at: psitravelmanagement.org.

    Nature of Decisions To Be Made

    • Is the proposal consistent with the Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands Resource Management Plan (PSICC RMP)?

    • If the proposal is not consistent with the PSICC RMP, what is the scope and scale of any required amendments?

    • What alternative or combination of alternatives ensures the PSI follows the requirements for multiple uses outlined in the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960.

    • What alternative or combination of alternatives best represents the designated motorized roads and trails network taking into consideration the travel management rule motorized trails and road designation criterion outlined in 36 CFR 212.55.

    Preliminary Issues

    Preliminary issues identified by the PSI are:

    (1) Resource damage caused by user-created (non-NFS) routes;

    (2) Potential lost recreational opportunities from route closures;

    (3) Safety concerns on mixed-use (highway legal and non-highway legal) routes.

    Dated: July 8, 2016. Erin Connelly, Forest and Grasslands Supervisor, Pike and San Isabel National Forests and Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17498 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service North Gifford Pinchot Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The North Gifford Pinchot Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Salkum, Washington. 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/giffordpinchot/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 16, 2016, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Salkum Timberland Library, Community Room, 2480 U.S. Highway 12, Salkum, Washington.

    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 Gifford Pinchot National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gala Miller, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 360-891-5014 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. Elect the Chair and Vice Chair of the RAC,

    2. Review submitted Title II project proposals, and

    3. Make project recommendations for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 10, 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 Gala Miller, RAC Coordinator, 10600 NE 51st Circle, Vancouver, Washingtonn 98682; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 360 891 5045.

    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 18, 2016. Gina Owens, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17496 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of Procurement and Property Management Public Availability of FY 2015 Service Contract Inventories AGENCY:

    Office of Procurement and Property Management, Departmental Management, Department of Agriculture.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public availability of FY 2015 Services Contracts Inventories.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), Department of Agriculture is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the FY 2015 Services Contracts Inventory. This inventory provides information on FY 2015 service contract actions over $25,000. The information is organized by function to show how contracted resources are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010, by the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf.

    The Department of Agriculture has posted its inventory and a summary of the inventory on the Office of Procurement and Property Management homepage at the following link: http://www.dm.usda.gov/procurement/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Crandall Watson, Office of Procurement and Property Management, at (202) 720-7529, or by mail at OPPM, MAIL STOP 9304, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9303. Please cite “2015 Service Contract Inventory” in all correspondence.

    Lisa M. Wilusz, Director, Office of Procurement and Property Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17499 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-TX-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program (the Program) to provide guaranteed loans to fund the development, construction, and Retrofitting of commercial scale biorefineries using Eligible technology and of Biobased product manufacturing facilities that use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment to convert Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products, on a commercial scale.

    DATES:

    With this Notice, the Agency is announcing two separate application cycles, as is provided which are established in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.260(b), with application closing dates of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, October 3, 2016, and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, April 3, 2017.

    Applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date to compete for program funds. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date will be considered for the subsequent application cycle, provided that funding is available.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications and forms may be obtained from:

    • USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, Attention: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225.

    • Agency Web site: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/eForms/welcomeAction.do?Home. Follow the instructions for obtaining the application and forms. Application materials can also be obtained from the Agency's Web site. http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Todd Hubbell, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-690-2516. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with the Program, as covered in this Notice, have been approved by the Office of Management Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0065.

    Overview

    Federal Agency Name: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (an Agency of USDA in the Rural Development mission area).

    Solicitation Opportunity Title: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program.

    Announcement Type: Notice of Solicitation of Applications.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: The CFDA number for this Notice is 10.865.

    Dates: Applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division no later than the application closing dates of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, October 3, 2016, and 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, April 3, 2017. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time of the application closing date will be considered for the subsequent application cycle, provided that funding is available.

    Availability of Notice and Rule: This Notice and the interim rule for the Program are available on the USDA Rural Development Web site at: http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program and at http://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    A. Purpose of the Program. The purpose of the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Program is to assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of Advanced biofuels, Renewable chemicals, and Biobased product manufacturing. This is achieved through guarantees for loans made to fund the development, construction, and Retrofitting of Commercial scale Biorefineries using Eligible technology and of Biobased product manufacturing facilities that use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products on a commercial scale.

    B. Statutory Authority. This Program is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8103. Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4279, subpart C and in 7 CFR part 4287, subpart D.

    C. Definition of Terms. The definitions applicable to this Notice are published at 7 CFR 4279.202 and 7 CFR 4287.302.

    C. Application awards. The Agency will review, evaluate, score, and award applications received in response to this Notice based on the provisions found in 7 CFR part 4279, subpart C and as indicated in this Notice.

    II. Award Information

    A. Available funds. This Notice is a solicitation for applications that will be funded using budget authority provided by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The 2014 Farm Bill authorized mandatory funding in each of fiscal years 2014, 2015 and 2016. Of the funds available, the 2014 Farm Bill provided for up to 15 percent of the mandatory funds for only fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to promote Biobased product manufacturing.

    B. Type of Award. Guaranteed loan.

    C. Approximate Number of Awards. Subject to the amount of funding available.

    D. Guarantee Loan Funding. The provisions of 7 CFR 4279.232 apply to this Notice. The Borrower needs to provide the remaining funds from other non-Federal sources to complete the Project.

    E. Guarantee and Annual Renewal Fees. The guarantee and Annual Renewal Fees specified in 7 CFR 4279.231 are applicable to this Notice.

    F. Anticipated Award Date. The award date will vary based on timing of completion of each Project's individual application process.

    III. Eligibility Information

    A. Eligible Lenders. To be eligible for this Program, Lenders must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.208.

    B. Eligible Borrowers. To be eligible for this Program, Borrowers must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.209.

    C. Eligible Projects. To be eligible for this Program, projects must meet the eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 4279.210.

    D. Application Completeness. Incomplete Phase 1 applications will be rejected and the Project will be given no further consideration. Lenders will be informed of the element(s) that made the application incomplete. If the Lender makes the required edits and resubmits the application to the USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division by 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on the application closing date, the Agency will reconsider the application.

    IV. Application Submission Information

    A. Letter of Intent. For each guarantee request, the Lender or the Borrower must submit to the Agency a non-binding letter of intent to apply for a loan guarantee, not less than 30 calendar days prior to the application deadline. The letter of intent due date is September 6, 2016 for the October 3, 2016 application cycle and March 6, 2017 for the April 3, 2017 cycle. The letter must identify the Borrower, the Lender and any Project sponsors; describe the Project and Project location; describe the proposed feedstock, primary technologies of the facility, and primary products produced; estimate the Total Project Cost and amount of loan requested; and identify the application cycle due date. The Agency reserves the right to request additional information from potential applicants. Applications that do not submit a letter of intent by 30 days prior to the application closing date will not be accepted by the Agency in that particular application cycle.

    B. Application Submittal. For each guarantee request, the Lender must submit to the Agency an application that is in conformance with 7 CFR 4279.261. The content and methods of application submittal are specified below. Additionally, the Agency has developed an Application Guide that explains the application procedures and details the process for submission of an application. This guide is located at http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/RBS_Section9003Biorefinery_ApplicationGuide.pdf.

    C. Content and Form of Submission. All applicants must submit one paper copy of the application materials and an electronic copy containing the same information that is included in the paper copy. Detailed instructions regarding application submission are explained in the Application Guide that the Agency has developed. The Application Guide is available online on the “Forms and Resources” page at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/biorefinery-assistance-program or by contacting Todd Hubbell, Telephone: 202-690-2516. Email: [email protected] Application materials should be submitted to USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, Attention: Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225.

    The Agency's application process is divided into two phases. Phase 1 applications will provide information needed to determine Lender, Borrower, and Project eligibility; preliminary economic and technical feasibility; and the priority score of the application. Based on the priority score ranking, the Agency will invite applicants whose Phase 1 applications receive higher priority scores to submit Phase 2 applications. Phase 2 application materials will be submitted as the Project planning and engineering are finalized and will include information such as: Environmental compliance information, technical report, financial model, and the Lender's credit evaluation. Phase 1 applications must contain the information required in the Agency's Application Guide and in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.261.

    D. Local Owner. For applications submitted under this Notice, when the majority of feedstock to be utilized by the Project on an annual basis is harvested from the land, the term “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible Biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within the geographic area that the Biorefinery's feedstock originates. In all other cases, “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible Biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the Biorefinery.

    V. Biobased Product Manufacturing

    This notice also includes the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program to specifically fund Biobased product manufacturing. The 2014 Farm Bill added Biobased product manufacturing to the Program and provided for up to 15 percent of the mandatory funds for fiscal years 2014 and 2015 to be used to support facilities producing Biobased products for end use. The 2014 Farm Bill provides the definition of “Biobased product manufacturing,” which the Agency has incorporated into the subsequent interim rule (see 7 CFR 4279.202). This definition requires that the Biobased product manufacturing facility use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries as inputs and also requires that the Borrower use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities. The facility must produce end-user products.

    VI. Biobased Product Manufacturing Eligibility Information

    The eligibility requirements for prospective Lenders and Borrowers will not change from those listed above for the Program, generally. For Biobased product manufacturing Projects, the Eligible Project requirement is modified to reflect that eligible Projects will use technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities to convert Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries into end-user products on a commercial scale.

    Additionally, for purposes of Biobased product manufacturing Projects, only for purposes of technical review, technical reports need to address only the technologically new commercial scale processing and manufacturing equipment and required facilities.

    VII. Biobased Product Manufacturing Application Processing Procedures

    The application processing procedures will remain the same for Biobased product manufacturing projects as for the projects described above.

    For applications submitted under this Notice, “local owner” is defined as an individual who owns any portion of an eligible Biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the Biorefinery.

    VIII. Biobased Product Manufacturing Scoring

    In lieu of the criteria listed in 7 CFR 4279.266, Biobased product manufacturing Projects will be scored using the criteria listed below:

    (a) Whether the Borrower has established a market for the manufactured Biobased product, as applicable. A maximum of 16 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) Degree of commitment of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the Borrower has signed contracts for purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured Biobased product, 6 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the Borrower has signed letters of intent to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product, or combination of signed contracts or agreements and letters of intent or comparable documentation, 4 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the Borrower has signed letters of interest to enter into contracted sales agreements, or comparable documentation, for the purchase for greater than 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product, or combination of signed contracts, letters of intent or comparable documentation, 2 points will be awarded.

    (2) Duration of contracted sales agreements. A maximum of 6 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of manufactured Biobased product for the period not less than the loan term, 6 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product for the period not less than 5 years but less than the term of the loan, 4 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product for the period not less than 1 year but less than 5 years, 2 points will be awarded.

    (3) Financial strength of the contracted sales agreement counterparty. A maximum of 4 points will be awarded.

    (i) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating not less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, 4 points will be awarded.

    (ii) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than AA, Aa2, or equivalent, but not less than A−, or A3, or equivalent, 2 points will be awarded.

    (iii) If the Borrower commits to enter into contracted sales agreements prior to loan closing for purchase for greater than or equal to 50 percent of the dollar value of the manufactured Biobased product with a counterparty with a corporate credit rating less than A−, or A3, or equivalent, but not less than BBB−, or Baa3, or equivalent, 1 point will be awarded.

    (b) Whether the area in which the Borrower proposes to place the Project, defined as the area that will supply the Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed Project, has any other similar facilities. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the area that will supply the Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed Project does not have any other similar facilities, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If there are other similar facilities located within the area that will supply the renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to the proposed Project, 0 points will be awarded.

    (c) Whether the Borrower is proposing to use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the Biobased product manufacturing. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the Borrower proposes to use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries previously used in the manufacture of a Biobased product in a commercial facility, 0 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the Borrower proposes to use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries not previously used in the manufacture of a Biobased product in a commercial facility, 10 points will be awarded.

    (d) Whether the Borrower is proposing to work with producer associations or cooperatives. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If at least 50 percent of the dollar value of Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed Project will be supplied by producer associations and cooperatives or biorefineries supplied by producer associations and cooperatives, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If at least 30 percent of the dollar value of Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries to be used by the proposed Project will be supplied by producer associations and cooperatives or biorefineries supplied by producer associations and cooperatives, 3 points will be awarded.

    (e) The level of financial participation by the Borrower, including support from non-Federal Government sources and private sources. A maximum of 20 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is less than or equal to 50 percent of total Eligible project costs, 20 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 50 percent but less than or equal to 55 percent of total Eligible project costs, 16 points will be awarded.

    (3) If the sum of the loan amount requested and other direct Federal funding is greater than 55 percent but less than or equal to 60 percent of total Eligible project costs, 12 points will be awarded.

    (4) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 60 percent but less than or equal to 65 percent of total Eligible project costs, 8 points will be awarded.

    (5) If the sum of the loan amount and other direct Federal funding is greater than 65 percent but less than or equal to 70 percent of total Eligible project costs, 4 points will be awarded.

    (f) Whether the Borrower has established that the adoption of the manufacturing process proposed in the application will have a positive effect on three impact areas: resource conservation (e.g., water, soil, forest), public health (e.g., potable water, air quality), and the environment (e.g., compliance with an applicable renewable fuel standard, greenhouse gases, emissions, particulate matter). A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Based on what the Borrower has provided in either the application or the Feasibility study, points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If process adoption will have a positive impact on any one of the three impact areas (resource conservation, public health, or the environment), 3 points will be awarded.

    (2) If process adoption will have a positive impact on two of the three impact areas, 6 points will be awarded.

    (3) If process adoption will have a positive impact on all three impact areas, 10 points will be awarded.

    (g) Whether the Borrower can establish that, if adopted, the technology proposed in the application will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries. A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the Borrower has failed to establish, through an independent third-party Feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use similar Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 0 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the Borrower has established, through an independent third-party Feasibility study, that the production technology proposed in the application, if adopted, will not have any economically significant negative impacts on existing manufacturing plants or other facilities that use Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, 5 points will be awarded.

    (h) The potential for rural economic development. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the Project is located in a Rural Area, 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the Project creates jobs through direct employment with an average wage that exceeds the county median household wages where the Project will be located, 5 points will be awarded.

    (i) The level of local ownership of the facility proposed in the application. For the purposes of this Notice, a Local owner is defined as “An individual who owns any portion of an eligible Advanced biofuel Biorefinery and whose primary residence is located within 100 miles of the Biorefinery.” A maximum of 5 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If Local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 20 percent but less than or equal to 50 percent, 3 points will be awarded.

    (2) If Local owners have an ownership interest in the facility of more than 50 percent, 5 points will be awarded.

    (j) Whether the Project can be replicated. A maximum of 10 points can be awarded. Points to be awarded will be determined as follows:

    (1) If the Project can be commercially replicated regionally (e.g., Northeast, Southwest, etc.), 5 points will be awarded.

    (2) If the Project can be commercially replicated nationally, 10 points will be awarded.

    (k) If the Project uses a particular technology, system, or process that is not currently operating at commercial scale as of October 1 of the fiscal year for which the funding is available; October 1, 2016, 5 points will be awarded.

    (l) The Administrator can award up to a maximum of 10 bonus points:

    (1) To ensure, to the extent practical, there is diversity in the types of Projects approved for loan guarantees to ensure as wide a range as possible technologies, products, and approaches are assisted in the program portfolio; and

    (2) To applications that promote partnerships and other activities that assist in the development of new and emerging technologies for the development of Renewable chemicals and other biobased outputs of biorefineries, so as to, as applicable, promote resource conservation, public health, and the environment; diversify markets for agricultural and forestry products and agriculture waste material; and create jobs and enhance the economic development of the rural economy. No additional information regarding partnerships is detailed in this Notice.

    IX. General Program Information

    A. Loan Origination. Lenders seeking a loan guarantee under this Notice must comply with all of the provisions found in 7 CFR 4279, subpart C.

    B. Loan Processing. The Agency will process loans guaranteed under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.260 through 4279.290.

    C. Evaluation of Applications and Awards. Awards under this Notice will be made on a competitive basis; submission of an application neither reserves funding nor ensures funding. The Agency will evaluate each application received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, select Phase 1 applications in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.267 to invite submittal of Phase 2 applications and will make awards using the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.278.

    D. Guaranteed Loan Servicing. The Agency will service loans guaranteed under this Notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4287.301 through 4287.399.

    E. System for Award Management (SAM) and Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) Registration. Unless exempt under 2 CFR 25.110, the Applicant must be registered in the SAM prior to submitting an application and maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by the Agency. Applicants must provide a DUNS number for each application submitted to the Agency.

    X. Administration Information

    A. Notifications. The Agency will notify, in writing, Lenders whose Phase 1 applications have scored highest and will invite them to submit Phase 2 applications. If the Agency determines it is unable to guarantee any particular loan, the Lender will be informed in writing. Such notification will include the reason(s) for denial of the guarantee.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

    1. Review or Appeal Rights. A person may seek a review of an Agency decision or appeal to the National Appeals Division in accordance with 7 CFR 4279.204.

    2. Exception Authority. The provisions specified in 7 CFR 4279.203 and 7 CFR 4287.303 apply to this Notice.

    C. Environmental Review. The Agency will review all applicant proposals that may qualify for assistance under this section in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, Environmental Policies and Procedures. The environmental review for projects that score high enough will be submitted during the Phase 2 application process and must be conducted in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, Environmental Policies and Procedures.

    XI. Agency Contacts

    For general questions about this Notice, please contact Todd Hubbell, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, Biorefinery, Renewable Chemical, and Biobased Product Manufacturing Assistance Program, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mail Stop 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-690-2516. Email: [email protected]

    Nondiscrimination Statement

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

    If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Samuel H. Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17486 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Rural Business-Cooperative Service Notice of Solicitation of Applications for the Repowering Assistance Program AGENCY:

    Rural Business-Cooperative Service and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice announces the solicitation of applications for funds available under the Repowering Assistance Program to encourage the use of renewable biomass as a replacement fuel source for fossil fuels used to provide process heat or power in the operation of eligible biorefineries. To be eligible for payments, biorefineries must have been in existence on or before June 18, 2008.

    DATES:

    Applications will be accepted from July 25, 2016 through October 24, 2016. Applications received after October 24, 2016, regardless of their postmark, will not receive consideration. If the actual deadline falls on a weekend or a federally-observed holiday, the deadline is the next Federal business day.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applications and forms may be obtained from:

    • USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, Attention: Repowering Assistance Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6901-S, STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225.

    • Agency Web site: http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov/eForms. Follow instructions for obtaining the application and forms. Application materials can also be obtained from the Agency's Web site. http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/repowering-assistance-program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information on this payment program, please contact Fred Petok, USDA, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6901-S, STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-690-0784. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the information collection requirements associated with the Section 9004 Repowering Assistance Program, as covered in this Notice, have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control Number 0570-0066.

    Overview

    Federal Agency Name: Rural Business-Cooperative Service (an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in the Rural Development mission area).

    Solicitation Opportunity Title: Repowering Assistance Program.

    Announcement Type: Notification of Solicitation of Applications.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number. The CFDA number for this Notice is 10.866.

    Dates: To receive funding consideration, applications must be received in the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Energy Division no later than 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 24, 2016. Any application received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 24, 2016, will not compete for funds announced in this Notice.

    Availability of Notice and Rule. This Notice and the interim rule for the Repowering Assistance Program are available on the USDA Rural Development Web site at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/repowering-assistance-program and at http://www.rd.usda.gov/newsroom.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description

    A. Purpose of the Program. The purpose of this program is to provide financial incentives to biorefineries in existence on or before June 18, 2008 (the date of the enactment of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) to replace the use of fossil fuels used to produce heat or power at their facilities by installing new systems that use renewable biomass, or to produce new energy from renewable biomass.

    B. Statutory Authority. This Program is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 8104. Regulations are contained in 7 CFR part 4288, subpart A and are incorporated by reference.

    C. Definition of Terms. The definitions applicable to this Notice are published at 7 CFR 4288.2.

    D. Application Awards. The Agency will review, evaluate, and award applications received in response to this Notice based on the provisions found in 7 CFR part 4288, subpart A.

    II. Award Information

    A. Available Funds. This Notice is a solicitation for applications that will be funded using budget authority provided by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-79) and available under current law.

    B. Number of Payments. The number of payments will depend on the number of participating biorefineries.

    C. Amount of Payments. The Agency will determine the amount of payments to be made to a biorefinery in accordance with its regulations at 7 CFR part 4288, subpart A, which take into consideration the percentage reduction in fossil fuel used by the biorefinery (including the quantity of fossil fuels a renewable biomass system is replacing) and the cost and cost-effectiveness of the renewable biomass system.

    D. Payment Limitations. There is no minimum payment amount that an individual biorefinery can receive. The maximum amount an individual biorefinery can receive under this Notice is 50 percent of total eligible project costs up to a maximum of $1 million.

    E. Project Costs. Eligible project costs, in accordance with 7 CFR 4288.11, will be only for project related construction costs for repowering improvements associated with the equipment, installation, engineering, design, site plans, associated professional fees, permits and financing fees. Any project costs incurred by the applicant prior to application for payment assistance under this Notice will be ineligible for payment assistance.

    F. Type of Instrument. Payment agreement.

    III. Eligibility Information

    A. Eligible Applicants. Applicant eligibility requirements are found in 7 CFR 4288.10. Among other things, to be eligible for this program, an applicant must be a biorefinery that has been in existence on or before June 18, 2008, and will utilize renewable biomass to replace fossil fuel for repowering the biorefinery.

    B. Ineligible Projects. In accordance with 7 CFR 4288.10(b), a project is not eligible under this Notice if it is using feedstocks for repowering that are feed grain commodities that received benefits under Title I of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Projects that do not score at least 5 points under the 7 CFR 4288.21(b) process, the minimum number of points for cost-effectiveness and percentage of reduction of fossil fuel used, will be deemed ineligible.

    IV. Multiple Submissions

    In accordance with 7 CFR 4288.10(a)(2), corporations and entities with more than one biorefinery can submit an application for only one of their biorefineries. However, if a corporation or entity has multiple biorefineries located at the same location, the entity may submit an application that covers such biorefineries provided the heat and power used in the multiple biorefineries are centrally produced.

    V. Scoring Advice

    A. Cost Effectiveness. To be eligible and meet the minimum scoring criteria, the project must have a simple payback period of no more than 10 years (i.e., must be awarded at least five points for cost-effectiveness under 7 CFR 4288.21(b)(1)).

    B. Percentage of Reduction of Fossil Fuel Used. To be eligible and meet the minimum scoring criteria, the applicant must demonstrate that the repowering project has an anticipated annual reduction in fossil fuel use of at least 40 percent (i.e., the application must be awarded at least five points for percentage of reduction of fossil fuel used under 7 CFR 4288.21(b)(2)).

    VI. Project Financing

    The applicant must demonstrate that it has sufficient funds or has obtained commitments for sufficient funds to complete the repowering project, taking into account the amount of the payment request in the application.

    VII. Application and Submission Information

    A. To Request Applications. Application forms are available from the USDA Rural Development State Office, State Energy Coordinator, and the Agency Web site found at http://forms.sc.egov.usda.gov. Follow instructions on the Agency Web site for obtaining the application and forms. http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/repowering-assistance-program.

    B. Content and Form of Submission. Applicants must submit a signed original and one copy of an application containing all the information specified in 7 CFR 4288.20(b) and (c).

    C. Submission Dates and Times. Applications to participate in this program must be submitted between July 25, 2016 and October 24, 2016. Applications received after 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time October 24, 2016, regardless of their postmark, will not be considered by the Agency for funding consideration.

    D. Where to Submit. Applications shall be sent to the Repowering Assistance Program at 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6901-S, Washington DC, 20150. Please note that regular mail delivery, or courier delivery must be coordinated with the Agency in order for the proposal to be delivered by the date.

    VIII. Application Review and Selection Information

    The Agency will evaluate projects based on the cost, cost-effectiveness, and capacity of projects to reduce fossil fuels used.

    A. Review. The Agency will review applications submitted under this Notice in accordance with 7 CFR 4288.21(a).

    B. Scoring. The Agency will score applications submitted under this Notice in accordance with 7 CFR 4288.21(b).

    C. Ranking and Selecting Applications. The Agency will consider the score an application has received compared to the scores of other applications, with higher scoring applications receiving first consideration for payments. Using the application scoring criteria point values specified in 7 CFR 4288.21, the Agency will select applications for payments.

    D. Availability of Funds. As applications are funded, if insufficient funds remain to pay the next highest scoring application, the Agency may elect to pay a lower scoring application. Before this occurs, the Agency will provide the applicant of the higher scoring application the opportunity to reduce the amount of its payment request to the amount of funds available. If the applicant agrees to lower its payment request, it must certify that the purposes of the project can be met, and the Agency must determine the project is feasible at the lower amount.

    IX. Administration Information

    A. Notice of Eligibility. The provisions of 7 CFR 4288.23 apply to this Notice. These provisions include notifying an applicant determined to be eligible for participation and notifying an applicant determined to be ineligible, including their application score and ranking and the score necessary to qualify for payments.

    B. Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

    (1) Review or Appeal Rights. A person may seek a review of an Agency adverse decision or appeal to the National Appeals Division as provided in 7 CFR 4288.3.

    (2) Compliance With Other Laws and Regulations. The provisions of 7 CFR 4288.4 apply to this Notice, which includes requiring participating biorefineries to be in compliance with other applicable Federal, State, and local laws.

    (3) Oversight and Monitoring. The provisions of 7 CFR 4288.5(a) and (b) apply to this Notice, which includes the right of the Agency to verify all payment applications and subsequent payments and the requirement that each biorefinery must make available, at one place at all reasonable times for examination by the Agency, all books, documents, papers, receipts, payroll records, and bills of sale adequate to identify the purposes for which, and the manner in which, funds were expended for all eligible project costs for a period of not less than 3 years from the final payment date.

    (4) Reporting. Upon completion of the repowering project funded under this Notice, the biorefinery must submit a report, in accordance with 7 CFR 4288.5(c), to the Agency annually for the first 3 years after completion of the project. The reports are to be submitted as of October 1 of each year.

    (5) Payment Provisions. Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 payments will be made according to the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4288.13(b) and (c) and in 7 CFR 4288.24.

    (6) Exception Authority. The provisions of 7 CFR 4288.7 apply to this Notice.

    (7) Succession and Control of Facilities and Production. The provisions of 7 CFR 4288.25 apply to this Notice.

    C. Environmental Review. All recipients under this Notice are subject to the requirements of 7 CFR part 1970.

    X. Agency Contacts

    For further information about this Notice, please contact Fred Petok, USDA, Rural Business—Cooperative Service, Energy Division, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 6868, STOP 3225, Washington, DC 20250-3225. Telephone: 202-690-0784. Email: [email protected]

    XI. Nondiscrimination Statement

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

    If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected]

    Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).

    Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Samuel H. Rikkers, Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17485 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-XY-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-982] Utility Scale Wind Towers from the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2015 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on utility scale wind towers (wind towers) from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective July 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson, 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) 482-4793.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department initiated an administrative review of the CVD order on wind towers from the PRC with respect to 50 companies for the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, based on a request by the petitioner, the Wind Tower Trade Coalition (WTTC).1 On July 6, 2016, WTTC timely withdrew its request for an administrative review of all 50 companies.2 No other party requested a review.

    1See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016) (Initiation Notice). In the Initiation Notice, we inadvertently listed only 45 companies; however, WTTC requested a review of 50 companies. See Letter from WTTC regarding “Request for Administrative Review” (February 23, 2016).

    2See Letter from the WTTC regarding “Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review” (July 6, 2016).

    Rescission of Review

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review in whole or in part, if the party that requested a review withdraws its request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review. In this case, WTTC withdrew its request for review within the 90-day deadline, and no other party requested an administrative review of the CVD order. Therefore, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), we are rescinding this review in its entirety.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess CVDs on all entries of wind towers from the PRC during the period January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015, at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated CVDs required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the publication of this notice.

    Notifications

    This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305.(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17562 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-570-037] Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 24, 2016, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of the countervailing duty (“CVD”) investigation on certain biaxial integral geogrid products (“geogrids”) from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). The Department is amending the Preliminary Determination of the investigation to correct three ministerial errors.

    DATES:

    Effective June 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Bob Palmer or Ryan Mullen, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-9068 or (202) 482-5260, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On June 24, 2016, the Department published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination of the CVD investigation of geogrids from the PRC.1 On June 24, 2016, and June 27, 2016, respectively, Taian Modern Plastic Co., Ltd. (“Taian Modern”) and BOSTD Geosynthetics Qingdao Ltd. (“BOSTD Qingdao”) alleged that the Department made significant ministerial errors in the Preliminary Determination.2

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 81 FR 41292 (June 24, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    2 On June 30, 2016 the Department received comments submitted by Tensar Corporation in reply to the ministerial allegations of Taian Modern and BOSTD Qingdao. However, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(c)(3), these reply comments were rejected from the record. See Letter from Catherine Bertrand, Program Manager, Office V, “Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrids Products from the People's Republic of China: Tensar Corporation's Ministerial Reply Comments” (July 5, 2016).

    Significant Ministerial Error

    A ministerial error, as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” 3 With respect to preliminary determinations, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that the Department “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any significant ministerial error by amending the preliminary determination . . .” A significant ministerial error is defined as an error, the correction of which, singly or in combination with other errors, would result in: (1) A change of at least five absolute percentage points in, but not less than 25 percent of, the countervailable subsidy rate calculated in the original (erroneous) preliminary determination; or (2) a difference between a countervailable subsidy rate of zero (or de minimis) and a countervailable subsidy rate of greater than de minimis or vice versa.4 As explained further in the Ministerial Error Memorandum issued concurrently with this Notice,5 and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e) and (g), the Department is amending the Preliminary Determination to reflect the correction of three ministerial errors made in the calculation of the subsidy rates for Taian Modern and BOSTD Qingdao.

    3See also 19 CFR 351.224(f).

    4See 19 CFR 351.224(g) (1), (2).

    5See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from James Doyle, Director, Office V, through Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, entitled, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products from the People's Republic of China: Allegation of Significant Ministerial Errors in the Preliminary Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Ministerial Error Memorandum”). This memorandum is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    Ministerial Error Allegations

    Taian Modern alleges that, although the Department stated in the Preliminary Determination that it was using total sales as the denominator in calculating the subsidy rate because the programs were considered domestic subsidies, the Department actually used only Taian Modern's sales of geogrids as the denominator in its calculations.

    After comparing the ministerial error allegations against record evidence, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, we agree that we inadvertently used only Taian Modern's sales of geogrids in our calculation instead of total sales. This resulted in a significant error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(g). We have corrected this error in this notice.

    BOSTD Qingdao alleges that in the Preliminary Determination, the Department stated that it would add to the purchase price for each individual domestic purchase the reported delivery charge and VAT paid to obtain a total amount paid. However, the Department unintentionally included BOSTD Qingdao's purchases of imported (e.g., non-Chinese origin) polypropylene in the less-than-adequate-remuneration (“LTAR”) calculation.

    Next, with respect to the electricity for LTAR calculation, BOSTD Qingdao alleges that the Department made an error in addition. In the Department's calculation worksheet, the benefit totals from each of the various electricity categories was hardcode rather than a sum formula. The actual sum of BOSTD Qingdao's electricity benefit is considerably less.

    After comparing the ministerial error allegations against record evidence, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act, we agree with BOSTD Qingdao that we inadvertently included BOSTD Qingdao's purchases of imported polypropylene in the LTAR calculation. We also agree that we miscalculated the benefit total of the various electricity categories. These errors resulted in a significant error within the meaning of section 735(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(g). We have corrected these errors in this notice.

    Amended Preliminary Determination

    We are amending the preliminary countervailing duty rates for Taian Modern and BOSTD Qingdao pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e). In addition, the preliminary “All-Others” Rate was based on the simple average of the subsidy rates calculated for Taian Modern and BOSTD Qingdao. Thus, we are also amending the “All-Others” rate to account for the change in Taian Modern's and BOSTD Qingdao's subsidy rate. Specifically, we are calculating the simple average of the corrected subsidy rate for Taian Modern and BOSTD Qingdao. Further, correcting Taian Modern's “Provision of Polypropylene for LTAR” error and BOSTD Qingdao's “Provision of Electricity for LTAR” calculation leads to a change in the adverse facts available rate.6 The revised subsidy rates are as follows:

    6See Ministerial Error Memorandum for the revised adverse facts available rate.

    Company Subsidy rate BOSTD Geosynthetics Qingdao Ltd. and Beijing Orient Science & Technology Development Co., Ltd 5.19 Taian Modern Plastic Co., Ltd 20.79 All-Others 12.99 Chengdu Tian Road Engineering Materials Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Chongqing Jiudi Reinforced Soil Engineering Co., Ltd.* 119.13 CNBM International Corporation * 119.13 Dezhou Yaohua Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Dezhou Zhengyu Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Hongye Engineering Materials Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Hubei Nete Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Jiangsu Dingtai Engineering Material Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Jiangsu Jiuding New Material Ltd.* 119.13 Lewu New Material Ltd.* 119.13 Nanjing Jinlu Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Nanjing Kunchi Composite Material Ltd.* 119.13 Nanyang Jieda Geosynthetics Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Qingdao Hongda Plastics Corp.* 119.13 Shandong Dexuda Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Shandong Haoyang New Engineering Materials Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Shandong Tongfa Glass Fiber Ltd.* 119.13 Shandong Xinyu Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Tai'an Haohua Plastics Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Taian Hengbang Engineering Material Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Taian Naite Geosynthetics Ltd.* 119.13 Taian Road Engineering Materials Co., Ltd.* 119.13 Tenax * 119.13 Hengshui Zhongtiejian Group Co.* 119.13 Qingdao Sunrise Dageng Import and Export Co., Ltd.* 119.13 * Non-cooperative company to which an adverse facts available rate is being applied. See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Biaxial Integral Geogrid Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Determination, 81 FR 41292 (June 24, 2016) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memo at “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences.”

    These amended preliminary results are published in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17565 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council Establishment AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of establishment of the U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary), having determined that it is in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department of Commerce by law, and with the concurrence of the General Services Administration, announces establishment of the U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council. This advisory committee will advise the Secretary on the development of strategies and programs that would help expand access to trade finance for U.S. exporters. The establishment of this federal advisory committee is necessary to provide input to the Secretary regarding the challenges faced by U.S. exporters in accessing capital, innovative solutions that can address these challenges, and recommendations on strategies that can expand access to finance and educate U.S. exporters on available resources. This notice also requests nominations for membership.

    DATES:

    Nominations for members must be received on or before 5 p.m. EDT Monday, August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    All nominations should be submitted to the Executive Secretary, Advisory Council on Trade Finance to: Ericka Ukrow, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council, Room 18002, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, or via email at: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ericka Ukrow, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, Room 18002, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0405, email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background and Authority

    The U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council (TFAC) is established in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., to advise the Secretary on matters relating to private sector trade financing for U.S. exporters. The Department affirms that the creation of the TFAC is necessary and in the public interest.

    The Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, is accepting nominations for membership on the TFAC. The TFAC functions solely as an advisory committee. The TFAC shall advise the Secretary in identifying effective ways to help expand access to finance for U.S. exporters, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and their foreign buyers.

    The TFAC shall provide a necessary forum to facilitate the discussion between a diverse group of stakeholders such as banks, non-bank financial institutions, other trade finance related organizations, and exporters to gain a better understanding regarding current challenges facing U.S. exporters in accessing finance.

    The TFAC shall draw upon the experience of its members in order to obtain ideas and suggestions for innovative solutions to these challenges.

    The TFAC shall develop recommendations on programs or activities that the Department of Commerce could incorporate as part of its export promotion and trade finance education efforts.

    The TFAC shall report to the Secretary on its activities and recommendations. In creating its reports, the TFAC should: (1) Evaluate current credit conditions and specific financing challenges faced by U.S. exporters, especially SMEs, and their foreign buyers, (2) examine other noteworthy issues raised by stakeholders represented by the membership, (3) identify emerging financing sources that would address these gaps, and (4) recommend specific activities by which these recommendations could be incorporated and implemented.

    II. Structure, Membership, and Operation

    The TFAC shall consist of no more than twenty members appointed by the Secretary. Members may be drawn from:

    • U.S. companies that are exporters of goods and services;

    • U.S. commercial banks that provide trade finance products, cross-border payment services, or foreign exchange solutions;

    • Non-bank U.S. financial institutions that provide trade finance products, cross-border payment services, or foreign exchange solutions;

    • Associations that represent: (a) U.S. exporters and SMEs; and (b) U.S. commercial banks or non-bank financial institutions or other professionals that facilitate international trade transactions;

    • U.S. companies or entities whose business includes trade-finance-related activities or services;

    • U.S. scholars, academic institutions, or public policy organizations with expertise in global business, trade finance, and international banking related subjects; and

    • Economic development organizations and other U.S. regional, state and local governmental and non-governmental organizations whose missions or activities include the analysis, provision, or facilitation of trade finance products/services.

    Membership shall include a broad range of companies and organizations in terms of products and services, company size, and geographic location of both the source and destination of trade finance. Members will be selected based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the TFAC, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, in a manner that ensures that the TFAC is balanced in terms of points of view and demographics. Priority may be given to candidates who have executive-level (Chief Executive Officer, Executive Chairman, President, or comparable level of responsibility) experience.

    Members, with the exception of those from academia and public policy organizations, serve in a representative capacity, representing their own views and interests and those of their particular sector, not as Special Government Employees. The members from academia and public policy organizations serve as experts and therefore are Special Government Employees (SGEs), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 202, and will be required to comply with certain ethics laws and rules, including filing a Confidential Financial Disclosure form. Additionally, a member serving as an expert must not be a Federally Registered Lobbyist.

    Prospective nominees should designate the capacity in which they are applying to serve and identify either their area of expertise or the U.S. industry sector they wish to represent. Members of the TFAC will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses. Appointments to the TFAC shall be made without regard to political affiliation.

    Each member shall be appointed for a term of two years and will serve at the pleasure of the Secretary. The Secretary may at his/her discretion reappoint any member to an additional term or terms, provided that the member proves to work effectively on the TFAC and his/her knowledge and advice are still needed.

    The TFAC chair and vice chair or vice chairs shall be selected from the members of the TFAC by the Assistant Secretary for Industry & Analysis after consulting with the members. Their term of service will not exceed the duration of the current charter term and they may be reselected for additional periods should the charter be renewed and should they remain on the TFAC.

    III. Compensation

    Members will not be paid for their engagement in the performance of their duties as members of the Council. Members will not receive per diem and travel expenses.

    IV. Nomination

    The Department of Commerce will consider nominations of all qualified individuals to ensure that the TFAC includes representatives of the viewpoints and members with the areas of subject matter expertise noted above (see “Structure, Membership and Operation”). Individuals may nominate themselves or other individuals, and a company, institution, trade association, or organization may nominate a qualified representative for membership on the TFAC.

    Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the TFAC. All nomination packages should include the following information for each nominee: (1) Name and title of the individual requesting consideration. (2) Nominations shall state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the TFAC. The potential candidate's personal resume and short biography (less than 300 words). (3) A brief statement describing how the potential candidate will contribute to the work of the TFAC based on his/her unique experience and perspective (not to exceed 100 words). (4) All relevant contact information, including mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant. (5) An affirmative statement that the potential candidate meets all eligibility criteria, including an affirmative statement that the potential candidate is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    In addition, for a potential candidate to serve in a representative capacity: (a) A sponsor letter on the sponsoring entity's letterhead containing a brief statement of why the potential candidate should be considered for membership on the TFAC. This sponsor letter should also address the potential candidate's experience and leadership related to trade finance; (b) A brief description of the company, institution, trade association, or organization to be represented and its business activities and export market(s) served, if applicable; (c) Information regarding the ownership and control of the sponsoring entity, including the stock holdings as appropriate; and (d) The sponsoring entity's size (number of employees and annual sales), place of incorporation, product or service line, major markets in which the entity operates, and the entity's export or import experience.

    In addition, for a potential candidate to serve as an expert: A statement that the potential candidate is not a Federally registered lobbyist and that the potential candidate understands that, if appointed, the potential candidate will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Committee member if the potential candidate becomes a Federally registered lobbyist.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Paul Thanos, Director, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17436 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-475-833, C-570-027, C-533-864, C-580-879] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, Republic of Korea and the People's Republic of China: Countervailing Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (“Department”) and the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the Department is issuing a countervailing duty order on certain corrosion-resistant steel products (“corrosion-resistant steel”) from India, Italy, Republic of Korea (“Korea”), and the People's Republic of China (“PRC”).

    DATES:

    Effective July 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Myrna Lobo at (202) 482-2371 (the Republic of Korea); Emily Halle at (202) 482-0176 (the People's Republic of China); Matt Renkey at (202) 482-2312 (India); Robert Palmer at (202) 482-9068 (Italy); AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 705(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”), on June 2, 2016, the Department published its affirmative final determinations that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of corrosion-resistant steel from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC.1 On July 15, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determinations that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act by reason of subsidized imports of subject merchandise from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from these countries that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding.2

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Final Affirmative Determination and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35326 (June 2, 2016); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35308 (June 2, 2016); Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Final Affirmative Determination, 81 FR 35323 (June 2, 2016); and Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination, and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35310 (June 2, 2016).

    2See Letter to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Irving A. Williamson, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan (July 15, 2016) (“ITC Letter”); see also Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, USITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-534-537 and 731-TA-1274-1278 (Final), USITC Publication 4620, (July 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The products covered by this investigation are certain corrosion-resistant steel products. For a complete description of the scope of the order, see Appendix I.

    Countervailing Duty Order

    In accordance with sections 705(b)(1)(A)(i) and 705(d) of the Act, the ITC has notified the Department of its final determinations that the industry in the United States producing corrosion-resistant steel is materially injured by reason of subsidized imports of corrosion-resistant steel from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC, and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Italy, Korea, and the PRC that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding, in part. Therefore, in accordance with section 705(c)(2) of the Act, we are publishing these countervailing duty orders.

    As a result of the ITC's final determinations, in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, countervailing duties on unliquidated entries of corrosion-resistant steel from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 6, 2015, the date on which the Department published its preliminary countervailing duty determinations in the Federal Register,3 and before March 4, 2016, the date on which the Department instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation in accordance with section 703(d) of the Act. Section 703(d) of the Act states that the suspension of liquidation pursuant to a preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months. Therefore, entries of corrosion-resistant steel made on or after March 4, 2016, and prior to the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register are not liable for the assessment of countervailing duties due to the Department's discontinuation, effective March 4, 2016, of the suspension of liquidation.

    3See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68839 (November 6, 2015), Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68843 (November 6, 2015), Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68842 (November 6, 2015), Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination, 80 FR 68854 (November 6, 2015), (collectively, “Preliminary Determinations”). See also Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations of Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea, and Taiwan: Preliminary Determinations of Critical Circumstances, 80 FR 68504 (November 5, 2015) (“Preliminary Critical Circumstances”).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 706 of the Act, the Department will direct CBP to reinstitute the suspension of liquidation of corrosion-resistant steel from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's notice of final determinations in the Federal Register, and to assess, upon further instruction by the Department pursuant to section 706(a)(1) of the Act, countervailing duties for each entry of the subject merchandise in an amount based on the net countervailable subsidy rates for the subject merchandise, except for subject merchandise entered by the de minimis companies from Italy (Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-Trade S.p.A., Siderurgica Triestina Srl., Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A.) and the de minimis companies from Korea (Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd/Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.). These exclusions will apply only to subject merchandise both produced and exported by de minimis companies from Italy (Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-Trade S.p.A., Siderurgica Triestina Srl., Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A.) and the de minimis companies from Korea (Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd/Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd.). On or after the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register, CBP must require,4 at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the rates noted below:

    4 With the exception of those companies whose net subsidy was de minimis, and hence, are excluded from this order. These exclusions will apply only to subject merchandise both produced and exported by those companies identified here whose net subsidy was de minimis.

    Subsidy rate (percent) Exporter/Producer from India: JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited 29.49 Uttam Galva Steels Limited and Uttam Value Steels Limited 8.00 All-Others 18.73 Exporter/Producer from Italy: Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A., Finarvedi S.p.A., Arvedi Tubi Acciaio S.p.A., Euro-Trade S.p.A., and Siderurgica Triestina Srl., collectively, the Arvedi Group 5 0.48 Marcegaglia S.p.A. and Marfin S.p.A., the Marcegaglia Group 6 0.07 Ilva S.p.A 38.51 All-Others 13.02 Exporter/Producer from Korea: Union Steel Manufacturing Co. Ltd/Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd 7 0.72 Dongbu Steel Co., Ltd./Dongbu Incheon Steel Co., Ltd 1.19 All-Others 1.19 Exporter/Producer from the PRC: Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd 39.05 Angang Group Hong Kong Company Ltd 241.07 Baoshan Iron & Steel Co., Ltd 241.07 Duferco S.A., Hebei Iron & Steel Group, and Tangshan Iron and Steel Group Co., Ltd 241.07 Changshu Everbright Material Technology 241.07 Handan Iron & Steel Group 241.07 All-Others 39.05 Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, Korea, and the PRC, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated countervailing duties with respect to entries of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 8, 2015 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of the publication of the CVD Preliminary Determinations), but before November 6, 2015 (i.e., the date of publication of the CVD Preliminary Determinations).

    5De minimis.

    6Id.

    7Id.

    Notifications to Interested Parties

    This notice constitutes the countervailing duty orders with respect to corrosion-resistant steel from Italy, India, Korea, and the PRC pursuant to section 706(a) of the Act. Interested parties may contact the Department's Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Commerce Building, for copies of an updated list of countervailing duty orders currently in effect.

    These orders are issued and published in accordance with section 706(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I

    The products covered by this order are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this order are products in which: (1) iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels and high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”) and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the order if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this order unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this order:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the order may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17563 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-863, A-475-832, A-570-026, A-580-878, A-583-856] Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the “Department”) and the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”), the Department is issuing antidumping duty orders on certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Republic of Korea (“Korea”), and Taiwan. In addition, the Department is amending its final determinations of sales at less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) from India and Taiwan, as a result of ministerial errors.

    DATES:

    Effective July 25, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julia Hancock or Susan Pulongbarit at (202) 482-1394 and (202) 482-4031, respectively (Italy), Kabir Archuletta at (202) 482-2593 (India); Elfi Blum or Lingjun Wang (Korea) at (202) 482-0197 or (202) 482-2316, respectively; Nancy Decker or Andrew Huston at (202) 482-0196 or (202) 482-4261, respectively (PRC); or Shanah Lee or Paul Stolz at (202) 482-6386 and (202) 482-4474, respectively (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 2, 2016, the Department published its affirmative final determinations in the LTFV investigations of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan.1 On July 15, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances findings.2

    1See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35329 (June 2, 2016) (“India Final”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35320 (June 2, 2016) (“Italy Final”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 81 FR 35303 (June 2, 2016) (“Korea Final”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Critical Circumstances Determination, in Part, 81 FR 35316 (June 2, 2016) (“PRC Final”); and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, 81 FR 35313 (June 2, 2016) (“Taiwan Final”).

    2See Letter to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Irving A. Williamson, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan (July 15, 2016) (“ITC Letter”); see also Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, USITC Investigation Nos. 701-TA-534-537 and 731-TA-1274-1278 (Final), USITC Publication 4620 (July 2016).

    Scope of the Orders

    The products covered by these orders are certain flat-rolled steel products, either clad, plated, or coated with corrosion-resistant metals such as zinc, aluminum, or zinc-, aluminum-, nickel- or iron-based alloys, whether or not corrugated or painted, varnished, laminated, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating. The products covered include coils that have a width of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of these orders are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or

    • 3.30 percent of silicon, or

    • 1.50 percent of copper, or

    • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or

    • 1.25 percent of chromium, or

    • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or

    • 0.40 percent of lead, or

    • 2.00 percent of nickel, or

    • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or

    • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or

    • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or

    • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or

    • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels and high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels. IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum.

    Furthermore, this scope also includes Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS) and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS), both of which are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise also includes corrosion-resistant steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching and/or slitting or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the orders if performed in the country of manufacture of the in-scope corrosion resistant steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of these orders unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these orders:

    • Flat-rolled steel products either plated or coated with tin, lead, chromium, chromium oxides, both tin and lead (“terne plate”), or both chromium and chromium oxides (“tin free steel”), whether or not painted, varnished or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances in addition to the metallic coating;

    • Clad products in straight lengths of 4.7625 mm or more in composite thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 mm and measures at least twice the thickness; and

    • Certain clad stainless flat-rolled products, which are three-layered corrosion-resistant flat-rolled steel products less than 4.75 mm in composite thickness that consist of a flat-rolled steel product clad on both sides with stainless steel in a 20%-60%-20% ratio.

    The products subject to the orders are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item numbers: 7210.30.0030, 7210.30.0060, 7210.41.0000, 7210.49.0030, 7210.49.0091, 7210.49.0095, 7210.61.0000, 7210.69.0000, 7210.70.6030, 7210.70.6060, 7210.70.6090, 7210.90.6000, 7210.90.9000, 7212.20.0000, 7212.30.1030, 7212.30.1090, 7212.30.3000, 7212.30.5000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7212.50.0000, and 7212.60.0000.

    The products subject to the orders may also enter under the following HTSUS item numbers: 7210.90.1000, 7215.90.1000, 7215.90.3000, 7215.90.5000, 7217.20.1500, 7217.30.1530, 7217.30.1560, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.91.0000, 7225.92.0000, 7225.99.0090, 7226.99.0110, 7226.99.0130, 7226.99.0180, 7228.60.6000, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.

    Amendment to India Final Determination

    On May 31, 2016, JSW Steel Ltd. and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited (collectively “JSW”) alleged that the Department made ministerial errors in the India Final. 3 A ministerial error is defined as an error in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical error resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other similar type of unintentional error which the Secretary considers ministerial.4

    3See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from JSW “JSW's Ministerial Error Comments in Response to the Department's Final Determination” (May 31, 2016).

    4See section 735(e) of the Act.

    The Department reviewed the record and agrees that three of the errors referenced in JSW's allegation constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).5 Specifically, the Department used an incorrect variable in the recalculation of JSW's home market inventory carrying costs, transposed two digits in the recalculation of JSW's indirect selling expenses, and neglected to fully adjust JSW's cash deposit rate for export subsidies based on adverse facts available (“AFA”).6 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the India Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial errors described above. Based on our correction, JSW's weighted-average dumping margin decreased from 4.44 percent to 4.43 percent. Although the “all-others” rate is based in part on JSW's dumping margin, the corrections noted above did not have an effect on the all-others rate determined in the India Final. 7

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Allegation of Ministerial Errors in the Final Determination” (July 5, 2016) (“India Ministerial Error Memo”).

    6Id.

    7Id.

    Amendment to Taiwan Final Determination

    On June 7, 2016, AK Steel Corporation (“Petitioner”) submitted to the Department a timely allegation that the Department made ministerial errors in the margin calculations in the Taiwan Final. 8

    8See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners “Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Petitioner's Ministerial Error Comments” (June 7, 2016).

    The Department reviewed the record and agrees that the errors referenced in Petitioner's allegation constitute ministerial errors within the meaning of 19 CFR 351.224(f).9 Specifically, as a result of programming errors in the application of partial AFA to certain control numbers, the Department failed to use the sales quantities to weight average the costs of certain control numbers, the Department failed to use the highest total cost of manufacture as AFA for certain control numbers, and the Department incorrectly applied AFA to certain control numbers.10 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), the Department is amending the Taiwan Final to reflect the correction of the ministerial errors described above. Based on our correction, the weighted-average dumping margin for the collapsed entity comprised of Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Company., Ltd., Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd., increased from 3.77 percent to 10.34 percent.11 In addition, because the “all-others” rate is based on the corrected weighted-average dumping margin, the Department has revised the all-others rate in this amended final determination accordingly.12

    9See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Ministerial Error Memorandum Concerning the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan” (July 15, 2016).

    10Id.

    11Id.

    12See the “Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins” section below.

    Antidumping Duty Orders

    As stated above, on July 15, 2016, in accordance with sections 735(b)(1)(A)(i) and 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determinations in these investigations, in which it found that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan and that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise from Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances findings.13 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, the Department is issuing these antidumping duty orders. Because the ITC determined that imports of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    13See ITC Letter.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after January 4, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determinations,14 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    14See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 63 (January 4, 2016) (“India Prelim”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Italy: Preliminary Affirmative Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 69 (January 4, 2016) (“Italy Prelim”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 78 (January 4, 2016) (“Korea Prelim”); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from the People's Republic of China: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 75 (January 4, 2016) (“PRC Prelim”); and Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products from Taiwan: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 72 (January 4, 2016) (“Taiwan Prelim”).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    The Department will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below, which are adjusted for certain countervailable subsidies, where appropriate, as described below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determinations, CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the cash deposit rates listed below.15 The relevant all-others rates apply to all producers or exporters not specifically listed. For the purpose of determining cash deposit rates, the estimated weighted-average dumping margins for imports of subject merchandise from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC have been adjusted, as appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determinations of the companion countervailing duty investigations of this merchandise imported from India, Italy, Korea, and the PRC.16 Because the Department determined that countervailable subsidies were not provided to producers and exporters of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from Taiwan, we did not adjust the weighted-average dumping margin for export subsidies.17 In the case of determining cash deposit rates for subject merchandise from the PRC, estimated weighted-average dumping margins were also adjusted, where appropriate, for estimated domestic subsidy pass-through.18

    15See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    16See India Final; Italy Final; Korea Final; and PRC Final. See also section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Act.

    17See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 81 FR 35299 (June 2, 2016).

    18See China Final, 81 FR at 35318. See also section 777A(f) of the Act.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.19 In the underlying investigations, the Department published the preliminary determinations on January 4, 2016. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination, ended on July 2, 2016. Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination.

    19See India Prelim; Italy Prelim; Korea Prelim; PRC Prelim; and Taiwan Prelim.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice, the Department will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption after July 3, 2016, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determinations in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of subject merchandise from Korea, the PRC, and Taiwan, the Department will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after October 6, 2015 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the preliminary determinations), but before January 4, 2016, (i.e., the date of publication of the preliminary determinations). With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of subject merchandise from Italy, the Department will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption by one respondent on or after March 4, 2016 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the final determination for Italy), but before June 2, 2016, (i.e., the date of publication of the final determination for Italy).20

    20 In the Italy Final, the Department found that critical circumstances existed for Marcegaglia S.p.A. Because we calculated a de minimis preliminary dumping margin for Marcegaglia S.p.A., we did not instruct CBP to collect cash deposits until 90 days before the Italy Final.

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages and cash deposit rates are as follows:

    Exporter or producer Weighted-average dumping margin (percent) 21 Cash deposit rate (percent) India: JSW: 22
  • JSW Steel Ltd
  • JSW Coated Products Ltd
  • 4.43 0.00
    Uttam Galva: 23
  • Uttam Galva Steel Limited
  • Uttam Value Steels Limited
  • Atlantis International Services Company Ltd
  • Uttam Galva Steels, Netherlands, B.V
  • Uttam Galva Steels (BVI) Limited
  • 3.05 0.00
    All-Others 3.86 0.00 Italy: Acciaieria Arvedi S.p.A 12.63 12.63 Marcegalia S.p.A 24 92.12 92.12 All-Others 12.63 12.48 Korea: Dongkuk Steel Mill Co., Ltd./Union Steel Manufacturing Co., Ltd 8.75 8.75 Hyundai Steel Company 47.80 47.79 All-Others 28.28 28.27 PRC: Yieh Phui (China) Technomaterial Co., Ltd 209.97 199.43 Jiangyin Zongcheng Steel Co. Ltd 209.97 199.43 Union Steel China 209.97 199.43 PRC-Wide Entity 209.97 199.43 Taiwan: Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd., Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd., and Synn Industrial Co., Ltd 25 10.34 All-Others 10.34

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty orders with respect to certain corrosion-resistant steel products from India, Italy, the PRC, Korea and Taiwan pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    21See India Ministerial Error Memo for a complete discussion regarding the change to JSW's weighted-average dumping margin and cash deposit rate.

    22 The Department found JSW Steel Ltd. and JSW Coated Products Limited to be affiliated and treated them as a single entity. JSW's cash deposit rate was reduced as a result of correction of the ministerial errors described above. See India Final, 81 FR at 35330.

    23 The Department found Uttam Galva Steels Limited, Uttam Value Steels Limited, Atlantis International Services Company Ltd., Uttam Galva Steels, Netherlands, B.V., and Uttam Galva Steels (BVI) Limited to be affiliated and treated them as a single entity. See India Final, 81 FR at 35330.

    24 The Department found that Marcegaglia S.p.A.'s weighted-average dumping margin and cash deposit rate should also be applied to Marcegaglia Carbon Steel. See Italy Final and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 2.

    25 The Department found Yieh Phui Enterprise Co., Ltd., Synn Industrial Co., Ltd., and Prosperity Tieh Enterprise Co., Ltd., to be affiliated and treated them as a single entity. See Taiwan Final, 81 FR at 35314.

    These orders are published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17557 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-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: West Coast Permit Family of Forms—Southwest.

    OMB Control Number: 0648-0204.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular (extension of a currently approved information collection).

    Number of Respondents: 1705.

    Average Hours per Response: HMS permit applications, 30 minutes; HMS permit renewal applications, 3 minutes; CPS renewal applications, 15 minutes; CPS transfers, 30 minutes; photo requirement, 30 minutes; exempted fishing permits, 1 hour; appeals, 2 hours.

    Burden Hours: 94.

    Needs and Uses: This request is for a revision and extension to the existing reporting requirements approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0204, West Coast Region Family of Forms. The West Coast Region (WCR) Permits Office administers permits required for persons to participate in Federally-managed fisheries off the West Coast under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. There are three types of permits: basic fishery permits for Highly Migratory Species (HMS), limited entry permits for Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS), and experimental fishing permits (EFP). The WCR Permits Office proposes to revise one permit within the collection of information approved under OMB Control Number 0648-0204.

    Currently, under 50 CFR part 660.707, HMS permits are issued to vessels that fish for HMS off or land HMS in the States of California, Oregon, and Washington. Permits are issued for a 2-year term and remain valid until the first date of renewal. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) adopted amended Resolution C-11-06 which requires a vessel on the IATTC regional vessel registry to add a photograph of the vessel showing its identifying vessel markings. NMFS proposed to revise OMB Control Number 0648-0204 to require new and renewing applicants to submit a vessel photo with their application. Owners can email or mail photographs to the Long Beach Permits Office, which in turn will be submitted to the IATTC vessel database manager. Online submission option is expected to be available through the National Permits System (NPS) by 2016 year-end.

    NMFS estimates this revision could affect up to 1639 respondents, which is the total number of permitted HMS vessels. Currently, HMS renewal forms are mailed to permit holders within 60 days prior to expiration. To reduce the expected burden from photo submission, pre-filled renewal forms with basic data will substitute the current renewal application. Forms can be completed by signing and dating a statement of acknowledgement that all current information is correct.

    The basic information collected from applicants will remain the same. There will be minimal expected public burden to submit photographs, which will not apply after the initial photo is submitted. There will be no additional burden beyond the estimated application processing time or recordkeeping/reporting costs.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; individuals or households.

    Frequency: Biannually and on occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    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 20, 2016. Sarah Brabson, NOAA PRA Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17471 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE664 Marine Mammals; File No. 20481 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; receipt of application.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the BBC Natural History Unit, 23 Whiteladies Road, Bristol BS8 2LR, United Kingdom, has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial and educational photography of California sea lions (Zalophus californianus).

    DATES:

    Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    These documents are available upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    Written comments on this application should be submitted to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, at the address listed above. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (301) 713-0376, or by email to [email protected] Please include File No. 20481 in the subject line of the email comment.

    Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request to the Chief, Permits and Conservation Division at the address listed above. The request should set forth the specific reasons why a hearing on this application would be appropriate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rosa González or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    The applicant proposes to film California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) for a documentary film on animal behavior [i.e., OCEAN (BLUE PLANET II)]. Filming activities would occur along the California coast and offshore from Point Año Nuevo south to the Channel Islands, focusing on the Monterey Bay region. Up to 1,000 California sea lions would be approached for filming from land, vessel, and underwater (snorkelers or scuba divers). In addition, up to 1,000 long-beaked common dolphins (Delphinus capensis) and 1,000 short-beaked common dolphins (D. delphis) may be incidentally harassed and filmed during operations. Filming would occur August 2016 through March 2017, although the key filming period is expected to be mid-August to early/mid-September. The permit is requested for a one year period.

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), an initial determination has been made that the activity proposed is categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.

    Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register, NMFS is forwarding copies of the application to the Marine Mammal Commission and its Committee of Scientific Advisors.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Donna S. Wieting, Director, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17402 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE747 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a three-day meeting.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on August 17-19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Council Office: 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

    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 Caribbean Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will hold a three-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

    —Call to Order —Adoption of Agenda —Island Based Fishery Management Plans (IBFMPs) —Review Goals and Objectives of the IBFMPs —Finalize Action 1: Species to include for federal management in each IBFMP —Recommendations to the Caribbean Fishery Management Council (CFMC) —Review/Finalize Action 2: Review Consolidated List of Stocks and Stock Complexes/Species Complexes—NMFS Southeast Regional Office (SERO) Update —Recommendations to CFMC —Review Action 3: Reference Points —Update SEDAR 46 US Caribbean Data Limited Species—Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) —Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Work Group Report —Brief review of ABC Control Rule —Examples of ABC Control Rules: South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Western Pacific Councils —Discussion on tiers ABC Control Rule —Evaluation of components of uncertainty —Potential guidance coming out of data poor models (Overfishing Limit (OFL) and ABC advice) —Review U.S. Caribbean landings data (commercial and recreational) for entire historical series —Recommendations to the SSC from the ABC Working Group —Recommendations to the CFMC on ABC Control Rule —Consider Action 4: Framework Procedures for the IBFMP —Finalize 5-year CFMC—Other Business 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. 2016-17450 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE704 International Whaling Commission; 66th Meeting; Announcement of Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the date, time, and location of the public meeting to be held prior to the 66th International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting.

    DATES:

    The public meeting will be held October 3, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The public meeting will be held in the NOAA Science Center Room, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jordan Carduner at [email protected] or 301-427-8483.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Secretary of Commerce is responsible for discharging the domestic obligations of the United States under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946. The U.S. IWC Commissioner has responsibility for the preparation and negotiation of U.S. positions on international issues concerning whaling and for all matters involving the IWC. The U.S. IWC Commissioner is staffed by the Department of Commerce and assisted by the Department of State, the Department of the Interior, the Marine Mammal Commission, and other U.S. Government agencies.

    A draft agenda for the upcoming IWC meeting will be posted on the IWC Secretariat's Web site at http://www.iwc.int.

    NOAA will a hold public meeting to discuss the tentative U.S. positions for the October 2016 IWC meeting in Slovenia. Because the NOAA public meeting will address U.S. positions, the substance of the meeting must be kept confidential. Any U.S. citizen with an identifiable interest in U.S. whale conservation policy may participate, but NOAA reserves the authority to inquire about the interests of any person who appears at the meeting and to determine the appropriateness of that person's participation. In particular, persons who represent foreign interests may not attend. Persons deemed by NOAA to be ineligible to attend will be asked to leave the meeting. These stringent measures are necessary to protect the confidentiality of U.S. negotiating positions.

    The October 3, 2016, meeting will be held in the NOAA Science Center Room, 1301 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910. Photo identification is required to enter the building.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Jordan Carduner, [email protected] or 301-427-8483, by September 19, 2016.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. John Henderschedt, Director, Office of International Affairs and Seafood Inspection Program, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17452 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE748 Caribbean Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Caribbean Fishery Management Council's ABC Control Rule Group will hold a two-day meeting.

    DATES:

    The meetings will be held on August 15 and 16, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meetings will be held at the Caribbean Fishery Management Council Headquarters, 270 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 401, San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918.

    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 Caribbean Fishery Management Council's ABC Control Rule Group will hold a two-day meeting to discuss the items contained in the following agenda:

    • Call to Order • Adoption of Agenda • Brief Review of ABC Control Rule • Examples of ABC Control Rules: South Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Western Pacific • Discussion on tiers ABC Control Rule • Evaluation of components of uncertainty • Potential guidance coming out of data poor models (OFL advice to ABC SSC advice to CFMC) • Review landings data (commercial and recreational) for entire historical series • Recommendations to the SSC • Other Business 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. 2016-17451 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-47] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandelle K. Parker, DSCA/LMO, (703) 697-9027.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-47 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25JY16.017 Transmittal No. 16-47 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Japan

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment* $685 million Other $136 million TOTAL $821 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE): Up to two hundred forty-six (246) Standard Missiles (SM-2), Block IIIB Vertical Launching Tactical All-Up Rounds, RIM-66M-09

    Non-MDE: This request also includes the following Non-MDE: MK 13 MOD 0 Vertical Launching System Canisters, operator manuals, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy (ATA and ASZ)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: JA-P-ARH—MAR 11, $32,149,836; JA-P-AQO—FEB 08, $36,133,478; JA-P-AQE—AUG 06, $25,932,921; JA-P-AQF—AUG 06, $32,030,680; JA-P-ANW—SEP 05, $46,147,937; JA-P-ANX—SEP 05, $30,207,196; JA-P-APS—SEP 05, $24,923,134; JA-P-APT—NOV 04, $25,041,269; JA-P-APU—NOV 04, $18,297,591; JA-P-APV—NOV 04, $13,328,470; JA-P-APG—JUL 03, $26,545,311; JA-P-APP—JUL 03, $15,581,478

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc. Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Annex attached

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 15 July 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION Japan—SM-2 Block IIIB Standard Missiles

    The Government of Japan has requested a possible sale of up to two hundred forty-six (246) Standard Missile (SM-2), Block IIIB Vertical Launching Tactical All-Up Rounds, RIM-66M-09. This request also includes MK 13 MOD 0 Vertical Launching System Canisters, operator manuals and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services. The total estimated value of Major Defense Equipment (MDE) is $685 million. The total overall estimated value is $821 million.

    Japan is one of the major political and economic powers in East Asia and the Western Pacific, a key democratic partner of the United States in ensuring regional peace and stability, a close coalition ally in regional contingency operations, and a close cooperative and international exchange agreement partner. It is vital to U.S. national interests that Japan develops and maintains a strong and ready self-defense capability. This transaction is consistent with U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives and the 1960 Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.

    These SM-2 Block IIIB missiles will be used for anti-air warfare at sea. Japan currently fields four Kongo-class and two Atago-class destroyers, all of which are equipped with the Aegis Combat system and SM-2 Block IIIA/IIIB missiles. Japan is also building two new Aegis-equipped destroyers based on a modified Atago-class hull. The SM-2 Block IIIB missiles proposed in this sale will be used on these two future destroyers as well as supplementing Japan's missile inventory. Combined with the Aegis combat system, the SM-2 Block IIIB provides significantly enhanced area defense capabilities over critical East Asian and Western Pacific air and sea-lines of communication. Japan has two Intermediate-Level Maintenance Facilities capable of maintaining the SM-2 Block IIIB and will have no difficulty absorbing these new missiles into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems Company, Tucson, Arizona; Raytheon Company, Camden, Arkansas; and BAE of Minneapolis and Aberdeen, South Dakota. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this sale will not require the assignment of any U.S. or contractor representatives to Japan.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-47 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. A completely assembled Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIB with or without a conventional warhead, whether a tactical, telemetry or inert (training) configuration, is classified CONFIDENTIAL. Missile component hardware includes: Guidance Section (classified CONFIDENTIAL), Target Detection Device (classified CONFIDENTIAL), Warhead (UNCLASSIFIED), Rocket Motor (UNCLASSIFIED), Steering Control Section (UNCLASSIFIED), Safe and Arming Device (UNCLASSIFIED), Autopilot Battery Unit (classified CONFIDENTIAL), and if telemetry missiles, AN/DKT-71 Telemeters (UNCLASSIFIED).

    2. SM-2 operator and maintenance documentation is usually CONFIDENTIAL. Shipboard operation/firing guidance is generally CONFIDENTIAL. Pre-firing missile assembly/pedigree information is UNCLASSIFIED.

    3. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.

    4. A determination has been made that Japan can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    5. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the Government of Japan.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17476 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0078] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated forms for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Joint Personnel Adjudication System, ATTN: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Boyers, ATTN: JPAS PM, P.O. Box 168, Boyers, PA 16020-0168.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS); OMB Control Number 0704-0496.

    Needs and Uses: JPAS requires personal data collection to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees and contractors requiring such credentials. As a Personnel Security System it is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in accesses determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities. Specific uses include: Facilitation for DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers to obtain accurate up-to-date eligibility and access information on all personnel (military, civilian and contractor personnel) adjudicated by the DoD. The DoD Adjudicators and Security Managers are also able to update eligibility and access levels of military, civilian and contractor personnel nominated for access to sensitive DoD information.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 333,333.

    Number of Respondents: 500,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 2.

    Annual Responses: 1,000,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    The Joint Personnel Adjudication System (JPAS) is a DoD personnel security system and is the authoritative source for clearance information resulting in access determinations to sensitive/classified information and facilities. Collection and maintenance of personal data in JPAS is required to facilitate the initiation, investigation and adjudication of information relevant to DoD security clearances and employment suitability determinations for active duty military, civilian employees, and contractors requiring such credentials. Facility Security Officers (FSOs) working in private companies that contract with DoD and who need access to the JPAS system to update security-related information about their company's employees must complete DD Form 2962. Once granted access, the FSOs maintain employee personal information, submit requests for investigations, and submit other relevant personnel security information into JPAS on over 1,000,000 contract employees annually.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17493 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-40] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandelle K. Parker, DSCA/LMO, (703) 697-9027.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-40 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. BILLING CODE 5001-06-P EN25JY16.014 BILLING CODE 5001-06-C Transmittal No. 16-40 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Israel

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $55 million Other $245 million TOTAL $300 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Twelve (12) T-700 GE 401C engines (ten (10) installed and two (2) spares)

    Non-MDE:

    This request also includes the following non-MDE items: eight (8) AN/APN-194(V) Radar Altimeters, eight (8) AN/APN-217A Doppler Radar Navigation Sets, eight (8) AN/ARN-15l (V)2 Global Positioning Systems, eight (8) AN/APX-100(V) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder Sets, eight (8) OA-8697 A/ARD Direction Finding Groups, eight (8) AN/ARN-118(V) NAV Receivers, eight (8) AN/ARN-146 On Top Position Indicators, sixteen (16) IP-1544A/ASQ-200 Horizontal Situation Video Displays (HSVD), eight (8) AN/ARC-174A (V)2 HF Radios, sixteen (16) AN/ARC182(V) UHF/UHF Radios, eight (8) PIN 70600-81010-011 Communication System Controllers, eight (8) GAU-16 50 Caliber Machine Guns, eight (8) M-60D/M-240 Machine Guns, eight (8) Internal Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, sixteen (16) External Auxiliary Fuel Tanks, and eight (8) C-11822/AWQ Controllers, Armament System. Also included are spares and repair parts, support and test equipment, communication equipment, ferry support, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: None

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed To Be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed To Be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 5 July 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    POLICY JUSTIFICATION

    Israel—Excess SH-60F Sea-Hawk Helicopter equipment and support:

    The Government of Israel has requested to procure twelve (12) T-700 GE 401C engines (ten (10) installed and two (2) spares), eight (8) AN/APN-194(V) Radar Altimeters; eight (8) AN/APN-217A Doppler Radar Navigation Sets; eight (8) AN/ARN-15l (V)2 Global Positioning Systems; eight (8) AN/APX-100(V) Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Transponder Sets; eight (8) OA-8697 A/ARD Direction Finding Groups; eight (8) AN/ARN-118(V) NAV Receivers; eight (8) AN/ARN-146 On Top Position Indicators; sixteen (16) IP-1544A/ASQ-200 Horizontal Situation Video Displays (HSVD); eight (8) AN/ARC-174A (V)2 HF Radios; sixteen (16) AN/ARC182(V) UHF/UHF Radios; eight (8) PIN 70600-81010-011 Communication System Controllers; eight (8) GAU-16 50 Caliber Machine Guns; eight (8) M-60D/M-240 Machine Guns; eight (8) Internal Auxiliary Fuel Tanks; sixteen (16) External Auxiliary Fuel Tanks; and eight (8) C-11822/AWQ Controllers, Armament System. Also included are spares and repair parts, support and test equipment, communication equipment, ferry support, publications and technical documentation, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support. The estimated cost is $300 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a strategic regional partner, which has been, and continues to be, an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    Israel has been approved to receive eight (8) SH-60F Sea Hawk Helicopters via the Excess Defense Articles (EDA) Program under a separate notification. That separate notification included only the SH-60 airframes, thus this transmittal includes all the major components and customer-unique requirements requested to supplement the EDA grant transfer.

    Israel has purchased four new frigates to secure the Leviathan Natural Gas Field. The SH-60F helicopters will be used onboard these new frigates to patrol and protect these gas fields as well as other areas under threat.

    The proposed sale will improve Israel's capability to meet current and future threats. The SH-60F Sea-Hawk Helicopters along with the parts, systems, and support enumerated in this notification will provide the capability to perform troop/transport deployment, communications relay, gunfire support, and search and rescue. Secondary missions include vertical replenishment, combat search and rescue, and humanitarian missions. Israel will use the enhanced capability as a deterrent to regional threats and to strengthen its homeland defense. Israel will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The principal contractors will be Science and Engineering Services, LLC, Huntsville, Alabama, and General Electric (GE) of Lynn, Massachusetts. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will require the assignment of additional U.S. Government and/or contractor representatives to Israel.

    Transmittal No. 16-40 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The U.S. Navy primarily employed the SH-60F as an aircraft carrier based anti-submarine warfare aircraft and a search and rescue support aircraft during carrier flight operations. Unless otherwise noted below, SH-60F hardware and support equipment, test equipment and maintenance spares are UNCLASSIFIED.

    2. Global Positioning System (GPS)/Precise Positioning Service (PPS)/Selective Availability Anti-spoofing Module (SAASM). The GPS/PPS/SAASM provides a Space-based Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) that provides reliable location and time information in all weather at all times and anywhere on or near the Earth when the signal is unobstructed line of site to four or more GPS satellites.

    3. The AN/ARC-182-electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM) Radio is a combined Very High Frequency (VHF)/Ultra High Frequency (UHF) military communications system designed for all types of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. Small and light enough to be especially attractive for installation in the lighter aircraft classes, it covers the frequency bands from 30 to 88 MHz in FM, 116 to 156 MHz in AM, 156 to 174 MHz in FM and for the UHF band 225 to 400 MHz in both AM and FM modes. Additionally, a receiver-only facility covering the band 108 to 116 MHz is provided for navigation purposes. Channel spacing throughout the range is at 25 KHz intervals.

    4. The AN/ARC-174A (V)2 HF Radio provides capability to transmit and receive on Upper Sideband (USB), Lower Sideband (LSB), and Amplitude Modulation (AM).

    5. A determination has been made that Government of Israel can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Israel.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17466 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-27] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandelle K. Parker, DSCA/LMO, (703) 697-9027.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-27 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25JY16.016 Transmittal No. 16-27 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: United Arab Emirates

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $740 million Other  $45 million TOTAL $785 million

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) GBU-10 guidance kits

    Seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) Mk-84/BLU-117 bombs

    Five thousand nine hundred forty (5,940) GBU-12 guidance kits

    Five thousand nine hundred forty (5,940) Mk-82/BLU-111 bombs

    Five hundred (500) GBU-31V1 guidance kits

    Five hundred (500) Mk-84/BLU-117 bombs

    Five hundred (500) GBU-31V3 guidance kits

    Five hundred (500) BLU-109 bombs

    Fourteen thousand six hundred forty (14,640) FMU-152 fuzes

    Non-MDE:

    Also included is munitions support. The estimated value of this possible sale is $785 million.

    (iv) Military Department: USAF (AAD, A02)

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: SAA-$113,853,132-AUG 00, YAB-$156,304,329-AUG 02, YAC-$874,241,603-MAR 08, AAC-$13,467,991-JUN 11, AAD-$11,827,867-JAN 15, AAE-$130,000,000-OCT 15, AAF-$310,000,000-JAN 16

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed to be Sold: See Attached Annex.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 15 July 2016

    * as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    Policy Justification United Arab Emirates—Munitions, Sustainment, and Support

    The Government of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) requests approval to procure seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) GBU-10 guidance kits with seven thousand seven hundred (7,700) Mk-84/BLU-117 bombs, five thousand nine hundred forty (5,940) GBU-12 guidance kits with five thousand nine hundred forty (5,940) Mk-82/BLU-111 bombs, five hundred (500) GBU-31V1 guidance kits with five hundred (500) Mk-84/BLU-117 bombs, five hundred (500) GBU-31V3 guidance kits with five hundred (500) BLU-109 bombs, and fourteen thousand six hundred forty (14,640) FMU-152 fuzes. This sale also includes non-MDE munitions items. The total estimated value of MDE is $740 million. The overall total estimated value is $785 million.

    This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping the UAE remain an active member of the OPERATION INHERENT RESOLVE (OIR) coalition working to defeat the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). These munitions will sustain the UAE's efforts and support a key partner that remains an important force for political stability and economic progress in the Middle East.

    The proposed sale provides the UAE additional precision guided munitions to meet current and future threats. The UAE continues to provide host-nation support of vital U.S. forces stationed at Al Dhafra Air Base and plays a vital role in supporting U.S. regional interests. The UAE was a valued partner and active participant in OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF), OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF), OPERATION UNIFIED PROTECTOR (OUP), and now is a valued partner in OIR coalition operations.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The UAE will have no difficulties absorbing these munitions into its inventory.

    The munitions will be sourced through procurement and the contractor determined during contract negotiations. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    There are no additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives anticipated to be stationed in the UAE as a result of this potential sale.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-27 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The GBU-31 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) is a guidance tail kit that converts unguided free-fall bombs into accurate, Global Positioning System (GPS) guided adverse weather “smart” munitions. With the addition of a new tail section that contains an inertial navigational system (INS) and a GPS guidance control unit, JDAM improves the accuracy of unguided, general-purpose bombs in an all-weather condition. JDAM can be launched from very low to high altitudes in a dive, toss and loft, or in straight and level flight with an on-axis or off-axis delivery. JDAM enables multiple weapons to be directed against single or multiple targets on a single pass.

    a. The GBU-31V1 contains the standard 2,000-pound BLU-117 or Mk-84 bomb body. The GBU-31V3 contains the 2,000-pound BLU-109 penetrator bomb body. The highest classification for the JDAM, its components, and technical data is SECRET.

    b. Weapon accuracy depends on target coordinates and present position as entered into the guidance control unit. After weapon release, movable tail fins guide the weapon to the target coordinates. In addition to the tail kit, other elements in the overall system that are essential for successful employment include: Access to accurate target coordinates, INS/GPS capability, and Operational Test and Evaluation Plan.

    2. The GBU-12 is a 500-pound laser-guided ballistic bomb (LGB). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target. The LGB is delivered like a normal general-purpose (GP) warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators.

    a. The LGB consists of a laser guidance kit, a computer control group (CCG), and a warhead specific Air Foil Group (AFG), that attach to the nose and tail of Mk-82 or BLU-111 bomb bodies. The overall weapon is CONFIDENTIAL.

    3. The GBU-10 is a 2,000-pound laser-guided ballistic bomb (LGB). The LGB is a maneuverable, free-fall weapon that guides to a spot of laser energy reflected off of the target.

    The LGB is delivered like a normal GP warhead and the semi-active guidance corrects for many of the normal errors inherent in any delivery system. Laser designation for the weapon can be provided by a variety of laser target markers or designators.

    a. The LGB consists of a laser guidance kit, a CCG, and a warhead AFG that attach to the nose and tail of Mk-84 or BLU-117 bomb body. The overall weapon is CONFIDENTIAL.

    4. The FMU-152 is a multi-delay, multi-arm fuze and proximity sensor compatible with GP blast, fragmentation, and hardened-target penetrator warheads. The fuze is cockpit selectable in-flight (prior to release) when used with JDAM weapons. The FMU-152 interfaces with the GBU-10, GBU-12, and GBU-31 weapons among others. The hardware is UNCLASSIFIED.

    5. A determination has been made that the UAE can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government.

    6. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification. Moreover, the benefits to be derived from this sale outweigh the potential damage that could result if the sensitive technology were revealed to unauthorized persons.

    7. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to the UAE.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17483 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) Addressing the Closure of Former Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Moffett Field Located in Santa Clara County, California AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Availability (NOA) for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing the Closure of Former Defense Fuel Support Point (DFSP) Moffett Field located in Santa Clara County, CA.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 16, 2016, DLA published a NOA in the Federal Register announcing the publication of the EA addressing the Closure of DFSP Moffett Field in Santa Clara County, CA (81 FR 30266). The EA was available for a 30-day public comment period that ended June 15, 2016. The EA was prepared as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and complies with DLA Regulation 1000.22. No comments were received during the public comment period. This FONSI documents the decision of DLA to proceed with the Closure of DFSP Moffett Field. DLA has determined that the Proposed Action is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA and that no significant impacts on the human environment are associated with this decision.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stacey Christenbury at 703-767-6557 during normal business hours Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (EST) or by email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Cooperating Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

    DLA completed an EA to address the potential environmental consequences associated with the proposed closure of DFSP Moffett Field in Santa Clara County, CA. This FONSI incorporates the EA by reference and summarizes the results of the analyses in the EA. The final EA is available in hardcopy at the Mountain View Public Library, located at 585 Franklin Street, Mountain View, California 94041, Phone: (650) 903-6337 or electronically at http://www.dla.mil/Portals/104/Documents/Energy/Publications/E_Moffett_FinalEA_160713.pdf?ver=2016-07-13-120724-920.

    Purpose and Need for Action: The purpose of the Proposed Action is to reduce environmental risks associated with the five closed USTs; address two Notices of Violation that DLA Energy, received in March 2015 from the State of California Water Resources Control Board and County of Santa Clara regarding improper UST maintenance; and eliminate aging infrastructure no longer required to meet the Department of Defense mission. DLA Energy received the Notices of Violation based upon the State of California Water Resources Control Board and County of Santa Clara's determination that DLA is not maintaining the five USTs in compliance with California and Santa Clara County codes after the USTs were emptied and cleaned in 2005. The Proposed Action is therefore also necessary to resolve State of California Water Resources Control Board and County of Santa Clara assertions that DLA is not in compliance with the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 16, Article 7, Underground Storage Tank Requirements, and Unified Facilities Criterion 3-460-0. DLA Energy is committed to closure of these tanks, as well as implementation of a phased closure agreement (Phase II) with the Santa Clara Environmental Health Department.

    Proposed Action and Alternatives: Under the Proposed Action, DLA proposes to permanently close DFSP Moffett Field. Under this proposal the fuel facility infrastructure would be physically disconnected, abandoned in place, dismantled, and/or demolished. NASA would continue to be the property owner of the parcel. The Proposed Action involves the closure of the five USTs and associated pipelines, truck fill stands, high-speed aircraft fueling hydrants, and related infrastructure (e.g., manhole vaults, pumps, pump houses, pump pads, hydrants, racks, cathodic protection system).

    Description of the No Action Alternative: Under the No Action Alternative, DFSP Moffett Field's former fuel facilities would remain in their current nonclosure status and the State of California Water Resources Control Board and County of Santa Clara, would continue to consider the site in violation of state and county environmental regulations for the failure to be properly closed. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would leave the DFSP Moffett Field facilities in a caretaker status. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose of and need for the Proposed Action.

    Potential Environmental Impacts: No significant effects on environmental resources would be expected from the Proposed Action. Potential insignificant, adverse effects on air quality, biological resources, geology, water resources, hazardous materials and waste, noise, and transportation could be expected. No effects on cultural resources, environmental justice, land use, public health and safety, socioeconomics, recreation, utilities, or visual resources would be expected. Details of the environmental consequences are discussed in the EA, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

    Determination: Based on the analysis of the Proposed Action's potential impacts to the human environment from routine operations, it was concluded that the Proposed Action would produce no significant adverse impacts. Human environment was interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. No significant cumulative effects were identified. Implementation of the Proposed Action will not violate any Federal, state, or local laws. Based on the results of the analyses performed during preparation of the EA, Ms. Mary D. Miller, Director, DLA Installation Support, concludes that the Closure of DFSP Moffett Field in Santa Clara County, CA does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the context of NEPA. Therefore, an environmental impact statement for the Proposed Action is not required.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17504 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2013-OS-0068] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs announces the proposed extension of a public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to: The Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, ATTN: CPO (Adrien F. Creecy-Starks), 1400 Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1400, or call the Directorate for Community and Public Outreach at (703) 695-3845.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Armed Forces Participation in Public Events (Non-Aviation), DD Form 2536 and Request for Military Aerial Support, DD Form 2535; OMB Control Number 0704-0290.

    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement is necessary to evaluate the eligibility of events to receive Armed Forces community relations support and to determine whether requested military assets are available.

    Affected Public: State, local, or tribal governments; Federal agencies or employees; for-profit and non-profit institutions; and individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 17,850.

    Number of Respondents: 51,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Average Burden per Response: 21 minutes.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondents are individuals or representatives of Federal and non-Federal government agencies, community groups, for-profit and non-profit organizations, and civic organizations requesting Armed Forces support for patriotic events conducted in the civilian domain. DD Forms 2535 and 2536 record the type of military support requested, event data, and sponsoring organization information. The completed forms provide the Armed Forces the minimum information necessary to determine whether an event is eligible for military participation and whether the desired support is permissible and/or available. If the forms are not provided, the review process is greatly increased because the Armed Forces must make additional written and telephonic inquiries with the event sponsor. In addition, use of the forms reduces the event sponsor's preparation time because the forms provide a detailed outline of information required, eliminate the need for a detailed letter, and contain concise information necessary for determining appropriateness of military support. Use of the forms is essential to reduce preparation and processing time, increase productivity, and maximize responsiveness to the public.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17457 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Transmittal No. 16-39] 36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification AGENCY:

    Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated July 21, 1996.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chandelle K. Parker, DSCA/LMO, (703) 697-9027.

    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Transmittal 16-39 with attached Policy Justification and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. EN25JY16.015 Transmittal No. 16-39 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended

    (i) Prospective Purchaser: Government of Chile

    (ii) Total Estimated Value:

    Major Defense Equipment * $73.2 million Other $66.9 million TOTAL $140.1 million *as defined in Section 47(6) of the Arms Export Control Act.

    (iii) Description and Quantity or Quantities of Articles or Services Under Consideration for Purchase:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Thirty-three (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)

    Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles

    Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII

    Non-MDE:

    This request also includes the following Non-MDE: Five (5) ESSM Shipping Containers, Five (5) MK-73 Continuous Wave Illumination Transmitters, Ten (10) MK25 Quad Pack Containers, One (1) Inertial Missile Initializer Power Supply (IMIPS), canisters, spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, technical assistance, installation and integration oversight support, logistics, program management, packaging and transportation.

    (iv) Military Department: Navy

    (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: CI-P-AFO, P&A data

    (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, Offered, or Agreed To Be Paid: None

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology Contained in the Defense Article or Defense Services Proposed To Be Sold: See Annex attached.

    (viii) Date Report Delivered to Congress: 1 July 2016

    POLICY JUSTIFCATION Chile—Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs):

    The Government of Chile has requested a possible sale of:

    Major Defense Equipment (MDE):

    Thirty-three (33) Evolved Seasparrow Missiles (ESSMs)

    Six (6) Evolved Seasparrow Telemetry Missiles

    Three (3) MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS), tactical version, baseline VII

    Non-MDE:

    This request also includes the following Non-MDE: Ten (10) MK25 Quad Pack Canisters; Five (5) ESSM Shipping Containers; Five (5) MK-73 Continuous Wave Illumination Transmitters, One (1) Inertial Missile Initializer Power Supply (IMIPS); spare and repair parts, support and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, technical assistance, installation and integration oversight support, logistics, program management, packaging and transportation.

    The total estimated value of MDE is $73.2 million. The total overall estimated value is $140.1 million.

    This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by increasing Chile's ability to contribute to regional security and promoting interoperability with the U.S. forces. The sale will provide upgraded air defense capabilities on Chile's type 23 frigates. The proposed sale improves Chile's capability to deter regional threats and strengthen its homeland defense. Chile will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.

    The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.

    The prime contractors will be Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, BAE Systems, Aberdeen, South Dakota, and Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD. There are no known offset agreements proposed in connection with this potential sale.

    Implementation of this proposed sale will not require the assignment of any additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Chile.

    There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.

    Transmittal No. 16-39 Notice of Proposed Issuance of Letter of Offer Pursuant to Section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act Annex Item No. vii

    (vii) Sensitivity of Technology:

    1. The sale of Evolved Seasparrow missiles (ESSM) under this proposed FMS case will result in the transfer of classified missile equipment to Chile. Both classified and unclassified defense equipment and technical data will be transferred. The missile includes the guidance section, warhead section, transition section, propulsion section, control section and Thrust Vector Control (TVC), of which the guidance section and transition section are classified CONFIDENTIAL. Standard missile documentation to be provided under this FMS case will include:

    a. Parametric documents classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    b. Missile Handling/Maintenance Procedures.

    c. General Performance Data classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    d. Firing Guidance classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    e. Dynamics Information classified CONFIDENTIAL.

    2. The MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) is a fixed, vertical, multi-missile launching system with the capability to store and launch multiple missile variants depending on the warfighting mission. MK 41 VLS is a modular, below-deck configuration with each module consisting of 8 missile cells with an associated gas management and deluge system. The highest classification of the hardware to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest classification of the technical documentation to be exported is UNCLASSIFIED. The highest classification of software to be exported is CONFIDENTIAL.

    3. The proposed sale of ESSM under this FMS case will result in the transfer of sensitive technological information and or restricted information contained in the missile guidance section. Certain operating frequencies and performance characteristics are classified SECRET because they could be used to develop tactics and/or countermeasures to reduce or defeat missile effectiveness.

    4. If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the specific hardware and software elements, primarily performance characteristics, engagement algorithms, and transmitter specific frequencies, the information could be used to develop countermeasures that might reduce weapon system effectiveness.

    5. A determination has been made that the recipient country can provide substantially the same degree of protection for the sensitive technology being released as the U.S. Government. This sale is necessary in furtherance of the U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives outlined in the Policy Justification.

    6. All defense articles and services listed in this transmittal have been authorized for release and export to Chile.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17472 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2012-OS-0014] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Logistics Agency, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Defense Logistics Agency announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 23, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters, ATTN: Mr. Robert Bednarcik, J33, 8725 John J. Kingman Rd., Ft. Belvoir, VA 22060-6221; or call (703)767-1178.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: End-Use Certificate, DLA Form 1822, OMB No. 0704-0382.

    Needs and Uses: All individuals wishing to acquire DOD/Government property identified as U.S. Munitions List Items (MLI) or Commerce Control List Item (CCLI) must complete this form each time they enter into a transaction. It is used to clear recipients to ensure their eligibility to conduct business with the government. That they are not debarred bidders; Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) or Blocked Persons; have not violated U.S. export laws; will not divert the property to denied/sanctioned countries, unauthorized destinations or sell to debarred/Bidder Experience List firms or individuals. The EUC informs the recipients that when this property is to be exported, they must comply with the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), 22 CFR 120 et seq.; Export Administration Regulations (EAR), 15 CFR 730 et seq.; Office of Foreign Asset Controls (OFAC), 31 CFR 500 et seq.; and the United States Customs Service rules and regulations.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions.

    Annual Burden Hours: 14,000.

    Number of Respondents: 42,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 42,000.

    Average Burden per Response: .33 hours (20 minutes).

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are individuals/businesses/contractors who receive defense property identified as U.S. Munitions List Items and Commerce Control List Items through: Purchase, exchange/trade sale, authorized transfer or donation. They are checked to determine if they are responsible, not debarred bidders, Specially Designated Nationals or Blocked Persons, or have not violated U.S. export laws.

    The form is available on the DOD DEMIL/Trade Security Controls Web page, DLA Disposition Services usable property sales Web page, General Services Administration (GSA) auction Web page, and Defense Contract Management Agency offices, FormFlow and ProForm.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17456 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy [Docket ID: USN-2013-0032] 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 24, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form And OMB Number: United States Naval Academy Sponsor Application; OMB Control Number 0703-0054.

    Type Of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Number of Respondents: 800.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 800.

    Average Burden per Response: 1 hour.

    Annual Burden Hours: 800.

    Needs And Uses: This collection of information is necessary to determine the eligibility and overall compatibility between sponsor applicants and Fourth Class Midshipmen at the United States Naval Academy. An analysis of the information collection is made by the Sponsor Program Director during the process in order to best match sponsors with Midshipmen.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    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 20, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17487 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Extension of Public Comment Period on the Environmental Assessment Addressing the Consolidation and Renovation at Marine Corps Forces Reserve Center Brooklyn, New York AGENCY:

    Department of the Navy, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Navy (DoN) is extending the public comment period for the Environmental Assessment (EA) assessing the potential environmental impacts from the consolidation of approximately 55 full-time active duty and 549 reserve staff and their equipment from the Armed Forces Reserve Center Farmingdale and Marine Forces Reserve Center Garden City to Marine Corps Reserve Center Brooklyn published on June 29, 2016 (81 FR 42338). The comment period scheduled to end July 15, 2016 is extended to August 15, 2016. This action will allow interested persons additional time to analyze the issues and prepare their comments. The EA can be viewed at: www.marforres.marines.mil/GeneralSpecialStaff/Facilities.aspx.

    DATES:

    The EA public review period is extended to August 15, 2016.

    FURTHER INFORMATION:

    Mr. Christopher Hurst, NEPA Project Manager, U.S. Marine Corps Forces Reserve, 2000 Opelousas Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70114, or by email at [email protected]

    Dated: July 19, 2016. N. A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17537 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Applications for New Awards; Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program AGENCY:

    Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Overview Information: Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program Notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2016.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.160C.

    DATES:

    Applications Available: July 25, 2016.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 24, 2016.

    Full Text of Announcement I. Funding Opportunity Description

    Purpose of Program: Under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act), as amended by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) makes grants to public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, to establish interpreter training programs or to provide financial assistance for ongoing interpreter training programs to train a sufficient number of qualified interpreters throughout the country. The grants are designed to train interpreters to effectively interpret and transliterate using spoken, visual, and tactile modes of communication; ensure the maintenance of the interpreting skills of qualified interpreters; and provide opportunities for interpreters to improve their skills in order to meet both the highest standards approved by certifying associations and the communication needs of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and individuals who are deaf-blind.

    Priority: This priority is from the notice of final priority for this program published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register (NFP).

    Absolute Priority: For FY 2016, this priority is an absolute priority. Under 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we consider only applications that meet this priority.

    This priority is:

    Experiential Learning Model Demonstration Center for Novice Interpreters and Baccalaureate Degree ASL-English Interpretation Programs.

    Program Authority: 29 U.S.C. 772(f).

    Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 79, 81, 82, 84, 86, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474. (d) The regulations for this program in 34 CFR part 396. (e) The NFP.

    II. Award Information

    Type of Award: Cooperative agreement.

    Estimated Available Funds: $800,000.

    Estimated Number of Awards: 1.

    Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

    Note: Under 34 CFR 75.562(c), an indirect cost reimbursement on a training grant is limited to the recipient's actual indirect costs, as determined by its negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, or eight percent of a modified total direct cost base, whichever amount is less. Indirect costs in excess of the limit may not be charged directly, used to satisfy matching or cost-sharing requirements, or charged to another Federal award.

    Project Period: Up to 60 months.

    Continuing the Fourth and Fifth Years of the Project: In deciding whether to continue funding the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind program for the fourth and fifth years, the Department will conduct a one-day intensive review meeting during the third quarter of the third year of the project period. Specific details of this review and evaluation criteria will be established in the cooperative agreement.

    III. Eligibility Information

    1. Eligible Applicants: Baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs that are recognized and accredited by the Commission on Collegiate Interpreter Education (CCIE) are eligible to apply as lead applicants in the consortium. States and public or nonprofit agencies and organizations, including institutions of higher education, such as baccalaureate degree ASL-English interpretation programs that are not CCIE accredited, are not eligible to be lead applicants but are eligible to be members of the consortium.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching: The Commissioner may award grants to public or private nonprofit agencies or organizations to pay part of the costs for interpreter training programs (section 302(f)(1)(A) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973). Therefore, in order to be considered for funding, applicants must identify in the application budget and budget narrative a 10 percent match towards the total cost of the project. In order to calculate match, applicants may use the match-calculator available at: https://rsa.ed.gov/match-calculator.cfm.

    IV. Application and Submission Information

    1. Address To Request Application Package: You can obtain an application package via the Internet or from the Education Publications Center (ED Pubs). To obtain a copy via the Internet, use the following address: www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/grantapps/index.html. To obtain a copy from ED Pubs, write, fax, or call: ED Pubs, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 22207, Alexandria, VA 22304. Telephone, toll free: 1-877-433-7827. FAX: (703) 605-6794. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call, toll free: 1-877-576-7734.

    You can contact ED Pubs at its Web site, also: www.EDPubs.gov or at its email address: [email protected]

    If you request an application package from ED Pubs, be sure to identify this program or competition as follows: CFDA number 84.160C.

    Individuals with disabilities can obtain a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) by contacting the person or team listed under Accessible Format in section VIII of this notice.

    2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Requirements concerning the content and form of an application, together with the forms you must submit, are in the application package for this competition.

    Page Limit: The application narrative (Part III of the application) is where you, the applicant, address the selection criteria that reviewers use to evaluate your application. Because of the limited time available to review applications and make a recommendation for funding, we strongly encourage applicants to limit the application narrative to no more than 60 pages, using the following standards:

    • A “page” is 8.5″ × 11″, on one side only, with 1” margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

    • Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

    • Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).

    • Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial. An application submitted in any other font (including Times Roman or Arial Narrow) will not be accepted.

    In addition to the page-limit guidance on the application narrative section, we recommend that you adhere to the following page limits, using the standards listed above: (1) The abstract should be no more than one page, (2) the resumes of key personnel should be no more than two pages per person, and (3) a bibliography should be no more than three pages. Appendix A must include: (1) A logic model; (2) a Memorandum of Understanding or a Letter of Intent between the lead applicant, members of the consortium, other proposed training and TA providers, and other relevant partners; (3) a conceptual framework for the project; and (4) person-loading charts and timelines. There are no page limits or standards for materials in Appendix A. The only optional materials that will be accepted are letters of support. Please note that our reviewers are not required to read optional materials.

    Please note that any funded applicant's application abstract will be made available to the public.

    3. Submission Dates and Times:

    Applications Available: July 25, 2016.

    Date of Pre-Application: Interested parties are invited to submit questions to the following email address: [email protected] In the subject line of the email, please insert the text “CFDA 84.160C”. Interested parties are invited to participate in a pre-application teleconference with staff from the Department at 3:00 p.m. on July 28, 2016. The teleconference number is: 800-369-1883, and the passcode is: 2888105. For further information about the pre-application teleconference, contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice.

    Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: August 24, 2016.

    Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically using the Grants.gov Apply site (Grants.gov). For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application electronically, or in paper format by mail or hand delivery if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice.

    We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.

    Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice. If the Department provides an accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

    Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: October 24, 2016.

    4. Intergovernmental Review: This competition is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. However, under 34 CFR 79.8(a), we waive intergovernmental review in order to make an award by the end of FY 2016.

    5. Funding Restrictions: We reference regulations outlining funding restrictions in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    6. Data Universal Numbering System Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department of Education, you must—

    a. Have a Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

    b. Register both your DUNS number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

    c. Provide your DUNS number and TIN on your application; and

    d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

    You can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet at the following Web site: http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform. A DUNS number can be created within one to two business days.

    If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

    The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter into the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your DUNS number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.

    Note: Once your SAM registration is active, it may be 24 to 48 hours before you can access the information in, and submit an application through, Grants.gov.

    If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

    Information about SAM is available at www.SAM.gov. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your DUNS number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find at: http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/sam-faqs.html.

    In addition, if you are submitting your application via Grants.gov, you must (1) be designated by your organization as an Authorized Organization Representative (AOR); and (2) register yourself with Grants.gov as an AOR. Details on these steps are outlined at the following Grants.gov Web page: www.grants.gov/web/grants/register.html.

    7. Other Submission Requirements: Applications for grants under this competition must be submitted electronically unless you qualify for an exception to this requirement in accordance with the instructions in this section.

    a. Electronic Submission of Applications.

    Applications for grants under the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program must be submitted electronically using the Governmentwide Grants.gov Apply site at www.Grants.gov. Through this site, you will be able to download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit your application. You may not email an electronic copy of a grant application to us.

    We will reject your application if you submit it in paper format unless, as described elsewhere in this section, you qualify for one of the exceptions to the electronic submission requirement and submit, no later than two weeks before the application deadline date, a written statement to the Department that you qualify for one of these exceptions. Further information regarding calculation of the date that is two weeks before the application deadline date is provided later in this section under Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement.

    You may access the electronic grant application for the Training of Interpreters for Individuals Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing and Individuals Who Are Deaf-Blind Program at www.Grants.gov. You must search for the downloadable application package for this competition by the CFDA number. Do not include the CFDA number's alpha suffix in your search (e.g., search for 84.160, not 84.160C).

    Please note the following:

    • When you enter the Grants.gov site, you will find information about submitting an application electronically through the site, as well as the hours of operation.

    • Applications received by Grants.gov are date and time stamped. Your application must be fully uploaded and submitted and must be date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system no later than 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. Except as otherwise noted in this section, we will not accept your application if it is received—that is, date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system—after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements. When we retrieve your application from Grants.gov, we will notify you if we are rejecting your application because it was date and time stamped by the Grants.gov system after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date.

    • The amount of time it can take to upload an application will vary depending on a variety of factors, including the size of the application and the speed of your Internet connection. Therefore, we strongly recommend that you do not wait until the application deadline date to begin the submission process through Grants.gov.

    • You should review and follow the Education Submission Procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov that are included in the application package for this competition to ensure that you submit your application in a timely manner to the Grants.gov system. You can also find the Education Submission Procedures pertaining to Grants.gov under News and Events on the Department's G5 system home page at www.G5.gov. In addition, for specific guidance and procedures for submitting an application through Grants.gov, please refer to the Grants.gov Web site at: www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/apply-for-grants.html.

    • You will not receive additional point value because you submit your application in electronic format, nor will we penalize you if you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, as described elsewhere in this section, and submit your application in paper format.

    • You must submit all documents electronically, including all information you typically provide on the following forms: the Application for Federal Assistance (SF 424), the Department of Education Supplemental Information for SF 424, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs (ED 524), and all necessary assurances and certifications.

    • You must upload any narrative sections and all other attachments to your application as files in a read-only, non-modifiable Portable Document Format (PDF). Do not upload an interactive or fillable PDF file. If you upload a file type other than a read-only, non-modifiable PDF (e.g., Word, Excel, WordPerfect, etc.) or submit a password-protected file, we will not review that material. Please note that this could result in your application not being considered for funding because the material in question—for example, the project narrative—is critical to a meaningful review of your proposal. For that reason, it is important to allow yourself adequate time to upload all material as PDF files. The Department will not convert material from other formats to PDF.

    • Your electronic application must comply with any page-limit requirements described in this notice.

    • After you electronically submit your application, you will receive from Grants.gov an automatic notification of receipt that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. This notification indicates receipt by Grants.gov only, not receipt by the Department. Grants.gov will also notify you automatically by email if your application met all the Grants.gov validation requirements or if there were any errors (such as submission of your application by someone other than a registered Authorized Organization Representative or inclusion of an attachment with a file name that contains special characters). You will be given an opportunity to correct any errors and resubmit, but you must still meet the deadline for submission of applications.

    Once your application is successfully validated by Grants.gov, the Department will retrieve your application from Grants.gov and send you an email with a unique PR/Award number for your application.

    These emails do not mean that your application is without any disqualifying errors. While your application may have been successfully validated by Grants.gov, it must also meet the Department's application requirements as specified in this notice and in the application instructions. Disqualifying errors could include, for instance, failure to upload attachments in a read-only, non-modifiable PDF; failure to submit a required part of the application; or failure to meet applicant eligibility requirements. It is your responsibility to ensure that your submitted application has met all of the Department's requirements.

    • We may request that you provide us original signatures on forms at a later date.

    Application Deadline Date Extension in Case of Technical Issues with the Grants.gov System: If you are experiencing problems submitting your application through Grants.gov, please contact the Grants.gov Support Desk, toll free, at 1-800-518-4726. You must obtain a Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number and must keep a record of it.

    If you are prevented from electronically submitting your application on the application deadline date because of technical problems with the Grants.gov system, we will grant you an extension until 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, the following business day to enable you to transmit your application electronically or by hand delivery. You also may mail your application by following the mailing instructions described elsewhere in this notice.

    If you submit an application after 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in section VII of this notice and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced with Grants.gov, along with the Grants.gov Support Desk Case Number. We will accept your application if we can confirm that a technical problem occurred with the Grants.gov system and that the problem affected your ability to submit your application by 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, on the application deadline date. We will contact you after we determine whether your application will be accepted.

    Note: The extensions to which we refer in this section apply only to the unavailability of, or technical problems with, the Grants.gov system. We will not grant you an extension if you failed to fully register to submit your application to Grants.gov before the application deadline date and time or if the technical problem you experienced is unrelated to the Grants.gov system.

    Exception to Electronic Submission Requirement: You qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, and may submit your application in paper format, if you are unable to submit an application through the Grants.gov system because—

    • You do not have access to the Internet; or

    • You do not have the capacity to upload large documents to the Grants.gov system; and

    • No later than two weeks before the application deadline date (14 calendar days or, if the fourteenth calendar day before the application deadline date falls on a Federal holiday, the next business day following the Federal holiday), you mail or fax a written statement to the Department, explaining which of the two grounds for an exception prevents you from using the Internet to submit your application.

    If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than two weeks before the application deadline date. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than two weeks before the application deadline date.

    Address and mail or fax your statement to: Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5062, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. FAX: (202) 245-7591.

    Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand-delivery instructions described in this notice.

    b. Submission of Paper Applications by Mail.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you may mail (through the U.S. Postal Service or a commercial carrier) your application to the Department. You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.160C), LBJ Basement Level 1, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:

    (1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.

    (2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.

    (3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.

    (4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.

    If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:

    (1) A private metered postmark.

    (2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.

    Note: The U.S. Postal Service does not uniformly provide a dated postmark. Before relying on this method, you should check with your local post office.

    We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date.

    c. Submission of Paper Applications by Hand Delivery.

    If you qualify for an exception to the electronic submission requirement, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline date, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Application Control Center, Attention: (CFDA Number 84.160C), 550 12th Street SW., Room 7039, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-4260.

    The Application Control Center accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.

    Note for Mail or Hand Delivery of Paper Applications: If you mail or hand deliver your application to the Department—

    (1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the CFDA number, including suffix letter, if any, of the competition under which you are submitting your application; and

    (2) The Application Control Center will mail to you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should call the U.S. Department of Education Application Control Center at (202) 245-6288.

    V. Application Review Information

    1. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria for this competition are from 34 CFR 75.210 of EDGAR and are listed in the application package.

    2. Review and Selection Process: We remind potential applicants that in reviewing applications in any discretionary grant competition, the Secretary may consider, under 34 CFR 75.217(d)(3), the past performance of the applicant in carrying out a previous award, such as the applicant's use of funds, achievement of project objectives, and compliance with grant conditions. The Secretary may also consider whether the applicant failed to submit a timely performance report or submitted a report of unacceptable quality.

    In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Education (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    3. Risk Assessment and Special Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.205, before awarding grants under this competition, the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 3474.10, the Secretary may impose special conditions and, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

    4. Integrity and Performance System: If you are selected under this competition to receive an award that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), under 2 CFR 200.205(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through SAM. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

    Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

    VI. Award Administration Information

    1. Award Notices: If your application is successful, we notify your U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators and send you a Grant Award Notification (GAN), or we may send you an email containing a link to access an electronic version of your GAN. We may notify you informally, also.

    If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.

    2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements:

    We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

    We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the GAN. The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

    3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this competition, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding under the competition. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

    (b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/fund/grant/apply/appforms/appforms.html.

    (c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case, the Secretary establishes a data collection period.

    4. Performance Measures: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) directs Federal departments and agencies to improve the effectiveness of their programs by engaging in strategic planning, setting outcome-related goals for programs, and measuring program results against those goals.

    The performance measures for this program are as follows:

    (1) The number of individuals enrolled in the experiential learning program, by cohort.

    (2) The average length of time each individual interacted with the local deaf community, by cohort.

    (3) The number and percentage of individuals who successfully complete the experiential learning program, by cohort.

    (4) The number and percentage of individuals who successfully pass the National Interpreter Certification test, by cohort.

    (5) The average length of time for each individual to successfully pass the National Interpreter Certification test, by cohort.

    5. Continuation Awards: In making a continuation award under 34 CFR 75.253, the Secretary considers, among other things: whether a grantee has made substantial progress in achieving the goals and objectives of the project; whether the grantee has expended funds in a manner that is consistent with its approved application and budget; and, if the Secretary has established performance measurement requirements, the performance targets in the grantee's approved application.

    In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).

    VII. Agency Contact FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Rhinehart-Fernandez, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 5062, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6103 or by email: [email protected]

    If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

    VIII. Other Information

    Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under For Further Information Contact in section VII of this notice.

    Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys. At this site, you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

    You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Sue Swenson, Acting Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17406 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Orders Granting Authority To Import and Export Natural Gas, To Import and Export Liquefied Natural Gas, To Vacate Authority, and Errata During June 2016 FE Docket Nos. BARCLAYS BANK PLC 16-127-NG. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LP 15-169-LNG. PAA NATURAL GAS STORAGE ULC 16-53-NG. FLINT HILLS RESOURCES, LP 15-168-LNG. HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY LP 16-62-NG. BG ENERGY MERCHANTS, LLC 16-74-NG. SOUTHWEST ENERGY, L.P 16-64-NG. IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT 16-69-NG. BP CANADA ENERGY MARKETING CORP 16-68-NG. PENGROWTH ENERGY MARKETING CORPORATION 16-73-NG. NEXEN ENERGY MARKETING U.S.A. INC 16-70-NG. MERCURIA ENERGY AMERICA, INC 16-71-NG. CONCORD ENERGY LLC 16-77-NG. BP ENERGY COMPANY 16-72-LNG. UNION GAS LIMITED 16-79-NG. CONCORD ENERGY LLC 16-80-NG. ENERGY SOURCE NATURAL GAS INC 16-75-NG. ST. LAWRENCE GAS COMPANY, INC 16-76-NG. J. ARON & COMPANY 16-82-NG. INFINITE ENERGY, INC 16-81-NG. MORGAN STANLEY CAPITAL GROUP INC 16-84-NG. AGENCY:

    Office of Fossil Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of orders.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of Energy gives notice that during June 2016, it issued orders granting authority to import and export natural gas, to import and export liquefied natural gas (LNG), to vacate authority, and errata. These orders are summarized in the attached appendix and may be found on the FE Web site at http://energy.gov/fe/listing-doefe-authorizationsorders-issued-2016.

    They are also available for inspection and copying in the U.S. Department of Energy (FE-34), Division of Natural Gas Regulation, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Fossil Energy, Docket Room 3E-033, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-9478. The Docket Room is open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 19, 2016. John A. Anderson, Director, Office of Regulation and International Engagement, Office of Oil and Natural Gas. APPENDIX DOE/FE ORDERS GRANTING IMPORT/EXPORT AUTHORIZATIONS Order No. Date Docket No. Company Description 3706-A 06/09/16 15-127-NG Barclays Bank Plc Order 3706-A vacating Order 3706 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 3822 06/13/16 15-169-LNG Flint Hills Resources, LP Order 3822 granting blanket authority to export LNG to Free Trade Agreement Countries by truck, rail, barge, and non-barge waterborne vessels. 3828-A 06/16/16 16-53-NG PAA Natural Gas Storage ULC Order 3828-A vacating Order 3828 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3829-Errata 06/06/16 15-168-LNG Flint Hills Resources, LP Errata adding API as intervenor. 3834-A 06/27/16 16-62-NG Houston Pipe Line Company LP Order 3834-A vacating Order 3834 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Mexico. 3841 06/09/16 16-74-NG BG Energy Merchants, LLC Order 3841 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3842 06/09/16 16-64-NG Southwest Energy, L.P Order 3842 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3843 06/09/16 16-69-NG Imperial Irrigation District Order 3843 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Mexico. 3844 06/09/16 16-68-NG BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp Order 3844 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3845 06/09/16 16-73-NG Pengrowth Energy Marketing Corporation Order 3845 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 3847 06/10/16 16-70-NG Nexen Energy Marketing U.S.A. Inc Order 3847 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3848 06/10/16 16-71-NG Mercuria Energy Marketing, Inc Order 3848 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3849 06/13/16 16-77-NG Concord Energy LLC Order 3849 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3850 06/13/16 16-72-LNG BP Energy Company Order 3850 granting blanket authority to import LNG from various sources by vessel. 3851 06/16/16 16-79-NG Union Gas Limited Order 3851 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3852 06/16/16 16-80-NG Concord Energy LLC Order 3852 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3853 06/17/16 16-75-NG Energy Source National Gas Inc Order 3853 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3854 06/16/16 16-76-NG St. Lawrence Gas Company, Inc Order 3854 granting blanket authority to import natural gas from Canada. 3855 06/17/16 16-82-NG J. Aron & Company Order 3855 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico. 3856 06/17/16 16-81-NG Infinite Energy, Inc Order 3856 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada. 3857 06/21/16 16-84-NG Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc Order 3857 granting blanket authority to import/export natural gas from/to Canada/Mexico.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17473 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0466, 3060-0799 and 3060-1078] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before August 24, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Cathy Williams, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0466.

    Title: Sections 73.1201, 74.783 and 74.1283, Station Identification.

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not for-profit institutions; State, local or Tribal Government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 24,083 respondents; 24,083 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.166-1 hour.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement; Recordkeeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or maintain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 303, 307 and 308.

    Total Annual Burden: 23,249 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: None.

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

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Needs and Uses: 47 CFR 73.1201(a) requires television broadcast licensees to make broadcast station identification announcements at the beginning and ending of each time of operation, and hourly, as close to the hour as feasible, at a natural break in program offerings. Television and Class A television broadcast stations may make these announcements visually or aurally.

    47 CFR 74.783(b) requires licensees of television translators whose station identification is made by the television station whose signals are being rebroadcast by the translator, must secure agreement with this television station licensee to keep in its file, and available to FCC personnel, the translator's call letters and location, giving the name, address and telephone number of the licensee or his service representative to be contacted in the event of malfunction of the translator. It shall be the responsibility of the translator licensee to furnish current information to the television station licensee for this purpose.

    47 CFR 73.1201(b)(1) requires that the official station identification consist of the station's call letters immediately followed by the community or communities specified in its license as the station's location. The name of the licensee, the station's frequency, the station's channel number, as stated on the station's license, and/or the station's network affiliation may be inserted between the call letters and station location. Digital Television (DTV) stations, or DAB Stations, choosing to include the station's channel number in the station identification must use the station's major channel number and may distinguish multicast program streams. For example, a DTV station with major channel number 26 may use 26.1 to identify a High Definition Television (HDTV) program service and 26.2 to identify a Standard Definition Television (SDTV) program service. A radio station operating in DAB hybrid mode or extended hybrid mode shall identify its digital signal, including any free multicast audio programming streams, in a manner that appropriately alerts its audience to the fact that it is listening to a digital audio broadcast. No other insertion between the station's call letters and the community or communities specified in its license is permissible. A station may include in its official station identification the name of any additional community or communities, but the community to which the station is licensed must be named first.

    47 CFR 74.783(e) permits low power TV permittees or licensees to request to be assigned four-letter call signs in lieu of the five-character alpha-numeric call signs.

    47 CFR 74.1283(c)(1) requires a FM translator station licensee whose identification is made by the primary station must arrange for the primary station licensee to furnish the translator's call letters and location (name, address, and telephone number of the licensee or service representative) to the FCC. The licensee must keep this information in the primary station's files.

    OMB Control No.: 3060-0799.

    Title: FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services.

    Form No.: FCC Form 602.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Not-for-profit institutions; and State, Local or Tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 4,115 respondents and 4,115 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .5 hours-1.5 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

    Obligation To Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this collection of this information is contained in sections 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The statutory authority for this collection of this information is contained in sections 154(i), 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 5,217 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $762,300.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: In general there is no need for confidentiality. On a case by case basis, the Commission may be required to withhold from disclosure certain information about the location, character, or ownership of a historic property, including traditional religious sites.

    Needs and Uses: The FCC Form 602 is necessary to obtain the identity of the filer and to elicit information required by section 1.2112 of the Commission's rules regarding: (1) Persons or entities holding a 10 percent or greater direct or indirect ownership interest or any general partners in a general partnership holding a direct or indirect ownership interest in the applicant (“Disclosable Interest Holders”); and (2) All FCC-regulated entities in which the filer or any of its Disclosable Interest Holders owns a 10 percent or greater interest. The data collected on the FCC Form 602 includes the FCC Registration Number (FRN), which serves as a “common link” for all filings an entity has with the FCC. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that entities filing with the Commission use an FRN. The FCC Form 602 was designed for, and must be filed electronically by, all licensees that hold licenses in auctionable services.

    The FCC Form 602 is comprised of the Main Form containing information regarding the filer and the Schedule A is used to collect ownership data pertaining to the Disclosable Interest Holder(s). Each Disclosable Interest Holder will have a separate Schedule A. Thus, a filer will submit its FCC Form 602 with multiple copies of Schedule A, as necessary, to list each Disclosable Interest Holder and associated information.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-1078.

    Title: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit institutions; Individuals or households.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 5,443,062 respondents; 5,443,062 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1-10 hours (average per response).

    Frequency of Response: Recordkeeping requirement; On occasion reporting requirements; Third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. The statutory authority for this information collection is the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, 15 U.S.C. 7701-7713, Public Law 108-187, 117 Stat. 2719.

    Total Annual Burden: 30,254,373 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $12,935,843.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Confidentiality is an issue to the extent that individuals and households provide personally identifiable information, which is covered under the FCC's updated system of records notice (SORN), FCC/CGB-1, “Informal Complaints, Inquiries and Requests for Dispute Assistance”, which became effective on September 24, 2014.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: The Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for Informal Complaints and Inquiries was completed on June 28, 2007. It may be reviewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy5FImpact5FAssessment.html. The Commission is in the process of updating the PIA to incorporate various revisions to it as a result of revisions to the SORN.

    Needs and Uses: The reporting requirements included under this OMB Control Number 3060-1078 enable the Commission to collect information regarding violations of the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003 (CAN-SPAM Act). This information is used to help wireless subscribers stop receiving unwanted commercial mobile services messages. On August 12, 2004, the Commission released an Order, Rules and Regulations Implementing the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003, CG Docket No. 04-53, FCC 04-194, published at 69 FR 55765, September 16, 2004, adopting rules to prohibit the sending of commercial messages to any address referencing an Internet domain name associated with wireless subscribers' messaging services, unless the individual addressee has given the sender express prior authorization. The information collection requirements consist § 64.3100(a)(4), (d), (e) and (f) of the Commission's rules.

    Federal Communications Commission. Gloria J. Miles, Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17426 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0742, 3060-0207] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before August 24, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected] Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0742.

    Title: Sections 52.21 through 52.36, Telephone Number Portability, 47 CFR part 52, subpart (C) and CC Docket No. 95-116.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,631 respondents; 10,002,005 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 4 minutes—10 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion and one time reporting requirements, recordkeeping requirement and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-205, 215, 251(b)(2), 251(e)(2) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 673,460 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting respondents to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the respondents wish confidential treatment of their information, they may request confidential treatment under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: Section 251(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires LECs to “provide, to the extent technically feasible, number portability in accordance with requirements prescribed by the Commission.” Through the LNP process, consumers have the ability to retain their phone number when switching telecommunications service providers, enabling them to choose a provider that best suits their needs and enhancing competition. In the Porting Interval Order and Further Notice, the Commission mandated a one business day porting interval for simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal port requests. The information collected in the standard local service request data fields is necessary to complete simple wireline-to-wireline and intermodal ports within the one business day porting interval mandated by the Commission and will be used to comply with Section 251 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0207.

    Title: Part 11—Emergency Alert System (EAS), Order, FCC 16-32.

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities, not-for-profit institutions, and state, local or tribal government.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 63,080 respondents; 3,596,546 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour (EAS Participants); 20 hours (SECCs).

    Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement and recordkeeping requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Obligatory for all entities required to participate in EAS. Statutory authority for this collection of information is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 606 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 110,476 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No Impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: There is no need for confidentiality.

    Needs and Uses: Part 11 contains rules and regulations addressing the nation's Emergency Alert System (EAS). The EAS provides the President with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public at the national, state and local area level during periods of national emergency. The EAS also provides state and local governments and the National Weather Service with the capability to provide immediate communications and information to the general public concerning emergency situations posing a threat to life and property. State and local use of the EAS is required to be described in State EAS Plans that are administered by State Emergency Communications Committees (SECC) and submitted to the FCC for approval.

    In the Third Report and Order in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 11-12, the Commission adopted rules establishing a regulatory structure for a national test of the EAS. In order for the Commission to determine the extent to which the test, and by extension the EAS, was successful, the FCC adopted rules requiring EAS Participants, within forty five (45) days of the date of the first national EAS test, to record and submit to the Commission the following test-related diagnostic information for each alert received from each message source monitored at the time of the national test:

    • Whether they received the alert message during the designated test;

    • whether they retransmitted the alert;

    • if they were not able to receive and/or transmit the alert, their `best effort' diagnostic analysis regarding the cause(s) for such failure;

    • a description of their station identification and level of designation (PEP, LP-1, etc.);

    • the date/time of receipt of the EAN message by all stations; the date/time of PEP station acknowledgement of receipt of the EAN message to FOC;

    • the date/time of initiation of actual broadcast of the Presidential message;

    • the date/time of receipt of the EAT message by all stations;

    • who they were monitoring at the time of the test, and the make and

    • model number of the EAS equipment that they utilized.

    The Third Report and Order indicates that the national tests of EAS, and related information collections will likely be carried out on an annual basis. On March 10, 2010, OMB approved the collection as indicated by the related Notice of Office of Management and Budget Action notification.

    The FCC is submitting this information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as a revision of the previously approved information collection that established the mandatory Electronic Test Reporting System (ETRS) that EAS Participants must utilize to file identifying and test result data as part of their participation in nationwide EAS testing. Specifically, the Order adopted in EB Docket No. 04-296, FCC 16-32, amends the State EAS Plan filing requirements set forth at Section 11.21 of the Commission's rules to require EAS Participants (i.e., the broadcasters, cable systems, and other service providers subject to the FCC's EAS rules) to provide the following information to their respective SECC, who in turn will include such information in the State EAS Plan submitted to the Commission for approval:

    • A description of any actions taken by the EAS Participant (acting individually, in conjunction with other EAS Participants in the geographic area, and/or in consultation with state and local emergency authorities), to make EAS alert content available in languages other than English to its non-English speaking audience(s);

    • A description of any future actions planned by the EAS Participant, in consultation with state and local emergency authorities, to provide EAS alert content in languages other than English to its non-English speaking audience(s), along with an explanation for the EAS Participant's decision to plan or not plan such actions; and

    • Any other relevant information that the EAS Participant may wish to provide.

    In addition, in the event that there is a material change to any of the information that EAS Participants are required to furnish their respective SECCs, EAS Participants must, within 60 days of the occurrence of such material change, submit aa letter to their respective SECCs, copying the Commission's Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) that describe such change. The SECCs are required to incorporate the information in such letters as amendments to the State EAS Plans on file with the Bureau.

    This information will be used by FCC staff to gauge the effectiveness of the EAS's capacity to disseminate in-language EAS emergency alert content to persons who communicate in a language other than English or may have a limited understanding of the English language; to determine whether private and local efforts to disseminate EAS multilingual content might be incorporated into the overall national EAS structure; and to confirm that private and local EAS multilingual operations are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.

    The Commission expects that the costs to EAS Participants to comply with these reporting requirements will be minimal, and largely limited to internal administrative charges associated with drafting a brief statement, and submitting that statement, and any other relevant information that the EAS Participant may wish to provide to their SECC for inclusion into the State EAS Plan for the state in which the EAS Participant operates. The Commission further expects that the vast majority of EAS Participants are not engaged in multilingual EAS activities and therefore will need to submit nothing more than a very brief statement to their SECC explaining their decision to plan or not plan future actions to provide EAS alert content in languages other than English to their non-English speaking audience(s). For the presumably small percentage of EAS Participants that actually are engaged in multilingual EAS activities, the filing will merely require that they supply a summary of actions they already have taken in this regard. Accordingly, the FCC estimates that complying with the reporting requirement will take EAS Participants, on average, approximately one hour. The FCC estimates that compiling the EAS Participant summaries of multilingual EAS activities and incorporating such information into the State EAS Plan will take SECCs, on average, approximately 20 hours.

    The following information collection contained in Part 11 may be impacted by these rule amendments:

    Section 11.21 requires that state and local EAS plans be reviewed and approved by the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security, prior to implementation to ensure that they are consistent with national plans, FCC regulations, and EAS operation.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17503 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION [OMB 3060-0298, 3060-0400, 3060-0819] Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and Budget AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. Comments are requested concerning: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Written comments should be submitted on or before August 24, 2016. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contacts below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all PRA comments to Nicholas A. Fraser, OMB, via email [email protected]; and to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email [email protected] and to [email protected]. Include in the comments the OMB control number as shown in the Supplementary Information section below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page <http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain>, (2) look for the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review,” (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading, (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box, (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box, (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the OMB control number of this ICR and then click on the ICR Reference Number. A copy of the FCC submission to OMB will be displayed.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0298.

    Title: Part 61, Tariffs (Other than Tariff Review Plan).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for profit.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 4,277 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 30 hours-50 hours.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 201-205, 208, 251-271, 403, 502, and 503 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

    Total Annual Burden: 156,080 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $1,307,670.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: The Commission is not requesting that the respondents submit confidential information to the FCC. Respondents may, however, request confidential treatment for information they believe to be confidential under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On March 23, 2016, the Commission adopted a Report and Order, FCC 16-33, which reformed universal service for rate-of-return local exchange carriers (LECs). These reforms require approximately 95 rate-of-return LECs to make one-time tariff filings and NECA to make two tariff filings with the necessary support materials outside the normal annual filing period. We note that we are removing the requirement that competitive and incumbent LECs make a one-time intrastate tariff filing to establish Voice over Internet Protocol rates at intrastate levels, as this requirement has been met. Part 61 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 61, prescribes the framework for the initial establishment of and subsequent revisions to tariffs. The information collected through the carriers' tariffs and supporting documentation is used by the Commission and state commissions to determine whether the services are offered in a just and reasonable manner.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0400.

    Title: Part 61, Tariff Review Plan (TRP).

    Form Number: N/A.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Business or other for-profit entities.

    Number of Respondents and Responses: 2,840 respondents; 5,437 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: 0.5 hours-53 hours.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual, biennial, and one-time reporting requirements.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 201, 202, 203, and 251(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.

    Total Annual Burden: 66,000 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: No cost.

    Privacy Impact Assessment: No impact(s).

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Respondents are not being asked to submit confidential information to the Commission. If the Commission requests respondents to submit information which respondents believe are confidential, respondents may request confidential treatment of such information under 47 CFR 0.459 of the Commission's rules.

    Needs and Uses: On March 23, 2016, the Commission adopted the Rate-of-Return Order, FCC 16-33, which reformed universal service for rate-of-return local exchange carriers (LECs). These reforms require rate-of-return LECs to make tariff filings with the necessary support materials outside the normal tariff filing period. We note that at this time, we are removing the requirement that competitive and incumbent LECs make a one-time intrastate tariff filing to establish Voice over Internet Protocol rates at intrastate levels, as this requirement has been met.

    Sections 201, 202, and 203 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) require common carriers to establish just and reasonable charges, practices, and regulations for their interstate telecommunications services provided. For services that are still covered under Section 203, tariff schedules containing charges, rates, rules, and regulations must be filed with the Commission. Part 61 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 61, prescribes the framework for the establishment of and subsequent revisions to tariffs. Certain local exchange carriers are required to submit a biennial or annual Tariff Review Plan (TRP) in partial fulfillment of cost support material required by Part 61. The Commission developed the TRP to minimize reporting burdens on reporting incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs). TRPs set forth the summary material ILECs file to support revisions to the rates in their interstate access service tariffs. For those services still requiring cost support, TRPs assist the Commission in determining whether ILEC access charges are just and reasonable as required under the Act.

    OMB Control Number: 3060-0819.

    Title: Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, Connect America Fund.

    Form Numbers: FCC Form 497, 555, & 481.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Individuals or households and business or other for-profit.

    Number of Respondents: 21,162,260 respondents; 23,956,240 responses.

    Estimated Time per Response: .0167 hours-250 hours.

    Frequency of Response: Annual and on occasion reporting requirements and third party disclosure requirement.

    Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    Total Annual Burden: 13,484,412 hours.

    Total Annual Cost: $937,500.

    Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Yes. The Commission completed a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for some of the information collection requirements contain in this collect. The PIA was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 73535 on December 6, 2013. The PIA may be reviewed at: http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/Privacy_Impact_Assessment.html.

    Nature and Extent of Confidentiality: Some of the requirements contained in this information collection do affect individuals or households, and thus, there are impacts under the Privacy Act. The FCC's system of records notice (SORN), FCC/WCB-1, “Lifeline Program.” The Commission will use the information contained in FCC/WCB-1 to cover the personally identifiable information (PII) that is required as part of the Lifeline Program (“Lifeline”). As required by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Commission also published a SORN, FCC/WCB-1 “Lifeline Program” in the Federal Register on December 6, 2013 (78 FR 73535).

    Also, respondents may request materials or information submitted to the Commission or to the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or Administrator) be withheld from public inspection under 47 CFR 0.459 of the FCC's rules. We note that USAC must preserve the confidentiality of all data obtained from respondents; must not use the data except for purposes of administering the universal service programs; and must not disclose data in company-specific form unless directed to do so by the Commission.

    Needs and Uses: The Commission will submit this information collection after this comment period to obtain the full, three-year clearance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission also proposes several revisions to this information collection.

    On April 27, 2016, the Commission released an order reforming its low-income universal service support mechanisms. Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support; Connect America Fund, WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Further Report and Order, (Lifeline Third Reform Order). This revised information collection addresses requirements to carry out the programs to which the Commission committed itself in the Lifeline Third Reform Order. Under this information collection, the Commission seeks to revise the information collection to comply with the Commission's new rules, adopted in the Lifeline Third Reform Order, regarding phasing out support for mobile voice over the next six years, requiring Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) to certify compliance with the new minimum service requirements, creating a new ETC designation for Lifeline Broadband Providers (LBPs), updating the obligations to advertise Lifeline offerings, modifying the non-usage de-enrollment requirements within the program, moving to rolling annual subscriber recertification, and streamlining the first-year ETC audit requirements. Also, the Commission seeks to update the number of respondents for all the existing information collection requirements, thus increasing the total burden hours for some requirements and decreasing the total burden hours for other requirements. Finally, the Commission seeks to revise the FCC Forms 555, 497, and 481 to incorporate the new Commission rules and modify the filings for FCC Forms 555 and 497 to include detailed field descriptions.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17502 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Notice to All Interested Parties of the Termination of the Receivership of 10499, Columbia Savings Bank, Cincinnati, Ohio

    Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as Receiver for Columbia Savings Bank, Cincinnati, Ohio (“the Receiver”) intends to terminate its receivership for said institution. The FDIC was appointed receiver of Columbia Savings Bank on May 23, 2014. The liquidation of the receivership assets has been completed. To the extent permitted by available funds and in accordance with law, the Receiver will be making a final dividend payment to proven creditors.

    Based upon the foregoing, the Receiver has determined that the continued existence of the receivership will serve no useful purpose. Consequently, notice is given that the receivership shall be terminated, to be effective no sooner than thirty days after the date of this Notice. If any person wishes to comment concerning the termination of the receivership, such comment must be made in writing and sent within thirty days of the date of this Notice to: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Division of Resolutions and Receiverships, Attention: Receivership Oversight Department 34.6, 1601 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201.

    No comments concerning the termination of this receivership will be considered which are not sent within this time frame.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Robert E. Feldman, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17453 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 10, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:

    1. The Shirley Oliver Dynasty Trust, Dallas, Texas; the James H. Oliver Exempt Trust and the James H. Oliver Non-Exempt Trust, both of Grand Island, Nebraska; Gregory Oliver, Dallas, Texas; Robert Almquist, Wood River, Nebraska; and Thomas Emerton, Cairo, Nebraska; to retain control of Platte Valley Cattle Company, Grand Island, Nebraska, parent of Town and Country Bank, Ravenna, Nebraska.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 20, 2016. Margaret Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17482 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 22, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (Adam M. Drimer, Assistant Vice President) 701 East Byrd Street, Richmond, Virginia 23261-4528. Comments can also be sent electronically to or [email protected]:

    1. First Citizens Bancshares, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina; to acquire at least 5 percent but less than 9 percent of the voting securities of Carter Bank & Trust, Martinsville, Virginia.

    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. The Bridger Company, Bridger, Montana; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of Montana State Bank, Plentywood, Montana.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 20, 2016. Margaret Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17480 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or control voting securities or assets of a company, including the companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than August 15, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis (Jacquelyn K. Brunmeier, Assistant Vice President) 90 Hennepin Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55480-0291:

    1. Citizens Bancorp, Inc., Cadott, Wisconsin; to engage, de novo, in extending credit and servicing loans pursuant to section 225.28(b)(1) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 20, 2016. Margaret Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17481 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“Commission” or “FTC”).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The information collection requirements described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”). The FTC is seeking public comments on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the current PRA clearance for information collection requirements in its Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”). That clearance expires on August 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted on or before August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/tsrrulepra2 by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the proposed information requirements for the TSR should be addressed by mail to Craig Tregillus, Staff Attorney, Division of Marketing Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, Room CC-8607, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20580, or by telephone to (202) 326-2970.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On April 14, 2016, the Commission requested public comment on the information collection requirements and related PRA burden estimates associated with the TSR. 81 FR 22082 (“April 14, 2016 Notice”). Pursuant to the OMB regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, that implement the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., the FTC is providing this second opportunity for public comment while seeking OMB approval to renew clearance for those information collection requirements.

    In response to its prior request for public comment, the Commission received ten comments, most of which were either non-germane or not directly responsive to the nature of the public comments sought. As required by the PRA, the Commission had sought public comments specifically on the following:

    (1) Whether the recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting requirements are necessary, including whether the resulting information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of the FTC's burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure requirements; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers.

    None of the public comments directly addressed the above and, lacking independent reason thus far to revise its burden estimates, the FTC will submit for OMB review, contemporaneous with this published Notice, its previously published burden estimates on the TSR's disclosure, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For more details about the Rule requirements, the background behind these information collection provisions, and the FTC's burden estimates and methodology behind them, see the April 14, 2016 Notice.

    To clarify for purposes of receiving public comments for this second Notice, the disclosure, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for which the Commission sought public comment concern such requirements imposed upon telemarketers and/or other sellers who are subject to, and not otherwise exempted under, the TSR. Some types of businesses are not covered by the TSR even though they conduct telemarketing campaigns that may involve some interstate telephone calls to sell goods or services. These three types of entities are not subject to the FTC's jurisdiction, and not covered by the TSR:

    • Banks, federal credit unions, and federal savings and loans

    • common carriers—such as long-distance telephone companies and airlines—when they are engaging in common carrier activity

    • non-profit organizations—those entities that are not organized to carry on business for their own, or their members,' profit.

    The above types of entities are not covered by the TSR because they are specifically exempt from the FTC's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, any other for profit individual or company that contracts with one of these three types of entities to provide telemarketing services must comply with the TSR. Moreover, some types of calls also are not covered by the TSR, regardless of whether the entity making or receiving the call is covered. These include:

    • Unsolicited calls from consumers

    • calls placed by consumers in response to a catalog

    • business-to-business calls that do not involve retail sales of nondurable office or cleaning supplies

    • calls made in response to general media advertising (with some important exceptions)

    • calls made in response to direct mail advertising (with some important exceptions)

    • Political campaign calls protected by the First Amendment.

    Public comments on the April 14, 2016 Notice ranged from a complaint about receiving repeated unsolicited “junk” telefaxes—to a complaint that the FTC fails to enforce the TSR—to a suggestion that the FTC consider ways to pro-actively thwart unsolicited calls to mobile phones in a vein similar to which “NoMoRobo” (http://www.nomorobo.com) blocks some unwanted robocalls (to date, Nomorobo works only with some landline carriers, and not with cell phones)—to a suggestion, more generally, “that better automation [be devised] in addressing the illegal calling issue.”

    In response, the FTC notes that Federal Communication Commission rules, not the FTC's TSR, address “junk” telefaxes. (See https://www.fcc.gov/stop-unwanted-calls.) To date, the FTC has brought at least 105 enforcement actions against companies and telemarketers for Do Not Call, abandoned call, robocall (i.e., automated dialing technology to make calls that deliver prerecorded messages), and Registry violations (https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/do-not-call-registry/enforcement). A variety of new technologies has increased the number of illegal telemarketing calls made to telephone numbers on the Registry. The net effect of these new technologies is that individuals and companies who do not care about complying with the Registry or other telemarketing laws are able to make more illegal telemarketing calls cheaply and in a manner that makes it difficult for the FTC and other law enforcement agencies to find them. The FTC continues to solicit ideas and assistance to combat illegal automated calls: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/03/ftc-announces-new-robocall-contests-combat-illegal-automated. Moreover, the FTC in tandem with other law enforcement agencies continues to bring actions against illegal telemarketing calls: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/do-not-call-registry/robocalls. The FTC also continues to track how technology affects the Registry and the consumers and telemarketers who access it.

    To reiterate, pursuant to its obligations under the PRA, the FTC seeks public comment on the necessity of its TSR recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting requirements, whether the information resulting from those requirements will be practically useful, the accuracy of the FTC's associated PRA burden estimates, and how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the TSR's disclosure requirements while also minimizing the burden on affected entities to provide the required information to consumers.

    Request for Comment: You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before August 24, 2016. Write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/tsrrulepra2, by following the instructions on the web-based form. When this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “TSR PRA Comment, FTC File No. P094400” on your comment and on the envelope, mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before August 24, 2016. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Comments on the recordkeeping, disclosure, and reporting requirements subject to review under the PRA should additionally be submitted to OMB. If sent by U.S. mail, they should be addressed to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Federal Trade Commission, New Executive Office Building, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments sent to OMB by U.S. postal mail, however, are subject to delays due to heightened security precautions. Thus, comments instead should be sent by facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

    David C. Shonka, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17474 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION [OMB Control No. 9000-0074; Docket 2016-0053; Sequence 19] Submission for OMB Review; Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds AGENCY:

    Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for extension of an existing OMB clearance.

    SUMMARY:

    Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement concerning limitation of costs/funds.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before August 24, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for GSA, Room 10236, NEOB, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally submit a copy to GSA by any of the following methods:

    Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching the OMB control number. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 9000-0074, Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 9000-0074, Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds” on your attached document.

    Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405. ATTN: Ms. Flowers/IC 9000-0074, Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds.

    Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite Information Collection 9000-0074, Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds, in all correspondence related to this collection. Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Kathlyn Hopkiins, Procurement Analyst, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, GSA 202-969-7226 or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Purpose

    Firms performing under incrementally funded, cost-reimbursement Federal contracts are required to notify the contracting officer in writing whenever they have reason to believe—

    (1) The costs the contractors expect to incur under the contracts in the next 60 days, when added to all costs previously incurred, will exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost of the contracts; or (2) The total cost for the performance of the contracts will be greater or substantially less than estimated.

    As a part of the notification, the contractors must provide a revised estimate of total cost. The frequency of this collection of information is variable, contingent upon both funding and spending patterns.

    A notice was published in the Federal Register at 81 FR 21873 on April 13, 2016. No comments were received. However, three changes were made to the annual reporting burden estimates conveyed in the preliminary 60-day notice. First, the initial estimate included data on certain fixed-price and cost-sharing contracts, subsequently deemed not directly impacted by the FAR clauses 52.232-20 and 52.232-22; those data points have been removed from the estimate for this collection.

    Accordingly, the number of contract actions has been reduced. Secondly, the number of responses per respondent has been reassessed at one per year in lieu of five; this is consistent with updated data, based on consultation with subject matter experts within the Government. Third, the estimated time to produce each funding letter was reduced from 1/2 hour to 1/3 hour, as office software applications continue to improve, making basic computations, word processing, and communication increasingly efficient.

    B. Annual Reporting Burden

    Respondents: 123,392.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Total Annual Responses: 123,392.

    Hours per Response: 0.33.

    Total Burden Hours: 40,719.

    Obtaining Copies of Proposals: Requesters may obtain a copy of the information collection documents from the General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), 1800 F Street NW., Washington, DC 20405, telephone 202-501-4755. Please cite OMB Control No. 9000-0074, Contract Funding—Limitation of Costs/Funds, in all correspondence.

    William Clark, Director, Office of Governmentwide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Governmentwide Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17479 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [Document Identifier: CMS-R-297 (CMS-L564)] 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: the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; the accuracy of the estimated burden; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and 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 23, 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-297 (CMS-L564) Request for Employment Information

    Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. 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: Request for Employment Information; Use: Section 1837(i) of the Social Security Act provides for a special enrollment period for individuals who delay enrolling in Medicare Part B because they are covered by a group health plan based on their own or a spouse's current employment status. Disabled individuals with Medicare may also delay enrollment because they have large group health plan coverage based on their own or a family member's current employment status. When these individuals apply for Medicare Part B, they must provide proof that the group health plan coverage is (or was) based on current employment status. Form Number: CMS-R-297 (CMS-L564) (OMB control number: 0938-0787); Frequency: Once; Affected Public: Private sector (Business or other for-profits and Not-for-profit institutions); Number of Respondents: 15,000; Total Annual Responses: 15,000; Total Annual Hours: 5,000. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact Lindsay Scully at 410-786-6843.)

    Dated: July 20, 2016. William N. Parham, III, Director, Paperwork Reduction Staff, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17478 Filed 7-22-16; 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: State Court Improvement Program.

    OMB No.: 0970-0307.

    Description: The Court Improvement Program (CIP) is a mandatory formula grant funded under section 438 of the Social Security Act, and most recently reauthorized under the Child and Family Services Improvement and Innovation Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-34). The purpose of the CIP is to facilitate the handling of child welfare cases in the courts. All 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia receive grants under the program. The program requires two submissions annually from grantees that constitute information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

    The purpose of this notice is to request an extension of the Office of Management and Budget Control Number 0907-0307 permitting continued use of the information collections required by ACF-CB-PI-12-02. The burden estimates are provided below. The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families anticipates issuing a new Program Instruction for federal fiscal year 2017.

    Following the publication of the first Federal Register notice, the Children's Bureau engaged in a number of outreach activities to seek additional input from grantees and experts in the field on how best to reduce grantee burden, ensure that the reporting process was useful to grantees, and maximize the ability to evaluate the program overall. These efforts have resulted in the decision to require one annual submission, as opposed to two submissions.

    The annual submission will include: (1) A self-assessment, and (2) a strategic plan. The self-assessment requires the grantees to identify the topical work areas of the last year, identify strengths, challenges and need for technical assistance. The self-assessment has been designed with user/grantee input with the intention of minimizing burden and maximizing usefulness of the process and product to the grantee. The strategic plan identifies projects and activities and intended results for the coming year. The strategic plan was also developed with grantee input.

    A full application will be due once every five years. The full application will require a five year strategic plan, letters of commitment from the highest court of appeal and state title IV-E/IV-B agency, a budget narrative, and a list of all statewide task force members.

    Taken together, the changes reduce the overall burden hours from years past and those anticipated in the previous Federal Register notice by approximately 50%.

    Respondents: Highest State Court.

    Annual Burden Estimates Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden hours
  • per response
  • Total burden hours
    Full Application 52 1 40 2,080 Updated Strategic Plan 52 1 12 624 Self-Assessment 52 1 36 1,772

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 4,476.

    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. 2016-17403 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Health Center Program AGENCY:

    Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of class deviations from the requirements for competition and application period for the health center program.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Primary Health Care (BPHC) is awarding funds to health centers transitioning to value-based models of care, improving the use of information in decision making, and increasing engagement in delivery system transformation.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Intended Recipient of the Award: Approximately 1,380 Health Center Program award recipients.

    Amount of Competitive Awards: Approximately $90 million will be awarded in FY 2016 through a one-time supplement.

    Period of Supplemental Funding: Anticipated 12 month project period is September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2017.

    CFDA Number: 93.224.

    Authority:

    Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 254b, as amended).

    Justification: Targeting the Nation's neediest populations and geographic areas, the Health Center Program supports more than 1,300 health centers that operate over 9,000 service delivery sites in every state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the Pacific Basin. Nearly 23 million patients received comprehensive, culturally competent, quality primary health care services through the Health Center Program award recipients in 2014.

    The fiscal year (FY) 2016 Health Center Program Delivery System Health Information Investment (DSHII) funding will provide formula-based, one-time support for the purchase of health information technology (health IT) enhancements to accelerate health centers' transition to value-based models of care, improve efforts to share and use information to support better decisions, and increase engagement in delivery system transformation efforts. Grant funds will help health centers make strategic investments to enhance their health IT, implement new clinical and administrative workflows, develop new reports, and better prepare providers and staff to use health IT and data to achieve the quality, cost, and patient-centered goals of delivery system reforms. In addition, health centers that do not currently have a certified electronic health record (EHR) at all sites and in use by all providers must propose at a minimum to use DSHII funding to initiate and/or increase the number of sites and providers using a certified EHR. The investments will help health centers improve the quality and safety of services provided to the nation's most vulnerable populations.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Olivia Shockey, Expansion Division Director, Office of Policy and Program Development, Bureau of Primary Health Care, Health Resources and Services Administration at 301-443-9282 or [email protected]

    Dated: July 18, 2016. James Macrae, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17497 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Office of the Secretary Findings of Research Misconduct AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:

    Zhiyu Li, Ph.D., Mount Sinai School of Medicine: Based upon the evidence and findings of an investigation report by the Mount Sinai School of Medicine (MSSM) and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Zhiyu Li, former Postdoctoral Fellow, MSSM, engaged in research misconduct in research that was supported by National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant R21 CA120017. ORI found that falsified and/or fabricated data were included in the following published papers, submitted manuscript, poster presentation, and grant applications:

    • Li, Z., Fallon, J., Mandeli, J., Wetmur, J., & Woo, S.L.C. “A Genetically Enhanced Anaerobic Bacterium for Oncopathic Therapy of Pancreatic Cancer.” JNCI 100(19):1389-1400, October 2008 (hereafter referred to as “JNCI 2008”) (Retracted 02/2010). • Li, Z., Fallon, J., Mandeli, J., Wetmur, J., & Woo, S.L.C. “The Oncopathic Potency of Clostridium perfringens is Independent of its α-Toxin Gene.” HGT 20:751-758, July 2009 (hereafter referred to as “HGT 2009”) (Retracted 03/2010). • Li, Z., Fallon, J., Mandeli, J., Wetmur, J., & Woo, S.L.C. “Oncopathic Bacteriotherapy with Engineered C. perfringens Spores is Superior and Complementary to Gemcitabine Treatment in an Orthotopic Murine Model of Pancreatic Cancer.” Submitted for publication in Can. Res. (hereafter referred to as the “Can. Res. Manuscript 2009”). • Li, Z., Fallon, J., Mandeli, J., Wetmur, J., & Woo, S.L.C. “Oncopathic Bacteriotherapy with Cp/plc-/sod-/PVL is Complementary to Gemcitabine Treatment for Pancreatic Cancer in Mice.” Presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Gene Therapy, May 27-30, 2009. • R21 CA120017-02 • R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report • R01 CA130897-01 • R01 CA130897-01 A1 • R01 CA130897-01 A2 • R01 CA130897-01 A2 Supplemental Material • R01 CA148697-01

    The JNCI 2008 and HGT 2009 papers were retracted, and the Can. Res. Manuscript 2009 was withdrawn.

    ORI found that the Respondent intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly engaged in research misconduct by falsely claiming to have generated recombinant Clostridium perfringens (Cp) strains, Cp/sod-, Cp/sod-/PVL, and Cp/plc-/sod-/PVL, to depict the effects of recombinant Cp strains on their ability to destroy cancer cells in a murine model, when these bacterial strains were not produced nor the data derived from them, and by falsifying histopathological data reported in fifty-seven (57) images in two (2) published papers, one (1) submitted manuscript, two (2) poster presentations, and seven (7) of Respondent's supervisor's grant applications and fabricating the corresponding nineteen (19) summary bar graphs that were based on those false images.

    Specifically, Respondent trimmed and used portions of Figure 6 (right panel) of a draft R21 CA120017-01 grant application, representing an image of liver tumor two (2) days after injection of Cp/plc- bacteria, to represent unrelated results from different experiments in:

    • Figures 5D and 7C (left panel), grant R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report • Figure 6A, grant R01 CA130897-01 • Figures 9D and 17A (top left, middle, and right panels and bottom left panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A1 • Figures 6D and 9C (left panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A2 • Figure 2A (left, middle, and right panels) in R01 CA130897-01 A2 Supplemental Material • Figures 4D and 7C (left panel), grant R01 CA148697-01 • Figure 4D (left panel), JNCI 2008 • Figure 3A (left panel), HGT 2009 • Figure 1A (left, middle and right panels), Can. Res. Manuscript 2009 • Figure labeled “Intratumoral Bacterial Titers and Quantification of Tumor Necrosis” (top left panel), AGST 2009 Poster presentation 2

    Respondent trimmed and used portions of Figure 6C of R21 CA120017-02, representing pancreatic tumor five (5) days after injection of Cp/sod- bacteria, to represent results from different experiments in:

    • Figures 5E, 6E and 7C (right panel), grant R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report • Figures 9E, 10E, and 13C (right panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A1 • Figures 6E, 7E and 9C (right panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A2 • Figures 4E, 5E and 7C (right panel), grant R01 CA148697-01 • Figure 4D (right panel), JNCI 2008 • Figure 3A (middle and right panels), HGT 2009 • Figure labeled “Intratumoral Bacterial Titers and Quantification of Tumor Necrosis” (top right and middle panels), AGST 2009 Poster presentation 2

    Respondent trimmed and used a portion of a figure that was reported as mouse pancreatic tumor tissue treated with control liposomes in four (4) figures (Figure 6D in R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report, Figure 10D in R01 CA130897-01 A1, Figure 7D in R01 CA130897-01 A2, and Figure 5D in R01 CA148697-01), to represent results from mouse pancreatic tumor tissue not treated with control liposomes in:

    • Figures 7C (middle panel), grant R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report • Figure 13C (left panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A1 • Figures 9C (middle panel), grant R01 CA130897-01 A2 • Figure 7C (middle panel), grant R01 CA148697-01 • Figure 4D (middle panel), JNCI 2008 • Figure entitled “Oncopathic Potency of Cp/sod-/PVL in Tumor-bearing Mice” row C (left panel), AGST 2009 Poster presentation 1

    Respondent falsified at least four (4) and possibly eight (8) images by using and relabeling Figures 4A (left panel), 4B (right panel), and 4B (left panel) in JNCI 2008 and Figure 1B (center panel) of Cancer Res. Manuscript 2009, to represent different experimental conditions in Figures 3C (middle panel), 3B (left panel), 3C (right panel), and 3D (left panel) in HGT 2009 respectively.

    Respondent trimmed and used portions of Figure 4E (right panel) in JNCI 2008, representing pancreatic tumor from mice injected with Cp/sod-/PVL bacteria, to represent mice injected with Cp/plc-/sod-/PVL bacteria in the following:

    • Figure 2, row B (right panel), R01 CA130897 01 A2 Supplemental Material • Figure 3, row D (right panel), HGT 2009 • Figure entitled “Intratumoral bacterial Titers and Quantification of Tumor Necrosis” (bottom right panel), AGST 2009 Poster presentation 2 • Figure 1, row B (right panel), Can. Res. Manuscript 2009

    The Respondent also fabricated the resulting quantitative data in nineteen (19) summary bar-graphs based on the false histopathological images in:

    • Figure 7C, grant R21 CA120017 Final Progress Report • Figures 13C and 17B, grant R01 CA130897-01 A1 • Figure 9C, grant R01 CA130897-01 A2 • Figure 2A-B, grant R01 CA130897-01 A2 Supplemental Material • Figure 7C, grant R01 CA148697-01 • Figures 4A, B, D, and E, JNCI 2008 • Figures 3A-D, HGT 2009 • Figure 1C, Can. Res. Manuscript 2009 • Figure entitled “Oncopathic Potency of Cp/sod-/PVL in Tumor-bearing Mice” graph (C) in AGST 2009 Poster presentation 1 • Figure entitled “Intratumoral Bacterial Titers and Quantification of Tumor Necrosis” top and bottom row graphs in AGST 2009 Poster presentation 2
    The following administrative actions have been implemented for a period of five (5) years, beginning on July 3, 2016:

    (1) Respondent is debarred from any contracting or subcontracting with any agency of the United States Government and from eligibility for, or involvement in, nonprocurement programs of the United States Government referred to as “covered transactions” pursuant to HHS' Implementation (2 CFR part 376 et seq) of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension, 2 CFR part 180 (collectively the “Debarment Regulations”); and

    (2) Respondent is prohibited from serving in any advisory capacity to the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) including, but not limited to, service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 750, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8800.

    Kathryn M. Partin, Director, Office of Research Integrity.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17495 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-31-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes National Indian Health Outreach and Education—Health Reform Funding Opportunity

    Announcement Type: New Limited Competition.

    Funding Announcement Number: HHS-2016-IHS-NIHOE-3-Health-Reform-0001.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.933.

    Key Dates

    Application Deadline Date: August 25, 2016.

    Review Date: August 29, 2016.

    Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 15, 2016.

    Proof of Non-Profit Status Due Date: August 25, 2016.

    I. Funding Opportunity Description Statutory Authority

    The Indian Health Service (IHS) Office of Direct Service and Contracting Tribes (ODSCT) and the Office of Resource Access and Partnerships (ORAP) is accepting cooperative agreement applications for the National Indian Health Outreach and Education III (NIHOE-III)-Health Reform funding opportunity that includes outreach and education activities on the following: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Public Law 111-152, collectively known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), as amended. This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, codified at 25 U.S.C. 13, and the Transfer Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 2001(a). This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance under 93.933.

    Background

    The NIHOE III—Health Reform program carries out health program objectives in the American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) community in the interest of improving the quality of and access to health care for all 567 Federally-recognized Tribes including Tribal governments operating their own health care delivery systems through self-determination contracts and compacts with the IHS and Tribes that continue to receive health care directly from the IHS. This program addresses health policy and health program issues and disseminates educational information to all AI/AN Tribes and villages. These Health Reform awards require that public forums be held at Tribal educational consumer conferences to disseminate changes and updates on the latest health care information. These awards also require that regional and national meetings be coordinated for information dissemination as well as for the inclusion of planning and technical assistance and health care recommendations on behalf of participating Tribes to ultimately inform IHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) based on Tribal input through a broad based consumer network.

    Purpose

    The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement announcement is to encourage national Indian organizations, IHS, and Tribal partners to work together to conduct ACA/IHCIA training and technical assistance throughout Indian Country. Under the Limited Competition NIHOE Health Reform Cooperative Agreement program, the overall program objective is to improve Indian health care by conducting training and technical assistance across AI/AN communities to ensure that the Indian health care system and all AI/ANs are prepared to take advantage of the new health insurance coverage options which will improve the quality of and access to health care services and increase resources for AI/AN health care. The goal of this program announcement is to coordinate and conduct training and technical assistance on a national scale for the 567 Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal organizations on the changes, improvements and authorities of the ACA and IHCIA and the health insurance options available to AI/AN through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

    Limited Competition Justification

    Competition for the award included in this announcement is limited to national Indian organizations with at least ten years of experience providing training, education and outreach on a national scale. This limitation ensures that the awardee will have (1) a national information-sharing infrastructure which will facilitate the timely exchange of information between the HHS, Tribes, and Tribal organizations on a broad scale; (2) a national perspective on the needs of AI/AN communities that will ensure that the information developed and disseminated through the projects is culturally appropriate, useful and addresses the most pressing needs of AI/AN communities; and (3) established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations that will foster open and honest participation by AI/AN communities. Regional and local organizations will not have the mechanisms in place to conduct communication on a national level, nor will they have an accurate picture of the health care needs facing AI/ANs nationwide. Organizations with less experience will lack the established relationships with Tribes and Tribal organizations throughout the country that will facilitate participation and the open and honest exchange of information between Tribes and HHS. However, awardees will be expected to work with regional and local organizations to achieve the goals herein. With the limited funds available for these health reform projects, HHS must ensure that the training, education and outreach efforts described in this announcement reach the widest audience possible in a timely fashion, are appropriately tailored to the needs of AI/AN communities throughout the country, and come from a source that AI/ANs recognize and trust. For these reasons, this is a limited competition announcement.

    II. Award Information Type of Award

    Cooperative Agreement.

    Estimated Funds Available

    The total amount of funding identified for the current funding cycle which covers fiscal years (FY) 2016-2018 is approximately $600,000. Individual award amounts are anticipated to be $200,000 per FY, respectively, if awarded to two entities applying separately. Further details are provided in the applicable section components. The amount of funding available for both competing and continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.

    Two entities applying separately to accomplish appropriately divided program activities:

    1. One entity will apply for $75,000 per FY or $225,000 total.

    2. The second entity will apply for the remaining $125,000 per FY or $375,000 total.

    Anticipated Number of Awards

    Approximately two awards will be issued under this program announcement.

    Project Period

    The project period will be for three years and will run consecutively from September 15, 2016 to September 14, 2019.

    Cooperative Agreement

    Cooperative agreements awarded by the HHS are administered under the same policies as a grant. The funding agency (IHS) is required to have substantial programmatic involvement in the project during the entire award segment. Below is a detailed description of the level of involvement required for both IHS and the grantee. IHS will be responsible for activities listed under section A and the grantee will be responsible for activities listed under section B as stated:

    Substantial Involvement Description for Cooperative Agreement A. IHS Programmatic Involvement

    (1) The IHS assigned program official will work in partnership with the awardee in all decisions involving strategy, hiring of consultants, deployment of resources, release of public information materials, quality assurance, coordination of activities, any training activities, reports, budget and evaluation. Collaboration includes data analysis, interpretation of findings and reporting.

    (2) The IHS assigned program official will approve the training curriculum content, facts, delivery mode, pre- and post-assessments, and evaluation before any materials are printed and the training is conducted.

    (3) The IHS assigned program official will review and approve all of the final draft products before they are published and distributed.

    B. Grantee Cooperative Agreement Award Activities

    The awardee must comply with relevant Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular provisions regarding lobbying, any applicable lobbying restrictions provided under other law, and any applicable restriction on the use of appropriated funds for lobbying activities. Awardees are expected to:

    (1) Foster collaboration across the Indian health care system to encourage and facilitate an open exchange of ideas and open communication regarding training and technical assistance on the ACA and IHCIA provisions.

    (2) Conduct training and technical assistance on the ACA and IHCIA and the changes and requirements that will affect AI/ANs either independently or jointly via a partnership as described previously. The purpose of this IHS cooperative agreement announcement is to encourage national and regional Indian organizations and IHS and Tribal (I/T) partners to work together to conduct ACA/IHCIA training and technical assistance throughout Indian Country. The project goals are three-fold for the IHS and the selected entities:

    (i) Materials—Develop and disseminate (upon IHS approval) training materials about the ACA/IHCIA impact on the Indian health care system including: Educating consumers on the health care insurance options available, educating the I/T system on the process for enrollment (with a special focus on the Certified Application Counselor (CAC) and Hardship Exemption requirements) and eligibility determinations, and maximizing revenue opportunities.

    (ii) Training—Develop and implement an ACA/IHCIA implementation training plan and individual training sessions aimed at educating all Indian health care system stakeholders on health care system impact and changes, specifically implementation in the different types of marketplaces, the role of Health Insurance Marketplace assisters (special emphasis on CAC), Navigators, and the Hardship Exemption for AI/ANs. Collaborate and partner with other national organizations to identify ways to take full advantage of the health care coverage options offered through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

    (iii) Technical Assistance—Provide technical assistance to I/T on the ACA/IHCIA implementation. Work with these entities to assess the training needs, identify innovations in ACA/IHCIA implementation, including technology, and promote the dissemination and replication of solutions to the challenges faced by I/T in implementing the ACA/IHCIA through the identification and promotion of best practices.

    Summary of Tasks To Be Performed

    The project will conduct the following major activities:

    1. Develop and implement a communications strategy for each FY as follows:

    a. Applicant 1—$75,000 per FY totaling $225,000 for all three years.

    i. Educate AI/ANs on the available health coverage options under the ACA;

    ii. Focus on the needs of Direct Services Tribes, including: Providing policy review and analysis of health care issues, training Tribal leaders on the health insurance options available under the ACA and sharing outreach and education best practices among Direct Service Tribes.

    iii. Develop a technical assistance plan and provide technical assistance to NIHOE Health Reform partners, Tribal leaders, Tribal employers and Direct Service Tribes on ACA/IHCIA implementation across the Indian health care system.

    iv. Work with NIHOE Health Reform partners and Direct Service Tribes to achieve economies of scale and reduce duplication of AI/AN training and outreach and education materials, including the development of cross-cutting ACA/IHCIA content specific to the Indian health care system.

    v. Work with NIHOE Health Reform partners and Direct Service Tribes to enhance collaboration with other Federal agency programs, local, state, Tribal and national partners.

    b. Applicant 2—$125,000 per FY totaling $375,000 for all three years.

    i. Educate Tribal leaders and Tribal employers on the health insurance options under the ACA including the Small Business Health Options Program and Tribal self-insurance; and

    ii. Develop a technical assistance plan and provide technical assistance to NIHOE Health Reform partners, Tribal leaders, Tribal employers and Direct Service Tribes on ACA/IHCIA implementation across the Indian health care system.

    The following key components need to be addressed in the work plan:

    Develop a national coordination strategy for the Health Reform project to ensure a shared vision and mission amongst all partners and convene partners on a regular basis.

    Applicants should describe plans for addressing the following:

    Outreach and Education

    • The awardee shall coordinate and develop a multiple strategy education and outreach training approach for I/T that reaches the widest audience possible in a timely fashion, appropriately tailored to the needs of AI/AN communities.

    • The awardee shall conduct regional and national ACA/IHCIA education and outreach focusing on four consumer groups: (1) Consumers; (2) Tribal Leadership and Membership; (3) Tribal Employers; and (4) Indian Health Facility Administrators.

    • The awardee shall provide measurable outcomes and performance improvement activities for ACA/IHCIA outreach and education actions.

    • The awardee shall share information, innovative ideas, challenges and solutions, and provide progress reports.

    Policy Analysis

    • The awardee shall develop, monitor and review ACA review metrics that provide indicators of AI/AN participation in marketplace plans and I/T participation as network providers in the marketplace and disseminate ACA policy information at national conferences and through IHS advisory committees.

    • The awardee shall review and coordinate ACA/IHCIA policy recommendations and strategies by the I/T.

    • The awardee shall ensure the training curriculum content addresses all new regulations and operations for implementing the ACA/IHCIA requirements.

    Information Sharing and Technical Assistance

    • The awardee shall collaborate and coordinate to ensure training and educational materials are widely distributed to Tribal leaders and frontline enrollment personnel.

    • The awardee shall conduct and record monthly meetings with NIHOE Health Reform national and regional principals to share information, share best practices, and provide progress reports.

    • The awardee shall plan communication around key moments or events through the grant period to increase education efforts.

    • The awardees shall identify I/T audiences that may have challenges with enrollments and tailor outreach efforts accordingly.

    • The awardees shall develop communications vehicles to showcase positive impact stories of I/T with ACA/IHCIA.

    • The awardee shall develop and provide templates for Tribal, IHS, and community outreach and education.

    • The awardee shall conduct workshops and/or presentations including, but not limited to, the successes of the ACA/IHCIA promising practices and/or best practices of I/T programs at three national conferences (venue and content of presentations to be agreed upon in advance by the awardee and the IHS assigned program official).

    • The awardee will provide postings on ACA/IHCIA outreach and education related information for appropriate Web site dissemination.

    • The awardee will develop and/or maintain a comprehensive list of ACA/IHCIA outreach and education program development and business practice guidelines for use by I/T programs.

    • The awardee shall act as a resource broker and identify subject matter experts to conduct trainings and technical assistance for implementation of the ACA enrollments.

    • The awardee shall provide quarterly articles for national and local media outlets and I/T news information sources, focusing on the successful impact and outcomes of ACA/IHCIA in Tribal communities, available resources, and funding opportunities.

    • The awardee shall meet with stakeholders to identify their needs from a community level and monitor level of access to education and outreach materials (i.e., pharmacy bags, palm cards, posters, payroll inserts, etc.).

    Training

    • The awardee shall re-evaluate all ACA/IHCIA training material available for AI/AN, present findings to IHS, and mutually decide on new materials.

    • The awardee shall record training sessions and make the recordings available to the I/T and AI/AN community on the Web sites of the national Indian organizations and partners.

    • The awardee shall provide focused ACA/IHCIA education that translates in everyday language explaining the benefits of the ACA and the special provisions for Indians. The awardee, because involvement of community based partners and local leadership from all I/T levels is an important factor in the success of any enrollment process, shall develop modified training briefs for Tribal health directors, chief executive officers, health care professionals, and Tribal leaders to assist with outreach efforts.

    • The awardee shall provide ongoing AI/AN consumers training on tools developed for State Based Marketplace (SBM) implementation.

    Reporting

    • The awardee shall provide semi-annual reports documenting and describing progress and accomplishment of the activities specified above, attaching any necessary documentation to adequately document accomplishments.

    • The awardee shall attend regularly scheduled, in-person and conference call meetings with the IHS assigned program official team to discuss the awardee's services and outreach and education related issues. The awardee must provide meeting minutes that highlight the awardee's specific involvement and participation.

    • The awardee shall obtain approval from the IHS assigned program official for all PowerPoint presentations, electronic content, and other materials, including mass emails, developed by awardee pursuant to this award and any supplemental awards prior to the presentation or dissemination of such materials to any party, allowing for a reasonable amount of time for IHS review.

    • The awardee shall conduct and record monthly meetings with NIHOE national and regional principals to share information and provide progress reports.

    • The awardee shall assess and provide measurable outcomes and performance improvement activities for ACA/IHCIA outreach and education actions both quantitative and qualitative.

    1. The awardee shall monitor and track I/T facility enrollment data and identify challenges and opportunities for outreach and education activities and report findings on a regular basis.

    2. Identify successes and gaps in enrollment and develop future enrollment campaigns and report findings on a regular basis.

    Requirements

    • Attendance at regularly scheduled meetings between awardee and the IHS assigned program official, evidenced by meeting minutes which highlight the awardee's specific involvement and participation.

    • Participation on outreach and education conference calls identified by the IHS assigned program official, evidenced by meeting agenda and minutes as needed.

    • Report of outcomes at conferences (meeting booths, workshops and/or presentations provided):

    1. National Advisory Committee conference calls and meetings.

    2. IHS area conference calls.

    3. IHS area and national webinars.

    4. Other AI/AN national conferences.

    • Completed programmatic reviews of semi and annual progress reports of outreach and education projects, in order to identify projects that require technical assistance. [Note: This review is not to replace IHS review of outreach and education programs. The programmatic reviews to be conducted by grantee are secondary reviews intended solely to identify programs in need of technical assistance.]

    ○ The awardee shall help the IHS assigned program official identify challenges faced by participating I/T and assist in developing solutions.

    • Copies of educational and practice-based information provided to I/T programs (electronic form and one hard copy).

    • Copies of all promotional and educational materials provided to I/T programs and other projects (electronic form and one hard copy).

    • Copies of all promotional materials provided to media and other outlets (electronic form and one hard copy).

    • Copies of all articles published (electronic form and one hard copy). Submit semi-annual and annual progress reports to ORAP and ODSCT, due no later than 30 days after the reporting cycle, attaching any necessary documentation. For example: Meeting minutes, correspondence with I/T programs, samples of all written materials developed including brochures, news articles, videos, and radio and television ads to adequately document accomplishments.

    • The awardee will submit a deliverable schedule to the program official not later than 30 days after the start date.

    The IHS will provide guidance and assistance as needed. Copies of all requirements must be submitted to the IHS ODSCT; IHS ORAP; and IHS Deputy Director.

    A. Collaboration and Coordination To Ensure Training and Materials Are Widely Distributed

    1. Evaluate all available ACA/IHCIA training material available for AI/AN and create additional materials as needed that are related to ACA/IHCIA.

    2. Record, track, and coordinate information sharing activities (enrollments, trainings, information shared, meetings, updates, etc.) with IHS Offices: ODSCT, ORAP and 11 IHS area offices including Albuquerque Area, Bemidji Area, Billings Area, California Area, Great Plains Area, Nashville Area, Navajo Area, Oklahoma City Area, Phoenix Area, Portland Area and Tucson Area.

    3. Record training sessions and describe how they will be made available on the Web sites of the national Indian organizations and partners.

    4. Describe how to ensure the training curriculum content addresses all new regulations implementing the ACA and IHCIA requirements.

    5. Participate in monthly meetings with NIHOE Health Reform national and regional principals to share information and provide progress reports.

    6. Provide ongoing training on tools developed for SBM implementation.

    7. Because involvement of community based partners and local leadership from all I/T levels is an important factor in the success of any enrollment process, develop modified training briefs for other community leaders to assist with outreach efforts.

    B. Work Plan

    1. Provide a Work Plan that describes the sequence of specific activities and steps that will be used to carry out each of the objectives, including updates about progress implementing the ACA.

    2. Report the number of CAC staff trained and employed, network contracts, additional consumers enrolled in Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or marketplace plan, and in-network contracts with a Qualified Health Plans (QHP) in the Marketplace using the Model QHP Addendum for Indian Health Care Providers. Describe outreach and enrollment activities, partnerships, and planning.

    3. Include a detailed time line that links activities to project objectives for every 12-month budget period for the three years of funding.

    4. Identify challenges, both opportunities and barriers that are likely to be encountered in designing and implementing the activities and approaches that will be used to address such challenges.

    5. Describe communication methods with partners including plans for improving communication.

    C. Evaluation

    1. Provide a plan for assessing the achievement of the project's objectives and for evaluating changes in the specific problems and contributing factors.

    2. Identify performance measures by which the project will track its progress over time.

    3. Secure agreement with IHS on evaluation methods and deadlines.

    D. Budget

    Provide a functional categorically itemized budget and program narrative justification that supports accomplishing the program objectives, activities, and outcomes within the timeframes specified.

    III. Eligibility Information

    I.

    1. Eligibility

    To be eligible for this “New Limited competition Announcement”, an applicant must be a 501(c)(3) non-profit entity who meets the following criteria:

    Eligible applicants that can apply for this funding opportunity are national Indian organizations.

    The national Indian organizations must have the infrastructure in place to accomplish the work under the proposed program.

    Eligible entities must have demonstrated expertise in the following areas:

    • Representing all Tribal governments and providing a variety of services to Tribes, area health boards, Tribal organizations, and Federal agencies, and playing a major role in focusing attention on Indian health care needs, resulting in improved health outcomes for AI/ANs.

    • Promoting and supporting Indian health care education and coordinating efforts to inform AI/AN of Federal decisions that affect Tribal government interests including the improvement of Indian health care.

    • Administering national health policy and health programs.

    • Maintaining a national AI/AN constituency and clearly supporting critical services and activities within the IHS mission of improving the quality of health care for AI/AN people.

    • Supporting improved health care in Indian Country.

    • Providing education and outreach on a national scale (the applicant must provide evidence of at least ten years of experience in this area).

    Note: Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required such as proof of non-profit status, etc.

    2. Cost Sharing or Matching

    The IHS does not require matching funds or cost sharing for grants or cooperative agreements.

    3. Other Requirements

    If application budgets exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under the “Estimated Funds Available” section within this funding announcement, the application will be considered ineligible and will not be reviewed for further consideration. If deemed ineligible, IHS will not return the application. The applicant will be notified by email by the Division of Grants Management (DGM) of this decision.

    The following documentation is required:

    Proof of Non-Profit Status

    Organizations claiming non-profit status must submit proof. A copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate must be received with the application submission by the Application Deadline Date listed under the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    An applicant submitting any of the above additional documentation after the initial application submission due date is required to ensure the information was received by the IHS by obtaining documentation confirming delivery (i.e., FedEx tracking, postal return receipt, etc.).

    IV. Application and Submission Information 1. Obtaining Application Materials

    The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement can be found at http://www.Grants.gov or http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/funding/.

    Questions regarding the electronic application process may be directed to Mr. Paul Gettys at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204.

    2. Content and Form Application Submission

    The applicant must include the project narrative as an attachment to the application package. Mandatory documents for all applicants include:

    • Table of contents.

    • Abstract (one page) summarizing the project.

    • Application forms:

    ○ SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.

    ○ SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.

    ○ SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.

    • Budget Justification and Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed five pages).

    • Project Narrative (must be single spaced and not exceed ten pages for each of the two components).

    ○ Background information on the organization.

    ○ Proposed scope of work, objectives, and activities that provide a description of what will be accomplished, including a one-page Timeframe Chart.

    • Tribal letters of support (Optional).

    • Letter of support from organization's board of directors.

    • 501(c)(3) Certificate (if applicable).

    • Position descriptions of key personnel.

    • Resumes of key personnel.

    • Contractor/Consultant resumes or qualifications and scope of work.

    • Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL).

    • Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).

    • Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required) in order to receive IDC.

    • Organizational Chart (optional).

    • Documentation of current OMB A-133 required Financial Audit (if applicable).

    Acceptable forms of documentation include:

    ○ Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or

    ○ Face sheets from audit reports. These can be found on the FAC Web site: http://harvester.census.gov/sac/dissem/accessoptions.html?submit=Go+To+Database.

    Public Policy Requirements

    All Federal-wide public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements with exception of the discrimination policy.

    Requirements for Project and Budget Narratives

    A. Project Narrative: This narrative should be a separate Word document that is no longer than ten pages for each of the two components for a total of 20 pages: $600,000 to conduct ACA/IHCIA education and outreach training and technical assistance for three consecutive years. Project narrative must: Be single-spaced, be type written, have consecutively numbered pages, use black type not smaller than 12 characters per one inch, and be printed on one side only of standard size 81/2″ x 11″ paper.

    Be sure to succinctly address and answer all questions listed under the narrative and place them under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation criteria in this announcement) and place all responses and required information in the correct section (noted below), or they shall not be considered or scored. These narratives will assist the Objective Review Committee (ORC) in becoming familiar with the applicant's activities and accomplishments prior to this cooperative agreement award. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, only the first ten pages of each component will be reviewed. The ten-page limit for the narrative does not include the work plan, standard forms, table of contents, budget, budget justifications, narratives, and/or other appendix items.

    There are three parts to the narrative: Part A—Program Information; Part B—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part C—Program Report. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.

    Part A: Program Information (4 Page Limitation for Each Component)

    Section 1: Needs

    Describe how the national Indian organization(s) has the experience to provide outreach and education efforts regarding the pertinent changes and updates in health care listed herein.

    Part B: Program Planning and Evaluation (4 Page Limitation for Each Component)

    Section 1: Program Plans

    Describe fully and clearly the direction the national Indian organization plans to address the NIHOE III Health Reform requirements, including how the national Indian organization plans to demonstrate improved health education and outreach services to all 567 Federally-recognized Tribes. Include proposed timelines as appropriate and applicable.

    Section 2: Program Evaluation

    Describe fully and clearly how the outreach and education efforts will impact changes in knowledge and awareness in Tribes and Tribal organizations to encourage appropriate changes by increasing knowledge and awareness resulting in informed choices. Identify anticipated or expected benefits for the Tribal constituency.

    Part C: Program Report (2 Page Limitation for Each Component)

    Section 1: Describe major accomplishments over the last 36 months.

    Identify and describe significant program achievements associated with the delivery of quality health outreach and education. Provide a comparison of the actual accomplishments to the goals established for the project period, or if applicable, provide justification for the lack of progress.

    Section 2: Describe major activities over the last 36 months.

    Please provide an overview of significant program activities and impacts (meaningful changes made), associated with the delivery of quality health outreach and education. This section should address significant program activities and impacts including those related to the accomplishments listed in the previous section.

    B. Budget Narrative: This narrative must include a line item budget with a narrative justification for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative. Budget should match the scope of work described in the project narrative. The budget narrative should not exceed five pages.

    3. Submission Dates and Times

    Applications must be submitted electronically through Grants.gov by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Any application received after the application deadline will not be accepted for processing, nor will it be given further consideration for funding. Grants.gov will notify the applicant via email if the application is rejected.

    If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the electronic application process, contact Grants.gov Customer Support via email to [email protected] or at (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays). If problems persist, contact Mr. Paul Gettys ([email protected]), DGM Grant Systems Coordinator, by telephone at (301) 443-2114 or (301) 443-5204. Please be sure to contact Mr. Gettys at least ten days prior to the application deadline. Please do not contact the DGM until you have received a Grants.gov tracking number. In the event you are not able to obtain a tracking number, call the DGM as soon as possible.

    If the applicant needs to submit a paper application instead of submitting electronically through Grants.gov, a waiver must be requested. Prior approval must be requested and obtained from Mr. Robert Tarwater, Director, DGM, (see Section IV.6 below for additional information). The waiver must: (1) Be documented in writing (emails are acceptable), before submitting a paper application, and (2) include clear justification for the need to deviate from the required electronic grants submission process. A written waiver request must be sent to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected] Once the waiver request has been approved, the applicant will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions and the mailing address to submit the application. A copy of the written approval must be submitted along with the hardcopy of the application that is mailed to DGM. Paper applications that are submitted without a copy of the signed waiver from the Director of the DGM will not be reviewed or considered for funding. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Paper applications must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m., EDT, on the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement. Late applications will not be accepted for processing or considered for funding.

    4. Intergovernmental Review

    Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.

    5. Funding Restrictions

    • Pre-award costs are not allowable.

    • The available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs.

    • Only one grant/cooperative agreement will be awarded per applicant.

    • IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.

    6. Electronic Submission Requirements

    All applications must be submitted electronically. Please use the http://www.Grants.gov Web site to submit an application electronically and select the “Find Grant Opportunities” link on the homepage. Download a copy of the application package, complete it offline, and then upload and submit the completed application via the http://www.Grants.gov Web site. Electronic copies of the application may not be submitted as attachments to email messages addressed to IHS employees or offices.

    If the applicant receives a waiver to submit paper application documents, they must follow the rules and timelines that are noted below. The applicant must seek assistance at least ten days prior to the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    Applicants that do not adhere to the timelines for System for Award Management (SAM) and/or http://www.Grants.gov registration or that fail to request timely assistance with technical issues will not be considered for a waiver to submit a paper application.

    Please be aware of the following:

    • Please search for the application package in http://www.Grants.gov by entering the CFDA number or the Funding Opportunity Number. Both numbers are located in the header of this announcement.

    • If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application electronically, please contact Grants.gov Support directly at: [email protected] or (800) 518-4726. Customer Support is available to address questions 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (except on Federal holidays).

    • Upon contacting Grants.gov, obtain a tracking number as proof of contact. The tracking number is helpful if there are technical issues that cannot be resolved and a waiver from the agency must be obtained.

    • If it is determined that a waiver is needed, the applicant must submit a request in writing (emails are acceptable) to [email protected] with a copy to [email protected]. Please include a clear justification for the need to deviate from the standard electronic submission process.

    • If the waiver is approved, the application should be sent directly to the DGM by the Application Deadline Date listed in the Key Dates section on page one of this announcement.

    • Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through Grants.gov as the registration process for SAM and Grants.gov could take up to fifteen working days.

    • Please use the optional attachment feature in Grants.gov to attach additional documentation that may be requested by the DGM.

    • All applicants must comply with any page limitation requirements described in this funding announcement.

    • After electronically submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from Grants.gov that contains a Grants.gov tracking number. The DGM will download the application from Grants.gov and provide necessary copies to the appropriate agency officials. Neither the DGM nor the ODSCT will notify the applicant that the application has been received.

    • Email applications will not be accepted under this announcement.

    Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS)

    All IHS applicants and grantee organizations are required to obtain a DUNS number and maintain an active registration in the SAM database. The DUNS number is a unique 9-digit identification number provided by D&B which uniquely identifies each entity. The DUNS number is site specific; therefore, each distinct performance site may be assigned a DUNS number. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy, and there is no charge. To obtain a DUNS number, please access it through http://fedgov.dnb.com/webform, or to expedite the process, call (866) 705-5711.

    All HHS recipients are required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS grantees must notify potential first-tier sub-recipients that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its DUNS number to the prime grantee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.

    System for Award Management (SAM)

    Organizations that were not registered with Central Contractor Registration and have not registered with SAM will need to obtain a DUNS number first and then access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at https://www.sam.gov (U.S. organizations will also need to provide an Employer Identification Number from the Internal Revenue Service that may take an additional 2-5 weeks to become active). Completing and submitting the registration takes approximately one hour to complete and SAM registration will take 3-5 business days to process. Registration with the SAM is free of charge. Applicants may register online at https://www.sam.gov.

    Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for DUNS and SAM, can be found on the IHS Grants Management, Grants Policy Web site: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    V. Application Review Information

    The instructions for preparing the application narrative also constitute the evaluation criteria for reviewing and scoring the application. Weights assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The ten page narrative for each component should include only the first year of activities; information for multi-year projects should be included as an appendix. See “Multi-year Project Requirements” at the end of this section for more information. The narrative section should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to understand the project fully. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 points. A minimum score of 60 points is required for funding. Points are assigned as follows:

    1. Criteria A. Introduction and Need for Assistance (15 Points)

    (1) Describe the individual entity's and/or partnering entities' (as applicable) current health, education and technical assistance operations as related to the broad spectrum of health needs of the AI/AN community. Include what programs and services are currently provided (i.e., Federally funded, State funded, etc.), any memorandums of agreement with other national, area or local Indian health board organizations, HHS agencies that rely on the applicant as the primary gateway organization that is capable of providing the dissemination of health information, information regarding technologies currently used (i.e., hardware, software, services, etc.), and identify the source(s) of technical support for those technologies (i.e., in-house staff, contractors, vendors, etc.). Include information regarding how long the applicant has been operating and its length of association/partnerships with area health boards, etc. [historical collaboration].

    (2) Describe the organization's current technical assistance ability. Include what programs and services are currently provided, programs and services projected to be provided, etc.

    (3) Describe the population to be served by the proposed project. Include a description of the number of Tribes and Tribal members who currently benefit from the technical assistance provided by the applicant.

    (4) State how previous cooperative agreement funds facilitated education, training and technical assistance nation-wide for AI/ANs and relate the progression of health care information delivery and development relative to the current proposed project. (Copies of reports will not be accepted.)

    (5) Describe collaborative and supportive efforts with national, area and local Indian health boards.

    (6) Describe how the project relates to the purpose of the cooperative agreement by addressing the following: Identify how the proposed project will address the changes and requirements of the Acts.

    B. Project Objective(s), Work Plan and Approach (45 Points)

    (1) Proposed project objectives must be:

    a. Measurable and (if applicable) quantifiable.

    b. Results oriented.

    c. Time-limited.

    (2) Submit a work plan in the appendix which includes the following information:

    a. Provide the action steps on a timeline for accomplishing the proposed project objective(s).

    b. Identify who will perform the action steps.

    c. Identify who will supervise the action steps taken.

    d. Identify what tangible products will be produced during and at the end of the proposed project objective(s).

    e. Identify who will accept and/or approve work products during the duration of the proposed project and at the end of the proposed project.

    f. Include any training that will take place during the proposed project and who will be attending the training.

    g. Include evaluation activities planned.

    (3) If consultants or contractors will be used during the proposed project, please include the following information in their scope of work (or note if consultants/contractors will not be used):

    a. Educational requirements.

    b. Desired qualifications and work experience.

    c. Expected work products to be delivered on a timeline.

    d. If a potential consultant/contractor has already been identified, please include a resume in the Appendix.

    C. Program Evaluation (15 Points)

    Each proposed objective requires an evaluation component to assess its progression and ensure its completion. Also, include the evaluation activities in the work plan. Describe the proposed plan to evaluate both outcomes and process. Outcome evaluation relates to the results identified in the objectives, and process evaluation relates to the work plan and activities of the project.

    (1) For outcome evaluation, describe:

    a. What the criteria will be for determining success of each objective.

    b. What data will be collected to determine whether the objective was met.

    c. At what intervals will data be collected.

    d. Who will collect the data and their qualifications.

    e. How the data will be analyzed.

    f. How the results will be used.

    (2) For process evaluation, describe:

    a. How the project will be monitored and assessed for potential problems and needed quality improvements.

    b. Who will be responsible for monitoring and managing project improvements based on results of ongoing process improvements and their qualifications.

    c. How ongoing monitoring will be used to improve the project.

    d. Any products, such as manuals or policies, that might be developed and how they might lend themselves to replication by others.

    (3) Describe how the project will document what is learned throughout the project period. Describe any evaluation efforts that are planned to occur after the grant periods ends.

    (4) Describe the ultimate benefit for the AI/ANs that will be derived from this project.

    D. Organizational Capabilities, Key Personnel and Qualifications (15 Points)

    (1) Describe the organizational structure of the organization.

    (2) Describe the ability of the organization to manage the proposed project. Include information regarding similarly sized projects in scope and financial assistance as well as other cooperative agreements/grants and projects successfully completed.

    (3) Describe what equipment (i.e., fax machine, phone, computer, etc.) and facility space (i.e., office space) will be available for use during the proposed project.

    (4) List key personnel who will work on the project. Include title used in the work plan. In the appendix, include position descriptions and resumes for all key personnel. Position descriptions should clearly describe each position and duties, indicating desired qualifications and experience requirements related to the proposed project. Resumes must indicate that the proposed staff member is qualified to carry out the proposed project activities. If a position is to be filled, indicate that information on the proposed position description.

    E. Categorical Budget and Budget Justification (10 Points)

    (1) Provide a categorical budget for 12-month budget period requested.

    (2) If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the rate agreement in the appendix.

    (3) Provide a narrative justification explaining why each line item is necessary/relevant to the proposed project. Include sufficient cost and other details to facilitate the determination of cost allowability (i.e., equipment specifications, etc.).

    Multi-Year Project Requirements

    Projects requiring a second and/or third year must include a brief project narrative and budget (one additional page per year) addressing the developmental plans for each additional year of the project.

    Additional documents can be uploaded as Appendix Items in Grants.gov

    • Work plan, logic model and/or time line for proposed objectives.

    • Position descriptions for key staff.

    • Resumes of key staff that reflect current duties.

    • Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (if applicable).

    • Current Indirect Cost Agreement.

    • Organizational chart.

    • Map of area identifying project location(s).

    • Additional documents to support narrative (i.e., data tables, key news articles, etc.).

    2. Review and Selection

    Each application will be prescreened by the DGM staff for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria in this funding announcement. The ORC could be composed of both Tribal and Federal reviewers appointed by the IHS program to review and make recommendations on these applications. The technical review process ensures selection of quality projects in a national competition for limited funding. Incomplete applications and applications that are non-responsive to the eligibility criteria will not be referred to the ORC. The applicant will be notified via email of this decision by the Grants Management Officer of the DGM. Applicants will be notified by DGM, via email, to outline minor missing components (i.e., budget narratives, audit documentation, key contact form) needed for an otherwise complete application. All missing documents must be sent to DGM on or before the due date listed in the email of notification of missing documents required.

    To obtain a minimum score for funding by the ORC, applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.

    VI. Award Administration Information 1. Award Notices

    The Notice of Award (NoA) is a legally binding document signed by the grants management officer and serves as the official notification of the grant award. The NoA will be initiated by the DGM in our grant system, GrantSolutions (https://www.grantsolutions.gov). Each entity that is approved for funding under this announcement will need to request or have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve their NoA. The NoA is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget/project period.

    Disapproved Applicants

    Applicants who received a score less than the recommended funding level for approval, 60 points or more, and were deemed to be disapproved by the ORC, will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the ODSCT within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application submitted. The ODSCT will also provide additional contact information as needed to address questions and concerns as well as provide technical assistance if desired.

    Approved But Unfunded Applicants

    Approved but unfunded applicants that met the minimum scoring range and were deemed by the ORC to be “Approved,” but were not funded due to lack of funding, will have their applications held by DGM for a period of one year. If additional funding becomes available during the course of FY 2016, the approved but unfunded application may be re-considered by the awarding program office for possible funding. The applicant will also receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS program office within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC.

    Note: Any correspondence other than the official NoA signed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of IHS.

    2. Administrative Requirements

    Cooperative agreements are administered in accordance with the following regulations, policies, and OMB cost principles:

    A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.

    B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards located at 45 CFR part 75.

    C. Grants Policy:

    • HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised 01/07.

    D. Cost Principles:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart E.

    E. Audit Requirements:

    • Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75, subpart F.

    3. Indirect Costs (IDC)

    This section applies to all grant recipients that request reimbursement of indirect costs (IDC) in their grant application. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement prior to award. The rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate is provided to the DGM.

    Generally, IDC rates for IHS grantees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation (DCA) https://rates.psc.gov/ and the Department of Interior (Interior Business Center) https://www.doi.gov/ibc/services/finance/indirect-Cost-Services/indian-tribes. For questions regarding the indirect cost policy, please call the Grants Management Specialist listed under “Agency Contacts” or the main DGM office at (301) 443-5204.

    4. Reporting Requirements

    The grantee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in one or both of the following: (1) The imposition of special award provisions; and (2) the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the grantee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports are required to be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please see the Agency Contacts list in section VII for the systems contact information.

    The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.

    A. Progress Reports

    Program progress reports are required semi-annually within 30 days after the budget period ends. These reports must include a brief comparison of actual accomplishments to the goals established for the period, or, if applicable, provide sound justification for the lack of progress and other pertinent information as required. A final report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the budget/project period.

    B. Financial Reports

    Federal Financial Report FFR (SF-425), Cash Transaction Reports are due 30 days after the close of every calendar quarter to the Payment Management Services, HHS at: http://www.dpm.psc.gov. It is recommended that the applicant also send a copy of the FFR (SF-425) report to the Grants Management Specialist. Failure to submit timely reports may cause a disruption in timely payments to the organization.

    Grantees are responsible and accountable for accurate information being reported on all required reports: the Progress Reports and Federal Financial Report.

    C. Federal Sub-Award Reporting System (FSRS)

    This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.

    The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards.

    IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold met for any specific reporting period. Additionally, all new (discretionary) IHS awards (where the project period is made up of more than one budget period) and where: (1) The project period start date was October 1, 2010 or after and (2) the primary awardee will have a $25,000 sub-award obligation dollar threshold during any specific reporting period will be required to address the FSRS reporting. For the full IHS award term implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Policy Web site at: http://www.ihs.gov/dgm/policytopics/.

    D. Compliance With Executive Order 13166 Implementation of Services Accessibility Provisions for All Grant Application Packages and Funding Opportunity Announcements

    Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights law. This means that recipients of HHS funds must ensure equal access to their programs without regard to a person's race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, sex and religion. This includes ensuring your programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. HHS provides guidance to recipients of FFA on meeting their legal obligation to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to their programs by persons with limited English proficiency. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/special-topics/limited-english-proficiency/guidance-federal-financial-assistance-recipients-title-VI/.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) also provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/section-1557/index.html; and http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/index.html. Recipients of FFA also have specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities. Please see http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html. Please contact the HHS OCR for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at http://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-individuals/disability/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697. Also note it is an HHS Departmental goal to ensure access to quality, culturally competent care, including long-term services and supports, for vulnerable populations. For further guidance on providing culturally and linguistically appropriate services, recipients should review the National Standards for Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health and Health Care at http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=2&lvlid=53.

    Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of his/her exclusion from benefits limited by federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the Indian Health Service.

    Recipients will be required to sign the HHS-690 Assurance of Compliance form which can be obtained from the following Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/forms/hhs-690.pdf, and send it directly to the: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Civil Rights, 200 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    E. Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

    The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. IHS will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR 75.205.

    As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities (NFEs) are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.

    Mandatory Disclosure Requirements

    As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, effective January 1, 2016, the IHS must require a non-federal entity or an applicant for a federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratutity violations potentially affecting the federal award.

    Submission is required for all applicants and recipients, in writing, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.

    Disclosures must be sent in writing to: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Indian Health Service, Division of Grants Management, ATTN: Robert Tarwater, Director, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mailstop: 09E70, Rockville, Maryland 20852. (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Ofc: (301) 443-5204. Fax: (301) 594-0899. Email: [email protected].

    AND

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW., Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL: http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/reportfraud/index.asp. (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line). Fax: (202) 205-0604 (Include “Mandatory Grant Disclosures” in subject line) or Email: [email protected].

    Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (See 2 CFR parts 180 & 376 and 31 U.S.C. 3321).

    VII. Agency Contacts

    1. Questions on the programmatic issues may be directed to: Ms. Michelle EagleHawk, Deputy Director, ODSCT, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: O8E17, Rockville, Maryland 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-1104, E-Mail: [email protected].

    2. Questions on grants management and fiscal matters may be directed to: Ms. Patience Musikikongo, Grants Management Specialist, DGM, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Telephone: (301) 443-2059, Fax: (301) 594-0899, E-Mail: [email protected].

    3. Questions on systems matters may be directed to: Mr. Paul Gettys, Grant Systems Coordinator, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop: 09E70, Rockville, MD 20857, Phone: (301) 443-2114; or the DGM main line (301) 443-5204, Fax: (301) 594-0899, E-Mail: [email protected].

    VIII. Other Information

    The Public Health Service strongly encourages all cooperative agreement and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Pub. L. 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17500 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Indian Health Service Request for Public Comment: 60 Day Proposed Information Collection: Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific Northwest AGENCY:

    Indian Health Service, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which requires 60 days advance opportunity for public comment on proposed information collection projects, the Indian Health Service (IHS) is publishing for comment a summary of proposed information collection to be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

    Proposed Collection: Proposed Collection: Title: 0917-NEW, “Indian Health Service Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific Northwest.” Type of Information Collection Request: Three year approval of this new information collection, 0917-NEW, “Indian Health Service Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific Northwest.”

    Form(s): Child Care Center Director Questionnaire and Pesticide Applicator Questionnaire.

    DATES:

    Comment Due Date: September 23, 2016. Your comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send your written comments, requests for more information on the collection, or requests to obtain a copy of the data collection instrument and instructions to Ms. Celeste Davis by one of the following methods:

    Mail: Ms. Celeste Davis, Director, Division of Environmental Health Services/Emergency Management Coordinator, U.S. DHHS/Indian Health Service, 1414 NW Northrup St., 800, Portland, OR 97209.

    Phone: 503-414-7774.

    Email: [email protected]

    Fax: 503-414-7776.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Division is submitting the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This Notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information to: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility: (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques of other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Title of Proposal: Environmental Health Assessment of Tribal Child Care Centers in the Pacific Northwest.

    OMB Control Number: To be assigned.

    Need for the Information and Proposed Use: The Portland Area IHS and EPA seek to conduct an environmental health assessment of tribal child care centers in Portland Area Indian Country (in the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho). There is a significant data gap regarding the levels of lead, allergens, pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in child care centers within Portland Area Indian country. This research will help us understand the potential for exposure to these chemicals among children who attend. For example, Eliminating Childhood Lead Poisoning: A Federal Strategy Targeting Lead Paint Hazards, produced by the President's Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children discusses the need for more data on lead levels in licensed child care facilities. Also, data is limited on the interrelationships between exposure factors, building factors, and community factors and their combined impact on children's exposures from chemical agents in child care environments. Non-chemical stressors, such as noise, number of windows in the child care center, tree cover, and shade cover in play area, will be included in data collection. Community factors, such as mapping the locations of the child care facilities, roads, and agricultural operations, will be included in data collection in order to evaluate the relationship between indoor air quality and the outdoor environment.

    IHS and EPA will also incorporate follow-up outreach and education with facilities to explain results and suggest corrective actions to remediate or reduce exposures from lead, allergens, pesticides, and PCBs that are detected in the facilities. The principal purpose of this project is to provide valuable data about the levels of lead, allergens, pesticides, and PCBs in child care facilities located in Portland Area Indian Country. This project will help prioritize services and funding based on known needs and risks in order to help facilities obtain needed services. This data may help tribes secure funding from the federal Head Start program and other funding sources for repairs, rehabilitations or other corrective action. This study may also provide federal Head Start and Tribal Programs with data to improve standards and initiate policy changes, if necessary. IHS will also provide indoor air quality kits to the facilities and environmental health training to center staff to provide methods and practices for preventing and controlling indoor environmental hazards. This project may be replicated in other IHS areas.

    Agency Form Numbers: None.

    Members of Affected Public: Operators of tribal child care facilities and pesticide applicators who work in child care facilities.

    Status of the Proposed Information Collection: New request.

    The table below provides: Types of data collection instruments, Estimated number of respondents, Number of responses per respondent, Annual number of responses, Average burden hour per response, and Total annual burden hours.

    Data collection instrument Type of respondent Number of
  • respondents
  • Number
  • responses per respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Estimated
  • burden hours
  • Child Care Center Director Questionnaire Child Care Center Director 45 1 1.5 67.5 Pesticide Applicator Questionnaire Pesticide Applicator 30 1 0.5 15 Total 75 82.5

    There are no direct costs to respondents other than their time to voluntarily complete the forms and submit them for consideration.

    Comment Due Date: Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having full effect if received within 60 days of the date of this publication.

    Dated: July 13, 2016. Elizabeth A. Fowler, Deputy Director for Management Operations, Indian Health Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17494 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Eunice Kennedy Shriver, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Special Emphasis Panel; Genetic Quality Control in the Mammalian Germline.

    Date: September 6, 2016.

    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Dennis E. Leszczynski, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Division of Scientific Review, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2137C, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 19, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17422 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(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: National Advisory Child Health and Human Development Council.

    Date: August 22, 2016.

    Time: 2:00 p.m. to Adjournment.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).

    Contact Person: Della Hann, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6710B Rockledge Drive, Room 2314, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-8535, [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National Institutes of Health, HHS) Dated: July 19, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17423 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Government-Owned Inventions; Availability for Licensing AGENCY:

    National Institutes of Health, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing and/or co-development in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing and/or co-development.

    ADDRESSES:

    Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD, 20850-9702.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information on licensing and co-development research collaborations, and copies of the U.S. patent applications listed below may be obtained by contacting: Attn. Invention Development and Marketing Unit, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Mail Stop 9702, Rockville, MD 20850-9702, Tel. 240-276-5515 or email [email protected] A signed Confidential Disclosure Agreement may be required to receive copies of the patent applications.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Technology description follows.

    Title of invention: Novel metastatic serous epithelial ovarian cancer (SEOC) genetically engineered mouse models, cell lines, and orthotopic models based on Rb, p53 and/or Brca 1/2 inactivation useful for biomarker discovery and preclinical testing.

    Description of Technology: The high mortality rate from ovarian cancers can be attributed to late-stage diagnosis and lack of effective treatment. Despite enormous effort to develop better targeted therapies, platinum-based chemotherapy still remains the standard of care for ovarian cancer patients, and resistance occurs at a high rate. One of the rate limiting factors for translation of new drug discoveries into clinical treatments has been the lack of suitable preclinical cancer models with high predictive value.

    NCI CAPR has developed Tri-allelic K18-T121 tg/+ /Brca1 fl/fl /p53 fl/fl SEOC GEM Model, GEM-derived SEOC orthotopic mouse model, and biological materials derived therefrom, with several key histopathologic, immunophenotypical, and genetic features of human SEOC. SEOC GEMs were utilized to create orthotopic immunocompetent transplant models, and to generate synchronized cohorts of mice suitable for preclinical studies. NCI CAPR conducted studies that determine these models are tractable for use in routine efficacy studies and demonstrate the utility of these models in evaluating the potential efficacy of novel therapeutics for ovarian cancer.

    Potential Commercial Applications:

    • These models serve as a foundation for preclinical research and evaluation of efficacy of novel therapeutics for ovarian cancer.

    • The GEM models described here can be used to develop cell lines and allograft models for evaluating drug potency relative to Brca1 mutation status.

    • These mouse models provide the opportunity for evaluation of effective therapeutics, including prediction of differential responses in Brca1-wild type and Brca1-deficient tumors and development of relevant biomarkers.

    Value Proposition:

    • Novel resource for evaluating disease etiology and biomarkers, therapeutic evaluation, and improved imaging strategies in epithelial ovarian cancer

    • Similarity to human ovarian cancer based on transcriptional profiling

    • Suitable preclinical cancer models with high predictive value.

    Development Stage: Pre-clinical (in vivo validation).

    Inventor(s): Simone Difilippantonio, Terry Van Dyke, Zoe Weaver Ohler, Ludmila Szabova, Sujata Bupp, Yurong Song, Chaoying Yin.

    Intellectual Property: Research use—no patent protection will be sought.

    Publications:

    1. Szabova L., Yin C., Bupp S., et al. Perturbation of Rb, p53 and Brca1 or Brca2 cooperate in inducing metastatic serous epithelial ovarian cancer. Cancer research. 2012;72(16):4141-4153. 2. Szabova L., Bupp S., Kamal M., et al. Pathway-Specific Engineered Mouse Allograft Models Functionally Recapitulate Human Serous Epithelial Ovarian Cancer. Katoh M., ed. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e95649.

    Collaboration Opportunity: Researchers at the NCI seek licensing and/or co-development research collaborations for the commercialization of agents for the treatment of SEOC.

    Contact Information: Requests for copies of the patent application or inquiries about licensing, research collaborations, and co-development opportunities should be sent to John D. Hewes, Ph.D., email: [email protected]

    Dated: July 11, 2016. John D. Hewes, Technology Transfer Specialist, Technology Transfer Center, National Cancer Institute.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17419 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in 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: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Special Emphasis Panel Pediatric Heart Network Clinical Research Centers (UG1).

    Date: August 17-18, 2016

    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: The Dupont Circle Hotel, 1500 New Hampshire Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Contact Person: Susan Wohler Sunnarborg, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7182, Bethesda, MD 20892 [email protected]

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 19, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17421 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of 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 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.

    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: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Advisory Council.

    Date: August 30, 2016.

    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 9100, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Teleconference).

    Contact Person: Valerie L. Prenger, Ph.D., MPH, Acting Division Director, Division of Extramural Research Activities, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 7214, Bethesda, MD 20892-7924, 301-435-0270, [email protected].

    Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: www.nhlbi.nih.gov/meetings/nhlbac/index.htm, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 19, 2016. Michelle Trout, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17420 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    Periodically, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) will publish a summary of information collection requests under OMB review, in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these documents, call the SAMHSA Reports Clearance Officer on (240) 276-1243.

    Project: Mental Health First Aid Evaluation-NEW

    The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Center for Mental Health Services (CMHS) is requesting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for new data collection activities associated with its Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) program.

    This information is needed to evaluate implementation of MHFA and Youth Mental Health First Aid in three distinct grant programs: Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (AWARE) State Education Agency (SEA) Cooperative Agreements, which provide funding to support MHFA and YMHFA training to state education agencies; Project AWARE Local Education Agency (LEA) Grants, which provide funding to school districts; and Project AWARE Community (C), a new funding opportunity in fiscal year 2015 that is intended to support MHFA and YMHFA training through a wide range of community organizations.

    The MHFA/YMHFA evaluation will address both overarching and program-specific questions related to the implementation and effectiveness of widespread dissemination of mental health literacy programs through these three distinct funding mechanisms and increase SAMHSA's understanding of training, referral benefits, and issues in varied milieu (e.g., implementation climate, leadership). These evaluation questions are essential to address because, although MHFA/YMHFA has a track record and well-articulated theory of action, it is vital for SAMHSA to be able to identify factors that are expected to increase or decrease the extent MHFA/YMHFA is disseminated and implemented with quality.

    This data collection is covered under the requirements of Public Law 103-62, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, Title 38, section 527, Evaluation and Data Collection, as well as 38 CFR 1.15, Standards for Program Evaluation.

    SAMHSA is requesting clearance for four data collection instruments:

    (1) MHFA/YMHFA Pre-Training Survey

    (2) MHFA/YMHFA Post-Training Survey

    (3) MHFA/YMHFA 3-Month and 6-Month Follow-Up Survey

    (4) Qualitative protocol for interviews with site coordinators

    The table below reflects the annualized hourly burden.

    Instrument/Activity Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden
  • hours
  • MHFA/YMHFA Pre-Training Survey 22,800 1 22,800 .33 7,524 MHFA/YMHFA Post-Training Survey 22,800 1 22,800 .25 5,700 MHFA/YMHFA 3-Month Follow-Up Survey 19,380 1 19,380 .17 3,294 MHFA/YMHFA 6-Month Follow-Up Survey 17,100 1 17,100 .17 2,907 Qualitative Interviews 23 1 23 .75 17.25 Total 22,823 82,103 19,442

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 24, 2016 to the SAMHSA Desk Officer at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To ensure timely receipt of comments, and to avoid potential delays in OMB's receipt and processing of mail sent through the U.S. Postal Service, commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] Although commenters are encouraged to send their comments via email, commenters may also fax their comments to: 202-395-7285. Commenters may also mail them to: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, New Executive Office Building, Room 10102, Washington, DC 20503.

    Summer King, Statistician.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17411 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Current List of HHS-Certified Laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Which Meet Minimum Standards To Engage in Urine Drug Testing for Federal Agencies AGENCY:

    Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notifies federal agencies of the laboratories and Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities (IITF) currently certified to meet the standards of the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Mandatory Guidelines). The Mandatory Guidelines were first published in the Federal Register on April 11, 1988 (53 FR 11970), and subsequently revised in the Federal Register on June 9, 1994 (59 FR 29908); September 30, 1997 (62 FR 51118); April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19644); November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858); December 10, 2008 (73 FR 75122); and on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809).

    A notice listing all currently HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs is published in the Federal Register during the first week of each month. If any laboratory or IITF certification is suspended or revoked, the laboratory or IITF will be omitted from subsequent lists until such time as it is restored to full certification under the Mandatory Guidelines.

    If any laboratory or IITF has withdrawn from the HHS National Laboratory Certification Program (NLCP) during the past month, it will be listed at the end and will be omitted from the monthly listing thereafter.

    This notice is also available on the Internet at http://www.samhsa.gov/workplace.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Giselle Hersh, Division of Workplace Programs, SAMHSA/CSAP, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 16N03A, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 240-276-2600 (voice).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Mandatory Guidelines were initially developed in accordance with Executive Order 12564 and section 503 of Public Law 100-71. The “Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs,” as amended in the revisions listed above, requires strict standards that laboratories and IITFs must meet in order to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens for federal agencies.

    To become certified, an applicant laboratory or IITF must undergo three rounds of performance testing plus an on-site inspection. To maintain that certification, a laboratory or IITF must participate in a quarterly performance testing program plus undergo periodic, on-site inspections.

    Laboratories and IITFs in the applicant stage of certification are not to be considered as meeting the minimum requirements described in the HHS Mandatory Guidelines. A HHS-certified laboratory or IITF must have its letter of certification from HHS/SAMHSA (formerly: HHS/NIDA), which attests that it has met minimum standards.

    In accordance with the Mandatory Guidelines dated November 25, 2008 (73 FR 71858), the following HHS-certified laboratories and IITFs meet the minimum standards to conduct drug and specimen validity tests on urine specimens:

    HHS-Certified Instrumented Initial Testing Facilities Dynacare, 6628 50th Street NW., Edmonton, AB Canada T6B 2N7, 780-784-1190 (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories) HHS-Certified Laboratories ACM Medical Laboratory, Inc., 160 Elmgrove Park, Rochester, NY 14624, 585-429-2264 Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., 345 Hill Ave., Nashville, TN 37210, 615-255-2400 (Formerly: Aegis Sciences Corporation, Aegis Analytical Laboratories, Inc., Aegis Analytical Laboratories) Alere Toxicology Services, 1111 Newton St., Gretna, LA 70053, 504-361-8989/800-433-3823 (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Laboratory Specialists, Inc.) Alere Toxicology Services, 450 Southlake Blvd., Richmond, VA 23236, 804-378-9130 (Formerly: Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.; Kroll Scientific Testing Laboratories, Inc.) Baptist Medical Center-Toxicology Laboratory, 11401 I-30, Little Rock, AR 72209-7056, 501-202-2783 (Formerly: Forensic Toxicology Laboratory Baptist Medical Center) Clinical Reference Lab, 8433 Quivira Road, Lenexa, KS 66215-2802, 800-445-6917 DrugScan, Inc., 200 Precision Road, Suite 200, Horsham, PA 19044, 800-235-4890 Dynacare,* 245 Pall Mall Street, London, ONT, Canada N6A 1P4, 519-679-1630 (Formerly: Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories) ElSohly Laboratories, Inc., 5 Industrial Park Drive, Oxford, MS 38655, 662-236-2609 Fortes Laboratories, Inc., 25749 SW. Canyon Creek Road, Suite 600, Wilsonville, OR 97070, 503-486-1023 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 7207 N. Gessner Road, Houston, TX 77040, 713-856-8288/800-800-2387 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 69 First Ave., Raritan, NJ 08869, 908-526-2400/800-437-4986 (Formerly: Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc.) Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1904 Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, 919-572-6900/800-833-3984 (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc., CompuChem Laboratories, Inc.; CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Subsidiary of Roche Biomedical Laboratory; Roche CompuChem Laboratories, Inc., A Member of the Roche Group) Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, 1120 Main Street, Southaven, MS 38671, 866-827-8042/800-233-6339 (Formerly: LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.; MedExpress/National Laboratory Center) LabOne, Inc. d/b/a Quest Diagnostics, 10101 Renner Blvd., Lenexa, KS 66219, 913-888-3927/800-873-8845 (Formerly: Quest Diagnostics Incorporated; LabOne, Inc.; Center for Laboratory Services, a Division of LabOne, Inc.) MedTox Laboratories, Inc., 402 W. County Road D, St. Paul, MN 55112, 651-636-7466/800-832-3244 MetroLab-Legacy Laboratory Services, 1225 NE. 2nd Ave., Portland, OR 97232, 503-413-5295/800-950-5295 Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Forensic Toxicology Laboratory, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, 612-725-2088, Testing for Veterans Affairs (VA) Employees Only National Toxicology Laboratories, Inc., 1100 California Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93304, 661-322-4250/800-350-3515 One Source Toxicology Laboratory, Inc., 1213 Genoa-Red Bluff, Pasadena, TX 77504, 888-747-3774 (Formerly: University of Texas Medical Branch, Clinical Chemistry Division; UTMB Pathology-Toxicology Laboratory) Pacific Toxicology Laboratories, 9348 DeSoto Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, 800-328-6942 (Formerly: Centinela Hospital Airport Toxicology Laboratory) Pathology Associates Medical Laboratories, 110 West Cliff Dr., Spokane, WA 99204, 509-755-8991/800-541-7891x7 Phamatech, Inc., 15175 Innovation Drive, San Diego, CA 92128, 888-635-5840 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 1777 Montreal Circle, Tucker, GA 30084, 800-729-6432 (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories) Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 400 Egypt Road, Norristown, PA 19403, 610-631-4600/877-642-2216 (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories; SmithKline Bio-Science Laboratories) Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 8401 Fallbrook Ave., West Hills, CA 91304, 818-737-6370 (Formerly: SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories) Redwood Toxicology Laboratory, 3700650 Westwind Blvd., Santa Rosa, CA 95403, 800-255-2159 Southwest Laboratories, 4625 E. Cotton Center Boulevard, Suite 177, Phoenix, AZ 85040, 602-438-8507/800-279-0027 STERLING Reference Laboratories, 2617 East L Street, Tacoma, Washington 98421, 800-442-0438 U.S. Army Forensic Toxicology Drug Testing Laboratory, 2490 Wilson St., Fort George G. Meade, MD 20755-5235, 301-677-7085, Testing for Department of Defense (DoD) Employees Only

    * The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) voted to end its Laboratory Accreditation Program for Substance Abuse (LAPSA) effective May 12, 1998. Laboratories certified through that program were accredited to conduct forensic urine drug testing as required by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations. As of that date, the certification of those accredited Canadian laboratories will continue under DOT authority. The responsibility for conducting quarterly performance testing plus periodic on-site inspections of those LAPSA-accredited laboratories was transferred to the U.S. HHS, with the HHS' NLCP contractor continuing to have an active role in the performance testing and laboratory inspection processes. Other Canadian laboratories wishing to be considered for the NLCP may apply directly to the NLCP contractor just as U.S. laboratories do.

    Upon finding a Canadian laboratory to be qualified, HHS will recommend that DOT certify the laboratory (Federal Register, July 16, 1996) as meeting the minimum standards of the Mandatory Guidelines published in the Federal Register on April 30, 2010 (75 FR 22809). After receiving DOT certification, the laboratory will be included in the monthly list of HHS-certified laboratories and participate in the NLCP certification maintenance program.

    Charles LoDico, Chemist.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17441 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5923-N-03] Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a Federal Advisory Committee Meeting: Manufactured Housing Consensus Committee (MHCC).

    SUMMARY:

    This notice sets forth the schedule and proposed agenda for a teleconference meeting of the MHCC. The teleconference meeting is open to the public. The agenda provides an opportunity for citizens to comment on the business before the MHCC.

    DATES:

    The teleconference meeting will be held on August 9, 2016, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The teleconference numbers are: US toll-free: 1-866-813-5287. Participant Code: 4325433. Webinar: https://zoom.us/j/350303292; Meeting ID: 350 303 292.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator and Designated Federal Official (DFO), Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, 451 7th Street SW., Room 9168, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-6423 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons who have difficulty hearing or speaking may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5. U.S.C. App. 10(a)(2) through implementing regulations at 41 CFR § 102-3.150. The MHCC was established by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. 5403 (a)(3), as amended by the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, (Pub. L. 106-569). According to 42 U.S.C. 5403, as amended, the purposes of the MHCC are to:

    • Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the Federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards in accordance with this subsection;

    • Provide periodic recommendations to the Secretary to adopt, revise, and interpret the procedural and enforcement regulations, including regulation specifying the permissible scope and conduct of monitoring in accordance with subsection (b);

    • Be organized and carry out its business in a manner that guarantees a fair opportunity for the expression and consideration of various positions and for public participation.

    The MHCC is deemed an advisory committee not composed of Federal employees.

    Public Comment: Citizens wishing to make comments on the business of the MHCC are encouraged to register before August 4, 2016, by contacting Home Innovation Research Labs, Attention: Kevin Kauffman, 400 Prince Georges Blvd., Upper Marlboro, MD 20774, or email to [email protected] or call 1-888-602-4663. Written comments are encouraged. The MHCC strives to accommodate citizen comments to the extent possible within the time constraints of the meeting agenda. Advance registration is strongly encouraged. The MHCC will also provide an opportunity for public comment on specific matters before the MHCC.

    Tentative Agenda August 9, 2016 I. Call to Order—Chair & Designated Federal Officer (DFO) II. Opening Remarks—Chair A. Roll-Call—Administering Organization (AO) B. Introductions i. HUD Staff ii. Guests C. Administrative Announcements—DFO and AO III. Approve MHCC draft minutes from January 19-21, MHCC Meeting IV. Discussion on conduct of meeting V. Review of Summary of DOE Proposed Rule on Manufactured Home Energy Standards (HUD Staff) DOE Power Point Summary and link to proposed rule can be found on HUD's Web site at: hud.gov/mhs VI. Public Comments VII. Lunch VIII. Continue Review and Summary of DOE requests for comments on the proposed Rule IX. Break X. Committee recommendations on proposed rule XI. Public Comments XII. Wrap Up/Next Steps—DFO/AO XIII. Adjourn Dated: July 19, 2016. Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17568 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248 (WPA Sale 248); MMAA104000 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final Notice of Sale.

    SUMMARY:

    On Wednesday, August 24, 2016, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) will open and publicly announce bids for blocks offered in the Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (WPA) Lease Sale 248 (WPA Sale 248), in accordance with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) (43 U.S.C. 1331-1356, as amended) and the implementing regulations issued pursuant thereto (30 CFR parts 550 and 556). The WPA Sale 248 Final Notice of Sale (NOS) Package (Final NOS Package) contains information essential to potential bidders. Bidders are charged with knowing the contents of the documents contained in the Final NOS Package.

    Date and Time: Bid opening for WPA Sale 248 will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 24, 2016. All times referred to in this document are local time in New Orleans, unless otherwise specified.

    Location: There will be a change in the bid opening process for this sale. Bid opening will still occur at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome, 1500 Sugarbowl Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana 70112, but the bid opening at the Superdome facility will not be open to the public. Instead, the bid opening will be available for the public to view in real-time on BOEM's Web site at www.boem.gov via video live-streaming beginning at 9:00 a.m. on the day of the sale. The use of live-streaming to announce bids is being implemented to provide greater access to a wider national and international audience while ensuring the security of BOEM staff. BOEM will also post the results on its Web site after bid opening and reading is completed.

    Bid Submission Deadline: BOEM must receive all sealed bids between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on normal working days, and from 8:00 a.m. to the Bid Submission Deadline of 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, the day before the lease sale. For more information on bid submission, see Section VII, “Bidding Instructions,” of this document.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties, upon request, may obtain a compact disc (CD-ROM) containing the Final NOS Package by contacting the BOEM Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Region at the following address: Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, (504) 736-2519 or (800) 200-GULF, or by visiting the BOEM Web site at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-248/.

    Table of Contents

    This Final NOS includes the following sections:

    I. Lease Sale Area II. Statutes And Regulations III. Lease Terms and Economic Conditions IV. Lease Stipulations V. Information to Lessees VI. Maps VII. Bidding Instructions VIII. Bidding Rules and Restrictions IX. Forms X. The Lease Sale XI. Delay of Sale I. Lease Sale Area

    Blocks Offered for Leasing: BOEM proposes to offer for bid in this lease sale all of the available unleased acreage in the WPA, except those blocks listed in “Blocks Not Offered for Leasing” below.

    Blocks Not Offered for Leasing: The following whole and partial blocks are not offered for lease in this sale:

    • Whole and partial blocks that lie within the boundaries of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) in the East and West Flower Garden Banks and Stetson Bank. The following list identifies all blocks affected by the Sanctuary boundaries:

    High Island, East Addition, South Extension (Leasing Map TX7C)

    Whole Block: A-398.

    Portions of Blocks: A-366, A-367, A-374, A-375, A-383, A-384, A-385, A-388, A-389, A-397, A-399, A-401.

    High Island, South Addition (Leasing Map TX7B)

    Portions of Blocks: A-502, A-513.

    Garden Banks (OPD NG15-02)

    Portions of Blocks: 134, 135.

    • The following blocks whose lease status is currently under appeal:

    Matagorda Island (Leasing Map TX4) Block 632 Matagorda Island (Leasing Map TX4) Block 656 Matagorda Island (Leasing Map TX4) Block 657 Please Note:

    A CD-ROM (in ArcGIS and Acrobat (.pdf) format) containing all of the GOM Region leasing maps and official protraction diagrams (OPDs), is available from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office for a price of $15.00. The GOM Region leasing maps and OPDs also are available online for free in .pdf and .gra formats at http://www.boem.gov/Official-Protraction-Diagrams.

    For the current status of all WPA leasing maps and OPDs, please refer to 66 FR 28002 (May 21, 2001), 67 FR 60701 (September 26, 2002), 72 FR 27590 (May 16, 2007), 76 FR 54787 (September 2, 2011), 79 FR 32572 (June 5, 2014), and 80 FR 3251 (January 22, 2015).

    In addition, Supplemental Official OCS Block Diagrams (SOBDs) for blocks containing the U.S. 200-Nautical Mile Limit line and the U.S.-Mexico Maritime and Continental Shelf Boundary line are available. These SOBDs are available from the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region Public Information Office and on BOEM's Web site at http://www.boem.gov/Supplemental-Official-OCS-Block-Diagrams-SOBDs/.

    For additional information, or to order the above referenced maps or diagrams, please call the Mapping and Automation Section at (504) 731-1457.

    All blocks being offered in the lease sale are shown on these leasing maps and OPDs. The available Federal acreage of each whole and partial block in this lease sale is shown in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing” included in the Final NOS Package. Some of these blocks may be partially leased or transected by administrative lines, such as the Federal/State jurisdictional line, or may not be offered. A bid on a block must include all of the available Federal acreage of that block. Information on the unleased portions of such blocks can be found in the document entitled “Western Planning Area, Lease Sale 248, August 24, 2016—Unleased Split Blocks and Available Unleased Acreage of Blocks with Aliquots and Irregular Portions under Lease or Deferred,” which is included in this Final NOS Package.

    For additional information, please call Mr. Lenny Coats, Chief of the Mapping and Automation Section, at (504) 731-1457.

    II. Statutes and Regulations

    Each lease is issued pursuant and subject to OCSLA, implementing regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and other applicable statutes and regulations in existence upon the effective date of the lease, as well as those applicable statutes enacted and regulations promulgated thereafter, except to the extent that the after-enacted statutes and regulations explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. Each lease is subject to amendments to the applicable statutes and regulations, including, but not limited to, OCSLA, that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease. The lessee expressly bears the risk that such new or amended statutes and regulations (i.e., those that do not explicitly conflict with an express provision of the lease) may increase or decrease the lessee's obligations under the lease.

    III. Lease Terms and Economic Conditions Lease Terms OCS Lease Form

    BOEM will use Form BOEM-2005 (October 2011) to convey leases resulting from this sale. This lease form may be viewed on the BOEM Web site at http://www.boem.gov/About-BOEM/Procurement-Business-Opportunities/BOEM-OCS-Operation-Forms/BOEM-2005.aspx. The lease form will be amended to conform with the specific terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to each individual lease. The terms, conditions, and stipulations applicable to this sale are set forth below.

    Initial Periods

    Initial periods are summarized in the following table:

    Water depth
  • (Meters)
  • Initial period
    0 to < 400 Standard initial period is 5 years; the lessee may earn an additional 3 years (i.e., for an 8-year extended initial period) if a well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet True Vertical Depth Subsea (TVD SS) during the first 5 years of the lease. 400 to < 800 Standard initial period is 5 years; the lessee will earn an additional 3 years (i.e., for an 8-year extended initial period) if a well is spudded during the first 5 years of the lease. 800 to < 1,600 Standard initial period is 7 years; the lessee will earn an additional 3 years (i.e., for a 10-year extended initial period) if a well is spudded during the first 7 years of the lease. 1,600 + 10 years.

    (1) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths less than 400 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS within the first 5 years of the lease, then the lessee may earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year extended initial period. The lessee will earn the 8-year extended initial period when the well is drilled to a target below 25,000 feet TVD SS, or the lessee may earn the 8-year extended initial period in cases where the well targets, but does not reach, a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS due to mechanical or safety reasons, where sufficient evidence is provided.

    In order to earn the 8-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in any instance not more than 30 days after completion of the drilling operation, a letter providing the well number, spud date, information demonstrating a target below 25,000 feet TVD SS and whether that target was reached, and if applicable, any safety, mechanical, or other problems encountered that prevented the well from reaching a depth below 25,000 feet TVD SS. This letter must request confirmation that the lessee earned the 8-year extended initial period. The extended initial period is not effective unless and until the lessee receives confirmation from BOEM. The Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will confirm in writing, within 30 days of receiving the lessee's letter, whether the lessee has earned the extended initial period and update BOEM records accordingly.

    A lessee that has earned the 8-year extended initial period by spudding a well with a hydrocarbon target below 25,000 feet TVD SS during the standard 5-year initial period of the lease will not be granted a suspension for that same period under the regulations at 30 CFR 250.175 because the lease is not at risk of expiring.

    (2) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths ranging from 400 to less than 800 meters issued as a result of this sale is 5 years. If the lessee spuds a well within the standard 5-year initial period of the lease, the lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in an 8-year extended initial period.

    In order to earn the 8-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no case more than 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation that the lessee earned the 8-year extended initial period. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will provide written confirmation of whether the lessee has earned the extended initial period and update BOEM records accordingly.

    (3) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths ranging from 800 to less than 1,600 meters issued as a result of this sale will be 7 years. If the lessee spuds a well within the standard 7-year initial period of the lease, the lessee will earn an additional 3 years, resulting in a 10-year extended initial period.

    In order to earn the 10-year extended initial period, the lessee is required to submit to the BOEM Gulf of Mexico Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans, as soon as practicable, but in no case more than 30 days after spudding a well, a letter providing the well number and spud date, and requesting confirmation that the lessee earned the 10-year extended initial period. Within 30 days of receipt of the request, the Regional Supervisor for Leasing and Plans will provide written confirmation of whether the lessee has earned the extended initial period and update BOEM records accordingly.

    (4) The standard initial period for a lease in water depths 1,600 meters or deeper issued as a result of this sale will be 10 years.

    Economic Conditions Minimum Bonus Bid Amounts

    • $25.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters; and

    • $100.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.

    BOEM will not accept a bonus bid unless it provides for a cash bonus in the amount equal to, or exceeding, the specified minimum bid of $25.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths less than 400 meters, and $100.00 per acre or fraction thereof for blocks in water depths 400 meters or deeper.

    Rental Rates

    Annual rental rates are summarized in the following table:

    Rental Rates per Acre or Fraction Thereof Water depth
  • (meters)
  • Years
  • 1-5
  • Years 6, 7, & 8 +
    0 to < 200 $7.00 $14.00, $21.00, & $28.00 200 to < 400 11.00 $22.00, $33.00, & $44.00 400 + 11.00 $16.00
    Escalating Rental Rates for Leases With an 8-Year Extended Initial Period in Water Depths Less Than 400 Meters

    Any lessee with a lease in less than 400 meters water depth who earns an 8-year extended initial period will pay an escalating rental rate as shown above. The rental rates after the fifth year for blocks in less than 400 meters water depth will become fixed and no longer escalate, if another well is spudded targeting hydrocarbons below 25,000 feet TVD SS after the fifth year of the lease, and BOEM concurs that such a well has been spudded. In this case, the rental rate will become fixed at the rental rate in effect during the lease year in which the additional well was spudded.

    Royalty Rate

    • 18.75%.

    Minimum Royalty Rate

    • $7.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths less than 200 meters; and

    • $11.00 per acre or fraction thereof per year for blocks in water depths 200 meters or greater.

    Royalty Suspension Provisions

    The issuance of leases with royalty suspension volumes (RSVs) or other forms of royalty relief is authorized under existing BOEM regulations at 30 CFR part 560. The specific details relating to eligibility and implementation of the various royalty relief programs, including those involving the use of RSVs, are codified in BSEE regulations at 30 CFR part 203. In this sale, the only royalty relief program being offered, which involves the provision of RSVs, relates to the drilling of ultra-deep wells in water depths of less than 400 meters, as described below.

    Royalty Suspension Volumes on Gas Production From Ultra-Deep Wells

    Leases issued as a result of this sale may be eligible for RSVs incentives on gas produced from ultra-deep wells pursuant to 30 CFR part 203. These regulations implement the requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Under this program, wells on leases in less than 400 meters water depth and completed to a drilling depth of 20,000 feet TVD SS or deeper receive a RSV of 35 billion cubic feet on the production of natural gas. This RSVs incentive is subject to applicable price thresholds set forth in the regulation at 30 CFR part 203.

    IV. Lease Stipulations

    One or more of the following stipulations may be applied to leases issued as a result of this sale. The detailed text of these stipulations is contained in the “Lease Stipulations” section of this Final NOS Package.

    (1) Topographic Features;

    (2) Military Areas;

    (3) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Royalty Payment;

    (4) Protected Species; and

    (5) Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico.

    V. Information to Lessees

    The following Information to Lessees (ITL) clauses provide detailed information on certain issues pertaining to this oil and gas lease sale. The detailed text of the following ITL clauses is contained in the “Information to Lessees” section of this Final NOS Package.

    (1) Navigation Safety;

    (2) Ordnance Disposal Areas in the WPA;

    (3) Existing and Proposed Artificial Reefs/Rigs-to-Reefs;

    (4) Lightering Zones;

    (5) Indicated Hydrocarbons List;

    (6) Military Areas in the WPA;

    (7) BSEE Inspection and Enforcement of Certain U.S. Coast Guard Regulations;

    (8) Potential Sand Dredging Activities in the WPA;

    (9) Notice of Arrival on the Outer Continental Shelf;

    (10) Bidder/Lessee Notice of Obligations Related to Criminal/Civil Charges and Offenses, Suspension, or Debarment;

    (11) Protected Species; and

    (12) Proposed Flower Garden Banks Expansion.

    VI. Maps

    The maps pertaining to this lease sale may be found on the BOEM Web site at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-248. The following maps also are included in this Final NOS Package:

    Lease Terms and Economic Conditions Map

    The lease terms, economic conditions, and the blocks to which these terms and conditions apply are shown on the map entitled “Final, Western Planning Area, Lease Sale 248, August 24, 2016, Lease Terms and Economic Conditions.”

    Stipulations and Deferred Blocks Map

    The blocks to which one or more lease stipulations may apply are shown on the map entitled “Final, Western Planning Area, Lease Sale 248, August 24, 2016, Stipulations and Deferred Blocks Map.”

    VII. Bidding Instructions

    Bids may be submitted in person or by mail at the address below. Instructions on how to submit a bid, secure payment of the advance bonus bid deposit (if applicable), and what information must be included with the bid are as follows:

    Bid Form

    For each block bid upon, a separate sealed bid must be submitted in a sealed envelope (as described below) and include the following:

    • Total amount of the bid in whole dollars only;

    • sale number;

    • sale date;

    • each bidder's exact name;

    • each bidder's proportionate interest, stated as a percentage, using a maximum of five decimal places (e.g., 33.33333%);

    • typed name and title, and signature of each bidder's authorized officer;

    • each bidder's qualification number;

    • map name and number or OPD name and number;

    • block number; and

    • statement acknowledging that the bidder(s) understands that this bid legally binds the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid amount on all apparent high bids.

    The information required on the bid(s) is specified in the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS Package. A blank bid form is provided in the Final NOS Package for convenience and may be copied and completed with the necessary information described above.

    Bid Envelope

    Each bid must be submitted in a separate sealed envelope labeled as follows:

    • “Sealed Bid for Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248, not to be opened until 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, August 24, 2016;”

    • map name and number or OPD name and number;

    • block number for block bid upon; and

    • the exact name and qualification number of the submitting bidder only.

    The Final NOS Package includes a sample bid envelope for reference. Mailed Bids

    If bids are mailed, please address the envelope containing the sealed bid envelope(s) as follows: Attention: Leasing and Financial Responsibility Section, BOEM Gulf of Mexico Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, Contains Sealed Bids for WPA Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248, Please Deliver to Ms. Cindy Thibodeaux, 2nd Floor, Immediately.

    Please Note:

    Bidders mailing bid(s) are advised to call Ms. Cindy Thibodeaux at (504) 736-2809 or Mr. Carrol Williams at (504) 736- 2803, immediately after putting their bid(s) in the mail. If BOEM receives bids later than the Bid Submission Deadline, the BOEM Regional Director (RD) will return those bids unopened to bidders. Please see “Section XI. Delay of Sale” regarding BOEM's discretion to extend the Bid Submission Deadline in the case of an unexpected event (e.g., flooding or travel restrictions) and how bidders can obtain more information on such extensions.

    Advance Bonus Bid Deposit Guarantee

    Bidders that are not currently an OCS oil and gas lease record title holder or designated operator, or those that ever have defaulted on a one-fifth bonus bid deposit, by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) or otherwise, must guarantee (secure) the payment of the one-fifth bonus bid deposit prior to bid submission using one of the following four methods:

    • Provide a third-party guarantee;

    • amend an areawide development bond via bond rider;

    • provide a letter of credit; or

    • provide a lump sum payment in advance via EFT.

    For more information on EFT procedures, see Section X of this document entitled “The Lease Sale.” Affirmative Action

    Prior to bidding, each bidder should file Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Representation Form BOEM-2032 (October 2011) and Equal Opportunity Compliance Report Certification Form BOEM-2033 (October 2011) with the BOEM GOM Region Adjudication Section. This certification is required by 41 CFR part 60 and Executive Order No. 11248, issued September 24, 1965, as amended by Executive Order No. 11375, issued October 13, 1967. Both forms must be on file for the bidder(s) in the GOM Region Adjudication Section prior to the execution of any lease contract.

    Geophysical Data and Information Statement

    The Geophysical Data and Information Statement (GDIS) is composed of three parts:

    (1) The “Statement” page includes the company representatives' information and lists of blocks bid on that used proprietary data and those blocks bid on that did not use proprietary data;

    (2) the “Table” listing the required data about each proprietary survey used (see below); and

    (3) the “Maps” being the live trace maps for each survey that are identified in the GDIS statement and table.

    Every bidder submitting a bid on a block in WPA Sale 248, or participating as a joint bidder in such a bid, must submit at the time of bid submission all three parts of the GDIS. A bidder must submit the GDIS even if a joint bidder or bidders on a specific block also have submitted a GDIS. Any speculative data that has been reprocessed externally or “in-house” is considered proprietary due to the proprietary processing and is no longer considered speculative.

    The GDIS must be submitted in a separate and sealed envelope, and identify all proprietary data; reprocessed speculative data, and/or any Controlled Source Electromagnetic surveys, Amplitude Versus Offset, Gravity, or Magnetic data; or other information used as part of the decision to bid or participate in a bid on the block.

    The GDIS statement must include the name, phone number, and full address of a contact person and an alternate who are both knowledgeable about the information and data listed and who are available for 30 days after the sale date. The GDIS statement also must include a list of all blocks bid upon that did not use proprietary or reprocessed pre- or post-stack geophysical data and information as part of the decision to bid or to participate as a joint bidder in the bid. The GDIS statement must be submitted even if no proprietary geophysical data and information were used in bid preparation for the block.

    The GDIS table should have columns that clearly state the sale number; the bidder company's name; the block area and block number bid on; the owner of the original data set (i.e., who initially acquired the data); the industry's original name of the survey (e.g., E Octopus); the BOEM permit number for the survey; whether the data set is a fast track version; whether the data is speculative or proprietary; the data type (e.g., 2-D, 3-D, or 4-D; pre-stack or post-stack; and time or depth); migration algorithm (e.g., Kirchhoff Migration, Wave Equation Migration, Reverse Migration, Reverse Time Migration) of the data; and areal extent of bidder survey (i.e., number of line miles for 2-D or number of blocks for 3-D). Provide the computer storage size, to the nearest gigabyte, of each seismic data and velocity volume used to evaluate the lease block in question. This information will be used in estimating the reproduction costs for each data set, if applicable. The availability of reimbursement of production costs will be determined consistent with 30 CFR 551.13. The next column should state who reprocessed the data (e.g., external company name or “in-house”) and when final reprocessing was completed (month and year). If the data was sent to BOEM for bidding in a previous lease sale, list the date the data was processed (month and year) and indicate if Amplitude Versus Offset (AVO) data was used in the evaluation. BOEM reserves the right to query about alternate data sets, to quality check, and to compare the listed and alternative data sets to determine which data set most closely meets the needs of the fair market value determination process. An example of the preferred format of the table may be found in the Final NOS Package, and a blank digital version of the preferred table may be accessed on the WPA Sale 248 Web page at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-248/.

    The GDIS maps are live trace maps (in .pdf and ArcGIS shape files) that should be submitted for each proprietary survey that is identified in the GDIS table. They should illustrate the actual areal extent of the proprietary geophysical data in the survey (see the “Example of Preferred Format” in the Final NOS Package for additional information).

    Pursuant to 30 CFR 551.12 and 30 CFR 556.501, as a condition of the sale, the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD requests that all bidders and joint bidders submit the proprietary data identified on their GDIS within 30 days after the lease sale (unless they are notified after the lease sale that BOEM has withdrawn the request). This request only pertains to proprietary data that is not commercially available. Commercially available data is not required to be submitted to BOEM, and reimbursement will not be provided if such data is submitted by a bidder. The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD will notify bidders and joint bidders of any withdrawal of the request, for all or some of the proprietary data identified on the GDIS, within 15 days of the lease sale. Pursuant to 30 CFR part 551 and 30 CFR 556.501 as a condition of this sale, all bidders required to submit data must ensure that the data is received by BOEM no later than the 30th day following the lease sale, or the next business day if the submission deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday. The data must be submitted to BOEM at the following address: Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Resource Studies, MS 881A, 1201 Elmwood Park Blvd., New Orleans, LA 70123-2304.

    BOEM recommends that bidders mark the submission's external envelope as “Deliver Immediately to DASPU.” BOEM also recommends that the data be submitted in an internal envelope, or otherwise marked, with the following designation: “Proprietary Geophysical Data Submitted Pursuant to Lease Sale 248 and used during evaluation of Block.”

    In the event a person supplies any type of data to BOEM, that person must meet the following requirements to qualify for reimbursement:

    (1) Persons must be registered with the System for Award Management (SAM), formerly known as the Central Contractor Registration (CCR). CCR usernames will not work in SAM. A new SAM User Account is needed to register or update an entity's records. The Web site for registering is https://www.sam.gov.

    (2) Persons must be enrolled in the Department of the Treasury's Internet Payment Platform (IPP) for electronic invoicing. The person must enroll in the IPP at https://www.ipp.gov/. Access then will be granted to use the IPP for submitting requests for payment. When a request for payment is submitted, it must include the assigned Purchase Order Number on the request.

    (3) Persons must have a current On-line Representations and Certifications Application at https://www.sam.gov.

    Please Note:

    The GDIS Information Table must be submitted digitally, preferably as an Excel spreadsheet, on a CD or DVD along with the seismic data map(s). If bidders have any questions, please contact Ms. Dee Smith at (504) 736-2706, or Mr. John Johnson at (504) 736-2455.

    Bidders should refer to Section X of this document, “The Lease Sale: Acceptance, Rejection, or Return of Bids,” regarding a bidder's failure to comply with the requirements of the Final NOS, including any failure to submit information as required in this Final NOS or Final NOS Package.

    Telephone Numbers/Addresses of Bidders

    BOEM requests that bidders provide this information in the suggested format prior to or at the time of bid submission. The suggested format is included in the Final NOS Package. The form must not be enclosed inside the sealed bid envelope.

    Additional Documentation

    BOEM may require bidders to submit other documents in accordance with 30 CFR 556.501.

    VIII. Bidding Rules and Restrictions Restricted Joint Bidders

    On May 17, 2016, BOEM published the most recent List of Restricted Joint Bidders in the Federal Register at 81 FR 30548. Potential bidders are advised to refer to the Federal Register, prior to bidding, for the most current List of Restricted Joint Bidders in place at the time of the lease sale. Please refer to the joint bidding provisions at 30 CFR 556.511 and 556.512.

    Authorized Signatures

    All signatories executing documents on behalf of bidder(s) must execute the same in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Bidders are advised that BOEM considers the signed bid to be a legally binding obligation on the part of the bidder(s) to comply with all applicable regulations, including payment of one-fifth of the bonus bid on all high bids. A statement to this effect must be included on each bid form (see the document “Bid Form” contained in the Final NOS Package).

    Unlawful Combination or Intimidation

    BOEM warns bidders against violation of 18 U.S.C. 1860, prohibiting unlawful combination or intimidation of bidders.

    Bid Withdrawal

    Bids may be withdrawn only by written request delivered to BOEM prior to the Bid Submission Deadline. The withdrawal request must be on company letterhead and must contain the bidder's name, its BOEM qualification number, the map name/number, and the block number(s) of the bid(s) to be withdrawn. The withdrawal request must be executed by an authorized signatory of the bidder and must be executed in conformance with the BOEM qualification records. Signatories must be authorized to bind their respective legal business entities (e.g., a corporation, partnership, or LLC), and documentation must be on file with BOEM setting forth this authority to act on the business entity's behalf for purposes of bidding and lease execution under OCSLA (e.g., business charter or articles, incumbency certificate, or power of attorney). The name and title of the authorized signatory must be typed under the signature block on the withdrawal request. The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD, or the RD's designee, will indicate any approval by signing and dating the withdrawal request.

    Bid Rounding

    The bonus bid amount must be stated in whole dollars. Minimum bonus bid calculations, including all rounding, for all blocks are shown in the document entitled “List of Blocks Available for Leasing,” which is included in this Final NOS Package. If the acreage of a block contains a decimal figure, then prior to calculating the minimum bonus bid, BOEM has rounded up to the next whole acre. The appropriate minimum rate per acre was then applied to the whole (rounded up) acreage. If this calculation resulted in a fractional dollar amount, the minimum bonus bid was rounded up to the next whole dollar amount. The bonus bid amount must be greater than or equal to the minimum bonus bid in whole dollars.

    IX. Forms

    The Final NOS Package includes instructions, samples, and/or the preferred format for the following items. BOEM strongly encourages bidders to use these formats; should bidders use another format, they are responsible for including all the information specified for each item in this Final NOS Package.

    (1) Bid Form;

    (2) Sample Completed Bid;

    (3) Sample Bid Envelope;

    (4) Sample Bid Mailing Envelope;

    (5) Telephone Numbers/Addresses of Bidders Form;

    (6) GDIS Form; and

    (7) GDIS Envelope Form.

    X. The Lease Sale Bid Opening and Reading

    Sealed bids received in response to the Final NOS will be opened at the place, date, and hour specified in the “DATE AND TIME” and “LOCATION” sections of this document. The opening of the bids is for the sole purpose of publicly announcing and recording the bids received; no bids will be accepted or rejected at that time.

    Bonus Bid Deposit for Apparent High Bids

    Each bidder submitting an apparent high bid must submit a bonus bid deposit to the U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR) equal to one-fifth of the bonus bid amount for each such bid. A copy of the notification of the high bidder's one-fifth bonus bid amount may be obtained on the BOEM Web site at http://www.boem.gov/Sale-248/ under the heading “Notification of EFT 1/5 Bonus Liability” after 1:00 p.m. on the day of the sale. All payments must be deposited electronically into an interest-bearing account in the U.S. Treasury by 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time the day following the bid reading (no exceptions). Account information is provided in the “Instructions for Making Electronic Funds Transfer Bonus Payments” found on the BOEM Web site identified above.

    BOEM requires bidders to use EFT procedures for payment of one-fifth bonus bid deposits for WPA Sale 248, following the detailed instructions contained on the ONRR Payment Information Web page at http://www.onrr.gov/FM/PayInfo.htm. Acceptance of a deposit does not constitute and will not be construed as acceptance of any bid on behalf of the United States.

    Withdrawal of Blocks

    The United States reserves the right to withdraw any block from this lease sale prior to issuance of a written acceptance of a bid for the block.

    Acceptance, Rejection, or Return of Bids

    The United States reserves the right to reject any and all bids. No bid will be accepted, and no lease for any block will be awarded to any bidder, unless:

    (1) the bidder has complied with all requirements of the Final NOS Package and applicable regulations;

    (2) the bid submitted is the highest valid bid; and

    (3) the amount of the bid has been determined to be adequate by the authorized officer.

    Any bid submitted that does not conform to the requirements of the Final NOS and Final NOS Package, OCSLA, BOEM regulations, or other applicable statutes or regulations, may be rejected and returned to the bidder. The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will review the results of the lease sale for antitrust issues prior to the acceptance of bids and issuance of leases.

    Bid Adequacy Review Procedures

    To ensure that the U.S. Government receives a fair return for the conveyance of leases from this sale, high bids will be evaluated in accordance with BOEM's bid adequacy procedures which are available at http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-Energy-Program/Leasing/Regional-Leasing/Gulf-of-Mexico-Region/Bid-Adequacy-Procedures.aspx.

    Lease Award

    BOEM requires each bidder awarded a lease to:

    (1) execute all copies of the lease (Form BOEM-2005 [October 2011], as amended);

    (2) pay by EFT the balance of the bonus bid amount and the first year's rental for each lease issued in accordance with the requirements of 30 CFR 218.155 and 556.520; and

    (3) satisfy the bonding requirements of 30 CFR part 556, subpart I, as amended.

    ONRR requests that only one transaction be used for payment of the four-fifths bonus bid amount and the first year's rental.

    XI. Delay of Sale

    The BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD has the discretion to change any date, time, and/or location specified in the Final NOS Package in case of an event that the BOEM Gulf of Mexico RD deems may interfere with the carrying out of a fair and orderly lease sale process. Such events could include, but are not limited to, natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, hurricanes, and floods), wars, riots, acts of terrorism, fires, strikes, civil disorder, or other events of a similar nature. In case of such events, bidders should call (504) 736-0557, or access the BOEM Web site at http://www.boem.gov, for information regarding any changes.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17574 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2016-0008] Gulf of Mexico, Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Western Planning Area (WPA) Oil and Gas Lease Sale 248; MMAA104000 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a record of decision

    SUMMARY:

    BOEM is announcing the availability of a Record of Decision for proposed oil and gas WPA Lease Sale 248. This Record of Decision identifies the Bureau's selected alternative for proposed WPA Lease Sale 248, which is analyzed in the Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sale: 2016; Western Planning Area Lease Sale 248 Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (WPA 248 Supplemental EIS). BOEM has selected the proposed action, which is identified as BOEM's preferred alternative (Alternative A) in the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS. The Record of Decision and associated information are available on the agency's Web site at http://www.boem.gov/nepaprocess/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For more information on the Record of Decision, you may contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard (GM 623E), New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394. You may also contact Mr. Goeke by telephone at 504-736-3233.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS, BOEM evaluated three alternatives, which are summarized below with regard to proposed WPA Lease Sale 248:

    Alternative A—The Proposed Action: This is BOEM's preferred alternative. This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area for oil and gas operations with the following exception: whole and partial blocks within the boundary of the Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary (i.e., the boundary as of the publication of the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS).

    All unleased whole and partial blocks in the WPA that BOEM will offer for leasing in proposed WPA Lease Sale 248 are listed in the document “List of Blocks Available for Leasing,” which is included in the Final Notice of Sale for WPA Lease Sale 248 being published contemporaneously. The proposed WPA lease sale area encompasses nearly all of the WPA's 28.58 million acres. As of June 2016, approximately 23.7 million acres of the proposed WPA lease sale area are unleased. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed as a result of the proposed WPA lease sale is 0.116-0.200 billion barrels of oil (BBO) and 0.538-0.938 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas.

    Alternative B —Exclude the Unleased Blocks Subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation: This alternative would offer for lease all unleased blocks within the proposed WPA lease sale area, as described for the proposed action (Alternative A), but it would exclude from leasing any unleased blocks subject to the Topographic Features Stipulation. The estimated amount of resources projected to be developed under this alternative is 0.116-0.200 BBO and 0.538-0.938 Tcf of gas. The number of blocks that would not be offered under Alternative B represents only a small percentage of the total number of blocks to be offered under Alternative A; therefore, it is expected that the levels of activity for Alternative B would be essentially the same as those projected for the WPA proposed action.

    Alternative C—No Action: This alternative is the cancellation of proposed WPA Lease Sale 248 and is identified as the environmentally preferred alternative.

    Lease Stipulations—The WPA 248 Supplemental EIS describes all lease stipulations, which are included in the Final Notice of Sale Package. The five lease stipulations for proposed WPA Lease Sale 248 are the Topographic Features Stipulation, the Military Areas Stipulation, the Protected Species Stipulation, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Royalty Payment Stipulation, and the Stipulation on the Agreement between the United States of America and the United Mexican States Concerning Transboundary Hydrocarbon Reservoirs in the Gulf of Mexico. Several of these lease stipulations have been developed to help mitigate potential impacts from oil and gas activities. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative at the lease sale stage are being adopted through application of these stipulations. The stipulations will be added as lease terms where applicable and will therefore be enforceable as part of the lease. Appendix A of the WPA 246 Supplemental EIS, which is incorporated by reference into the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS, provides a list and description of standard post-lease mitigating measures that may be required by BOEM or the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement as a result of post-lease plan and permit review processes for the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region.

    After careful consideration, BOEM has selected the proposed action, which is identified as BOEM's preferred alternative (Alternative A) in the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS. BOEM's selection of the preferred alternative meets the purpose and need for the proposed action, as identified in the WPA 248 Supplemental EIS, and reflects an orderly resource development with protection of the human, marine, and coastal environments while also ensuring that the public receives an equitable return for these resources and that free-market competition is maintained.

    Authority:

    This Notice of Availability of a Record of Decision is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR part 1503) implementing the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17566 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 22, 2016, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Arkena, Paris, FRANCE; DirectOut GmbH, Mittweida, GERMANY; Macnica, Inc., Solana Beach, CA; MNC Software, Inc., San Diego, CA; MOG Technologies, SA, Maia, PORTUGAL; Real-Time Innovations, Sunnyvale, CA; Ross Video, Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA; Sebastien Crème (individual member), Paris, FRANCE; and Carl Fleischhauer (individual member), Port Republic, MD, have been added as parties to this venture.

    Also, MOG Solutions SA, Maia, PORTUGAL; and National TeleConsultants, Glendale, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.

    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.

    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).

    The last notification was filed with the Department on March 23, 2016. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on April 18, 2016 (81 FR 22633).

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17434 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993—Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation Operating Under the Name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 16, 2016, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (“the Act”), the Integrated Photonics Institute for Manufacturing Innovation operating under the name of the American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (“AIM Photonics”), has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.

    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: The Research Foundation for the State University of New York, acting on behalf of the State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Albany, NY; The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, New York, NY; The Regents of the University of California, on behalf of its Santa Barbara campus, Santa Barbara, CA; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ; The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA; and SunEdison Semiconductor Limited, St. Peters, MO.

    The general area of AIM Photonics' planned activity is research, development and demonstration in the manufacture of integrated photonics. AIM Photonics seeks to (1) advance integrated photonic circuit manufacturing technology development while simultaneously providing access to state-of-the-art fabrication, packaging, and testing capabilities for commercial enterprises, academia and the government; (2) create an adaptive integrated photonic circuit workforce capable of meeting industry needs and thus further increasing domestic competitiveness; and (3) meet participating commercial, defense and civilian agency needs in this burgeoning technology area. AIM Photonics became the sixth Institute for Manufacturing Innovation. Its objective is to increase manufacturing in the United States.

    Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17435 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrust Division United States v. VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Capital Master Fund, LP, and ValueAct Co-Invest International, LP; Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement

    Notice is hereby given pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(b)-(h), that a proposed Final Judgment, Stipulation, and Competitive Impact Statement have been filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in United States of America v. VA Partners I, LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 16-cv-01672. On April 4, 2016, the United States filed a Complaint against VA Partners I, LLC, ValueAct Capital Master Fund, L.P. and ValueAct Co-Invest International, L.P. (collectively “ValueAct” or “Defendants”) alleging that ValueAct's acquisitions of voting securities of Halliburton Company and Baker Hughes Incorporated violated Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, commonly known as the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act of 1976 (the “HSR Act”). The proposed Final Judgment requires the Defendants to pay a civil penalty of $11,000,000 and further prohibits Defendants from engaging in conduct of the sort alleged in the Complaint, in violation of the HSR Act.

    Copies of the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, and Competitive Impact Statement are available for inspection on the Antitrust Division's Web site at http://www.justice.gov/atr and at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Copies of these materials may be obtained from the Antitrust Division upon request and payment of the copying fee set by Department of Justice regulations.

    Public comment is invited within 60 days of the date of this notice. Such comments, including the name of the submitter, and responses thereto, will be posted on the Antitrust Division's Web site, filed with the Court, and, under certain circumstances, published in the Federal Register. Comments should be directed to Kathleen S. O'Neill, Chief, Transportation, Energy & Agriculture Section, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice, 450 Fifth Street NW., Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530 (telephone: 202-307-2931).

    /s/ Patricia A. Brink, Director of Civil Enforcement. Kathleen S. O'Neill (PA Bar No. 82785) Joseph Chandra Mazumdar (WI Bar No. 1030967) Brian E. Hanna (VA Bar No. 80439) Robert A. Lepore (AZ Bar No. 028137) Tai Milder (CABN 267070) United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, NW., Suite 8000 Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-2931 Fax: (202) 307-2874 Email: [email protected] Brian J. Stretch (CABN 163973) United States Attorney [Additional counsel listed on signature page] Attorneys for Plaintiff United States of America United States District Court for the Northern District of California San Francisco Division

    United States of America, Plaintiff, v. VA Partners I, LLC, Valueact Capital Master Fund, L.P., Valueact Co-Invest International, L.P., Defendants.

    Case No.: 16-cv-01672 Judge: William Alsup Filed: 04/04/2016
    Complaint

    The United States of America, acting under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, brings this civil action to obtain civil penalties and equitable relief against the Defendants (collectively, “ValueAct”) for failing to comply with the premerger notification and waiting period requirements of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (“HSR Act”), and alleges as follows:

    I. Introduction

    1. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, is an essential part of modern antitrust enforcement. It requires purchasers of voting securities in excess of a certain value to notify the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission and to observe a waiting period before consummating the transaction. These obligations extend to acquisitions of minority interests. One limited exemption to these obligations applies if the purchaser's holdings constitute less than ten percent of the stock of the company and the acquisition is “solely for the purpose of investment”—that is, the purchaser has no intention of participating in the company's business decisions.

    2. ValueAct promotes itself as having a strategy of “active, constructive involvement” in the management of the companies in which it invests. This case concerns recent acquisitions by two ValueAct investment funds of over $2.5 billion of voting securities of Halliburton Company and Baker Hughes Incorporated. Halliburton and Baker Hughes are head-to-head competitors and two of the largest providers of oilfield products and services in the world. On November 17, 2014, Halliburton and Baker Hughes announced their intent to merge. Their proposed merger is the subject of an ongoing antitrust review in the United States and several other countries.

    3. ValueAct began acquiring significant holdings of the two companies on the heels of the Halliburton/Baker Hughes merger announcement. From the beginning, ValueAct anticipated influencing the business decisions of the companies as the merger process unfolded. ValueAct sent memoranda to its investors outlining this strategy and explaining that purchasing a stake in each of these firms would allow it to “be a strong advocate for the deal to close,” which would in turn “[i]ncrease probability of deal happening.” If the deal encountered “regulatory issues,” ValueAct “would be well positioned as an owner of both companies to help develop the new terms.” ValueAct executives also discussed internally a back-up plan to “sell at least some of Baker's pieces” if the deal were blocked or abandoned.

    4. ValueAct's purchases of Halliburton and Baker Hughes shares did not qualify for the narrow exemption from the requirements of the HSR Act for acquisitions made solely for the purpose of investment. ValueAct planned from the outset to take steps to influence the business decisions of both companies, and met frequently with executives of both companies to execute those plans.

    5. These HSR Act violations allowed ValueAct to become one of the largest shareholders of both Halliburton and Baker Hughes, without providing the government its statutory right to notice and prior review of the stock purchases. ValueAct established these positions as Halliburton and Baker Hughes were being investigated for agreeing to a merger that threatens to substantially lessen competition in numerous markets. ValueAct intended to use its position as a major shareholder of these companies to obtain access to management, to learn information about the merger and the companies' strategies in private conversations with senior executives, to influence those executives to improve the chances that the merger would be completed, and to influence other business decisions whether or not the merger went forward.

    6. The Court should assess a civil penalty of at least $19 million to address ValueAct's violations of the HSR Act, and should restrain ValueAct from further violations.

    II. Jurisdiction and Venue

    7. This Complaint is filed and these proceedings are instituted under Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, added by Title II of the HSR Act, to recover civil penalties and equitable relief for violations of that section.

    8. This Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants and over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 7A(g) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(g), and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1337(a), 1345 and 1355. Each of the Defendants is engaged in commerce, or in activities affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 1 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 12, and Section 7A(a)(1) of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a(a)(1).

    9. Venue is properly based in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 22, and under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2), (c)(2). Each of the Defendants transacts or has transacted business in this district and has its principal place of business here.

    III. Intradistrict Assignment

    10. Assignment to the San Francisco Division is proper because this action arose primarily in San Francisco County. Many of the events that gave rise to the claims occurred in San Francisco, and Defendants' headquarters and principal places of business were during the relevant events, and continue to be, located in San Francisco.

    IV. The Defendants

    11. This case arises from acquisitions of stock over several months by two investment funds—ValueAct Master Capital Fund, L.P. (“Master Fund”) and ValueAct Co-Invest International, L.P. (“Co-Invest Fund”). Though separate entities for purposes of the HSR Act, both funds have the same general partner—VA Partners I, LLC (“VA Partners”). Master Fund and Co-Invest Fund are organized under the laws of the British Virgin Islands, and VA Partners is organized under the laws of Delaware. Master Fund, Co-Invest Fund, and VA Partners (collectively, “ValueAct” or “Defendants”) all have the same principal office and place of business in San Francisco, California.

    12. ValueAct is well known as an activist investor. In contrast to other large funds that focus on passive investment strategies to generate returns, ValueAct's Web site explains that it pursues a strategy of “active, constructive involvement” in the management of the companies in which it invests. The Web site further states, “The goal in each investment is to work constructively with management and/or the company's board to implement a strategy or strategies that maximize returns for all shareholders.”

    13. ValueAct tracks its “activism” in these investments by various metrics, such as success in changing executive compensation, and touts these statistics in its presentations to potential investors as illustrated by the following slide from ValueAct's June 2015 presentation:

    EN25JY16.000

    14. In presentations, ValueAct has explained that it likes “disciplined oligopolies” and looks to invest in businesses in “[o]ligopolistic markets, high barriers-to-entry.”

    15. ValueAct funds have previously violated the HSR Act by acquiring voting securities without making the required notifications. In 2003, ValueAct Capital Partners, L.P. filed corrective notifications for three prior acquisitions of voting securities. ValueAct outlined steps it would take to ensure future compliance with the HSR Act. No enforcement action was taken at that time. Master Fund then failed to make required filings with respect to three acquisitions that it made in 2005. ValueAct agreed to pay a $1.1 million civil penalty to settle an HSR Act enforcement action based on these violations.

    V. Background A. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act

    16. The HSR Act requires parties to file a notification with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice and to observe a waiting period before consummating acquisitions of voting securities or assets that exceed certain value thresholds. These requirements give the antitrust enforcement agencies prior notice of, and information about, proposed transactions. The waiting period also provides the antitrust enforcement agencies with an opportunity to investigate and to seek an injunction to prevent the consummation of anticompetitive transactions.

    17. The HSR Act contains certain limited exemptions to the notification and waiting period requirements. The acquirer of voting securities has the burden of showing eligibility for an exemption. One such exemption applies narrowly to acquisitions made “solely for the purpose of investment” if the voting securities held do not exceed ten percent of the outstanding voting securities of the issuer. 15 U.S.C. 18a(c)(9). The regulations implementing the Act explain that, to qualify for this exemption, the acquiring party must have “no intention of participating in the formulation, determination, or direction of the basic business decisions of the issuer.” 16 CFR 801.1(i)(1).

    B. ValueAct's Initial Investment Decision and Strategy

    18. After Halliburton and Baker Hughes announced their intent to merge on November 17, 2014, ValueAct began purchasing stock in each company through its Master Fund and Co-Invest Fund. ValueAct continued to make purchases in both companies for several months, eventually acquiring over $2.5 billion in securities of the two companies combined.

    19. As ValueAct was acquiring stock in these two companies in December 2014 and early January 2015, its executives were developing strategies to use ValueAct's ownership position to influence management of each firm as necessary to increase the probability of the deal being completed. ValueAct's Master Fund crossed the applicable HSR Act reporting thresholds for Baker Hughes and Halliburton on December 1 and December 5, 2014, respectively, and Master Fund continued to build up its position as its executives discussed strategy. These discussions culminated in the drafting of memoranda that ValueAct sent to its investors on January 16, 2015. These memoranda—one about Baker Hughes and one about Halliburton—explained ValueAct's decision to acquire stakes in these competitors through its Master Fund, and offered investors the opportunity to increase their stakes in these firms through additional share purchases by ValueAct's Co-Invest Fund.

    20. These memoranda and other contemporaneous documents show that ValueAct's most senior executives planned from the outset to play an active role at Halliburton and Baker Hughes. The lead ValueAct partner responsible for the Baker Hughes investment internally circulated a draft of an investor memorandum explaining that “our activist approach limits our downside in the unlikely case that the merger does not close.” The draft further noted that if the merger were not completed, ValueAct “would likely seek to take a more active role in overseeing the company.” ValueAct's CEO then requested an insertion into the memorandum highlighting that ValueAct's “[a]ctive role” is an additional reason to invest in both companies.

    21. Although the memoranda ultimately shared with investors watered down the words used to describe ValueAct's activist strategy, they still emphasized that purchasing a stake in Halliburton and Baker Hughes would “increase probability of deal happening” and would allow ValueAct to be “a strong advocate for the deal to close.” ValueAct identified this as one of three “key considerations” supporting its investment decision. A contemporaneous email among ValueAct partners remarked that if Halliburton's shareholders threatened to vote against the deal, ValueAct's “position in HAL should be meaningful enough to have a substantial role in those conversations.”

    22. ValueAct also intended to help restructure the merger if it hit roadblocks. On December 16, 2014, ValueAct's CEO emailed his partners: “if we own both we can drive new terms to get the deal done if weird [expletive] is happening.” ValueAct also expressed this view in its memos to investors: “In the event of further fundamental dislocation or regulatory issues, it is possible the deal would need to be restructured and we believe ValueAct Capital would be well positioned as an owner of both companies to help develop the new terms.”

    23. In a December 2014 internal email, a ValueAct partner observed that “[i]f the deal failed, the back-up plan would seem to be to sell at least some of Baker's pieces, and we think that we could get up to 12x EBITDA for just 2 of BHI's businesses—artificial lift and chemicals.” ValueAct's memoranda to investors noted, “Recent transactions in each of those industries [specialty chemicals and artificial lift] suggest that these businesses are worth north of 10 times EBITDA.” Moreover, the Baker Hughes memorandum explained that there are “numerous levers for the company to pull to drive margin expansion,” and identified Baker Hughes's pressure pumping business as a good candidate for margin improvement.

    24. Regardless of how the merger process unfolded, ValueAct intended to influence the business decisions of both companies. For example, on December 5, 2014, the day Master Fund's holdings in Halliburton crossed the HSR Act threshold, a ValueAct partner wrote an email to ValueAct's CEO about Halliburton: “Wonder if it would be possible to get the VRX [Valeant Pharmaceuticals] comp plan in from outside the board room?” The CEO responded “Yes. Good idea.” (ValueAct had recently convinced management to change the executive compensation plan at another of its investments, Valeant Pharmaceuticals.)

    25. ValueAct also intended to play a role in Halliburton's efforts to integrate the two firms. ValueAct told its investors that its stake in Halliburton “helps to further enhance our relationship with management and the board of directors as they work to complete the merger and integrate the business into Halliburton's existing operations.”

    C. ValueAct's Efforts To Influence the Management of Both Companies

    26. Consistent with its investment strategy of “active, constructive involvement,” ValueAct established a direct line to senior management at both Halliburton and Baker Hughes and met with them frequently from the time it started acquiring stock. From December 2014 through January 2016, ValueAct met in person or had teleconferences more than fifteen times with senior management of Halliburton or Baker Hughes, including meeting multiple times with the CEOs of both companies. ValueAct partners also exchanged a number of emails with management at both firms about the merger and the companies' respective operations.

    27. ValueAct reached out to Baker Hughes immediately after it began purchasing shares. On December 1, 2014, the day Master Fund's holdings crossed the HSR Act threshold for Baker Hughes, a ValueAct partner told a Baker Hughes executive that ValueAct was positive on the merger but also liked “that 20% of [Baker Hughes's] revenue comes from non-capital intensive business lines which could command a big multiple if sold.” A few days later, ValueAct's CEO met in person with the CFO of Baker Hughes. According to Baker Hughes's notes of the meeting, ValueAct's CEO “highlighted that it was critical that BHI continued focused [sic] on many of these improvement opportunities despite the acquisition. He specifically emphasized with graphs the largest gap/opportunities he saw.” With respect to the gap in Baker Hughes's North American margins, ValueAct's CEO stated, “Looking to learn with BHI on how to close that GAP [sic].” ValueAct's CEO also discussed other areas “that he thought BHI should continue to focus on as there was a lot of improvement opportunity.” According to the notes, the meeting ended with ValueAct's CEO “stating that they would remain in contact and sharing that they plan to be large shareholders of BHI.”

    28. On January 16, 2015, ValueAct filed a Beneficial Ownership Report (Schedule 13D) with the Securities and Exchange Commission publicly disclosing its substantial stake in Baker Hughes and reporting that it might discuss “competitive and strategic matters” with Baker Hughes management, and might “propos[e] changes in [Baker Hughes's] operations.” Before submitting the Schedule 13D, ValueAct's CEO notified Halliburton's CEO of the impending filing on Baker Hughes, explaining that the filing “gives us the flexibility to engage with the company [Baker Hughes] on all issues.” Later the same day, ValueAct's CEO emailed Halliburton's CEO a copy of its investment memoranda for both Halliburton and Baker Hughes.

    29. By February, after ValueAct had completed its outreach to investors seeking capital for additional share purchases, ValueAct began acquiring stock in Halliburton and Baker Hughes through Co-Invest Fund. On March 10, 2015, Co-Invest Fund's holdings in Halliburton crossed the applicable HSR Act reporting threshold.

    30. Also in early March, ValueAct contacted Halliburton to offer assistance in advance of the shareholder vote on the merger. ValueAct offered Halliburton “to speak with any of [Halliburton's] top shareholders about [ValueAct's] view of the merger prior to the vote.” Halliburton responded that it would let ValueAct know if ValueAct's help became necessary.

    31. In May 2015, ValueAct further engaged with Halliburton on the company's plans for post-merger integration. On May 13, ValueAct met with Halliburton's CEO to discuss actions that Halliburton could take in an attempt to achieve its target merger synergies. On May 27, a ValueAct partner called Halliburton's Chief Integration Officer to recommend a firm for real estate integration services. In a subsequent email exchange, another ValueAct partner emphasized the need to engage on these issues at the executive level, and stated that Halliburton's plan was “a traditional approach likely to leave value on the table.” Instead, the partner identified alternative ways the real estate firm could work with Halliburton to help achieve the synergy goals.

    32. ValueAct also followed through on its idea for changing Halliburton's executive compensation plan. On July 14, 2015, ValueAct contacted Halliburton's CEO to schedule a meeting to discuss executive compensation. At the meeting, which ultimately occurred in September, ValueAct delivered a thirty-five-page presentation detailing ValueAct's preferred approach, commenting on Halliburton's current plan, and proposing specific changes.

    D. Consistent With Its Initial Plans, ValueAct Worked To Restructure the Merger or To Sell Parts of Baker Hughes

    33. ValueAct carefully monitored the status of the antitrust review process and intended to intervene with the management of each firm as necessary to increase the probability of the deal being completed. ValueAct met with Baker Hughes's CEO in May 2015 and according to ValueAct's notes of that meeting, Baker Hughes's CEO “seemed pretty worried about anti-trust, and implied odds deal goes through 70% or lower in his mind.” ValueAct then continued to push management of both companies to preserve the deal or, if these efforts failed, to sell off pieces of Baker Hughes.

    34. On August 31, 2015, ValueAct met with Baker Hughes's CEO “to plant the seed to seek alternative options with other buyers if the deal falls through.” In its initial investment analysis, the ValueAct partners had discussed selling individual Baker Hughes businesses as a back-up plan if the merger failed. ValueAct presented an updated analysis to argue this case to Baker Hughes. V