Federal Register Vol. 81, No.144,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 144 (July 27, 2016)

Page Range49139-49516
FR Document

81_FR_144
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 49515 - Delegation of Certain Authorities and Assignment of Certain Functions Under the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015PDF
81 FR 49164 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Atlantic City, NJPDF
81 FR 49271 - Records Schedules; Availability and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 49320 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Order Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 7 Thereto, Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 To Adopt Generic Listing Standards for Managed Fund SharesPDF
81 FR 49347 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49248 - Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for Listing Under the Endangered Species ActPDF
81 FR 49225 - Generic Drug User Fee-Abbreviated New Drug Application, Prior Approval Supplement, Drug Master File, Final Dosage Form Facility, and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
81 FR 49210 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 49268 - Nemko-CCL, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of RecognitionPDF
81 FR 49210 - Procurement List; AdditionsPDF
81 FR 49214 - Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance RatePDF
81 FR 49220 - Board of Scientific Counselors Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee; Notification of Public Meeting and Public CommentPDF
81 FR 49165 - Etoxazole; Pesticide TolerancePDF
81 FR 49245 - Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act-Debenture Interest RatesPDF
81 FR 49215 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49255 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource AgreementsPDF
81 FR 49247 - 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for License for the Use of Personally Identifiable Information Protected Under the Privacy Act of 1974PDF
81 FR 49214 - Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory CommitteesPDF
81 FR 49284 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 49234 - Status of Overboard Detection Technology for Cruise VesselsPDF
81 FR 49195 - Special Local Regulation; Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, Crisfield, MDPDF
81 FR 49274 - LaCrosseSolutions, LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse Boiling Water ReactorPDF
81 FR 49281 - Southern California Edison Company; San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3PDF
81 FR 49216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field TestPDF
81 FR 49221 - Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding CompanyPDF
81 FR 49221 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 49273 - Meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Fukushima; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49164 - Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port ZonePDF
81 FR 49358 - Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint CommitteePDF
81 FR 49357 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Form 5500-EZPDF
81 FR 49193 - Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program; Negotiated Rulemaking Proposed Committee Membership and First MeetingPDF
81 FR 49358 - Proposed Collection; Comment Request for Regulation ProjectPDF
81 FR 49355 - EUROCAE WG-99 PLENARY #8/RTCA SC-234 Plenary #5-Calling Notice “Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs)”PDF
81 FR 49242 - Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 49354 - WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding China-Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products From the United States-Recourse by the United States to Article 21.5 of the DSUPDF
81 FR 49259 - Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0194PDF
81 FR 49237 - West Virginia; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster DeclarationPDF
81 FR 49356 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Comment Request; Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation PracticesPDF
81 FR 49256 - Notice of Realty Action: Competitive Sale of 16 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NVPDF
81 FR 49228 - Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 49208 - Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 49245 - 30-Day Notice and Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 49261 - Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 49265 - Certain Intermediate Bulk Containers; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 49215 - Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License; 5D Analytics, LLCPDF
81 FR 49171 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
81 FR 49237 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 49242 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 49223 - Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration; Office of the Assistant SecretaryPDF
81 FR 49235 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 49236 - Technical Mapping Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 49209 - Community Broadband SummitPDF
81 FR 49169 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
81 FR 49177 - Final Flood Elevation DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 49240 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 49224 - Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49175 - Suspension of Community EligibilityPDF
81 FR 49244 - Final Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 49270 - Proposed Collection of Existing Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49270 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49231 - Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49266 - Geoffrey D. Peterson, N.P.; Decision and OrderPDF
81 FR 49233 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49221 - Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act ReviewPDF
81 FR 49201 - Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to Logs and Reports for Startups, Shutdowns and MalfunctionsPDF
81 FR 49262 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 49263 - Certain Potassium Chloride Powder Products; Institution of InvestigationPDF
81 FR 49264 - Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and Components Thereof Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the InvestigationPDF
81 FR 49205 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; NJ; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10PDF
81 FR 49285 - Product Change-First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 49279 - Guidance on Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power ReactorsPDF
81 FR 49261 - Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Notice of Nomination SolicitationPDF
81 FR 49209 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 49208 - Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 49280 - Information Collection: NRC Forms 366, 366A, and 366B, “Licensee Event Report”PDF
81 FR 49348 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 11.26 To Implement the Quoting and Trading Provisions of the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 49336 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; BOX Options Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule on the BOX Market LLC (“BOX”) Options FacilityPDF
81 FR 49304 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Establishing Fees Relating to End Users and Amending the Definition of “Affiliate,” as well as Amending the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee Schedule To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 49332 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Establishing Fees Relating to End Users and Amending the Definition of “Affiliate,” as well as Amending the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange Services and the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 49300 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing of Amendment No. 2 to a Proposed Rule Change and Order Instituting Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, Establishing Fees Relating to End Users and Amending the Definition of “Affiliate,” as Well as Amending the NYSE Price List To Reflect the ChangesPDF
81 FR 49299 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule Change Relating to the Listing and Trading of Shares of the Virtus Japan Alpha ETF Under NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600PDF
81 FR 49341 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto, to List and Trade Exchange-Traded Managed FundsPDF
81 FR 49286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, To List and Trade Shares of the First Trust Municipal High Income ETF of First Trust Exchange-Traded Fund IIIPDF
81 FR 49309 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending NYSE Arca Equities Rules 2.16(c) and 2.21(i) to Harmonize the Requirement of When an ETP Holder Must File a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration With the Rules of Other Exchanges and FINRAPDF
81 FR 49293 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Affiliated EntitiesPDF
81 FR 49286 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Amending Rules 2.17(c) and 2.23(i) To Harmonize the Requirement of When OTP Holders and OTP Firms Must File a Uniform Termination Notice for Securities Industry Registration With the Rules of Other Exchanges and FINRAPDF
81 FR 49288 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Affiliated EntitiesPDF
81 FR 49309 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Depository Trust Company; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule Change Pursuant to Which DTC Would Impose Deposit Chills and Global Locks and Provide Fair Procedures to IssuersPDF
81 FR 49315 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the Exchange's Price ListPDF
81 FR 49327 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule the NYSE Arca Equities Schedule of Fees and Charges for Exchange ServicesPDF
81 FR 49311 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE MKT Equities Price List and the NYSE Amex Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 49216 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2018) Recruitment and Field TestPDF
81 FR 49233 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingsPDF
81 FR 49232 - National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 49233 - National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49356 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition ReceivedPDF
81 FR 49230 - Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 49217 - Notice of Availability of Midterm Evaluation Draft Technical Assessment Report for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE StandardsPDF
81 FR 49198 - Supportive Services for Veteran Families ProgramPDF
81 FR 49180 - Schedule of Application FeesPDF
81 FR 49158 - Repair StationsPDF
81 FR 49156 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 49139 - Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Governance; Standards of Conduct; Risk Management; and Disclosure and ReportingPDF
81 FR 49432 - Disclosure of Order Handling InformationPDF
81 FR 49163 - Order Recognizing the Resource Extraction Payment Disclosure Requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as Substantially Similar to the Requirements of Rule 13q-1 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934PDF
81 FR 49360 - Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction IssuersPDF

Issue

81 144 Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Contents Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49221-49223 2016-17716 Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority, 49223-49224 2016-17737 Civil Rights Civil Rights Commission NOTICES Meetings: Indiana Advisory Committee, 49208-49209 2016-17684 Michigan Advisory Committee, 49209 2016-17685 Montana Advisory Committee, 49208 2016-17749 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway, Atlantic City, NJ, 49164-49165 2016-17847 Special Local Regulation: Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, AZ) and Headgate Dam (Parker, AZ) within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone, 49164 2016-17765 PROPOSED RULES Special Local Regulations: Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, Crisfield, MD, 49195-49197 2016-17774 NOTICES Status of Overboard Detection Technology for Cruise Vessels, 49234-49235 2016-17775 Commerce Commerce Department See

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 49210 2016-17792 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Guidance on Sound Incentive Compensation Practices, 49356-49357 2016-17754 Defense Department Defense Department See

Navy Department

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49215 2016-17780 Charter Amendments: Federal Advisory Committees, 49214 2016-17777 Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate, 49214-49215 2016-17791 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 49210-49214 2016-17796
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Decisions and Orders: Geoffrey D. Peterson, 49266-49268 2016-17722 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey Main Study Recruitment and Field Test, 49216-49217 2016-17771 Program for International Student Assessment Recruitment and Field Test, 49216 2016-17661 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Pesticide Tolerances: Etoxazole, 49165-49169 2016-17786 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: New Jersey; Infrastructure Requirements for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Interstate Transport Provisions, 49205-49207 2016-17710 Tennessee: Revisions to Logs and Reports for Startups, Shutdowns and Malfunctions, 49201-49204 2016-17715 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards, 49217-49220 2016-17649 Meetings: Board of Scientific Counselors Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee, 49220-49221 2016-17788 Farm Credit Farm Credit Administration RULES Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation: Governance; Standards of Conduct; Risk Management; and Disclosure and Reporting, 49139-49156 2016-17455 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 49156-49158 2016-17538 Repair Stations, 49158-49163 2016-17612 NOTICES Meetings: EUROCAE WG-99 PLENARY No. 8/RTCA SC-234 Plenary No. 5—Calling Notice Portable Electronic Devices, 49355 2016-17759 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries, 49356 2016-17652 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission RULES Schedule of Application Fees, 49180-49192 2016-17621 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency RULES Flood Hazard Determinations, 49177-49180 2016-17731 Suspensions of Community Eligibility, 2016-17728 49169-49177 2016-17732 2016-17741 NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations, 49242-49245 2016-17727 2016-17739 Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 49240-49242 2016-17730 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 49237-49239 2016-17740 Major Disaster Declarations: Texas; Amendment No. 4, 49242 2016-17758 West Virginia; Amendment No. 6, 49237 2016-17755 Meetings: Technical Mapping Advisory Council, 49235-49237 2016-17735 2016-17736 Federal Highway Federal Highway Administration PROPOSED RULES Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program: Negotiated Rulemaking Proposed Committee Membership and First Meeting, 49193-49195 2016-17761 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Changes in Bank Control: Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company, 49221 2016-17770 Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 49221 2016-17769 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service NOTICES Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for Listing under the Endangered Species Act, 49248-49255 2016-17818 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Generic Drug User Fee: Abbreviated New Drug Application, Prior Approval Supplement, Drug Master File, Final Dosage Form Facility, and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2017, 49225-49228 2016-17801 Guidance: Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies, 49230-49231 2016-17651 Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices, 49228-49230 2016-17750 Meetings: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, 49224-49225 2016-17729 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Children and Families Administration

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, 49231-49232 2016-17724 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

Secret Service

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: License for the Use of Personally Identifiable Information Protected under the Privacy Act; Correction, 49247-49248 2016-17778 Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs under the National Housing Act: Debenture Interest Rates, 49245-49247 2016-17783 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, 49255-49256 2016-17779 Interior Interior Department See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49357-49358 2016-17760 2016-17763 Meetings: Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee, 49358 2016-17764 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Certain Intermediate Bulk Containers, 49265-49266 2016-17745 Certain Potassium Chloride Powder Products, 49263-49264 2016-17712 Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and Components Thereof, 49264-49265 2016-17711 Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, 49262-49263 2016-17713 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

Labor Department Labor Department See

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

See

Workers Compensation Programs Office

Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49259-49261 2016-17756 Meetings: Resource Advisory Council, Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council, 49261 2016-17746 Realty Actions: Competitive Sale of 16 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NV, 49256-49259 2016-17753 National Archives National Archives and Records Administration NOTICES Records Schedules, 49271-49273 2016-17833 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 49233 2016-17656 National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 49232 2016-17655 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, 49233 2016-17654 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, 49261-49262 2016-17692 National Telecommunications National Telecommunications and Information Administration NOTICES Meetings: Community Broadband Summit, 49209-49210 2016-17734 Navy Navy Department NOTICES Partially Exclusive and Co-Exclusive Licenses: 5D Analytics, LLC., 49215-49216 2016-17742 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Licensee Event Report, 49280-49281 2016-17678 Exemptions: LaCrosseSolutions, LLC, Dairyland Power Cooperative, La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, 49274-49279 2016-17773 Southern California Edison Co., San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, 49281-49284 2016-17772 Guidance: Making Changes to Emergency Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors, 49279-49280 2016-17696 Meetings: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Subcommittee on Fukushima, 49273-49274 2016-17767 Occupational Safety Health Adm Occupational Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Expansions of Recognition: Nemko-CCL, Inc., 49268-49270 2016-17793 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 49284-49285 2016-17776 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 49285 2016-17703 2016-17705 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents EXECUTIVE ORDERS Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015; Delegation of Authorities and Assignment of Functions (EO 13733), 49513-49516 2016-17945 Secret Secret Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49245 2016-17748 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers, 49360-49430 2016-15676 Orders: Resource Extraction Payment Disclosure Requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, etc., 49163-49164 2016-15677 PROPOSED RULES Disclosure of Order Handling Information, 49432-49511 2016-16967 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49347-49348 2016-17821 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: BOX Options Exchange, LLC, 49336-49341 2016-17676 Depository Trust Co., 49309 2016-17665 NASDAQ PHLX, LLC, 49293-49299 2016-17668 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 49286, 49288-49293 2016-17666 2016-17670 Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC, 49341-49347 2016-17671 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 49348-49353 2016-17677 New York Stock Exchange, LLC, 49300-49304, 49315-49319 2016-17664 2016-17673 NYSE Arca, Inc., 49286-49288, 49299, 49309-49311, 49320-49336 2016-17825 2016-17663 2016-17667 2016-17669 2016-17672 2016-17674 NYSE MKT, LLC, 49304-49309, 49311-49315 2016-17662 2016-17675 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49233-49234 2016-17720 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES WTO Dispute Settlement Proceedings: Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States, 49354-49355 2016-17757 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Highway Administration

NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards, 49217-49220 2016-17649
Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department PROPOSED RULES Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program, 49198-49200 2016-17624 Workers' Workers Compensation Programs Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 2016-17725 49270-49271 2016-17726 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Securities and Exchange Commission, 49360-49430 2016-15676 Part III Securities and Exchange Commission, 49432-49511 2016-16967 Part IV Presidential Documents, 49513-49516 2016-17945 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.

81 144 Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Rules and Regulations FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION 12 CFR Parts 650, 651, 653, and 655 RIN 3052-AC89 Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation Governance; Standards of Conduct; Risk Management; and Disclosure and Reporting AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Farm Credit Administration (FCA, we, or our) is finalizing new regulations related to the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation's (Farmer Mac or Corporation) risk governance and making enhancements to existing disclosure and reporting requirements. The risk governance regulations require the Corporation to establish and maintain a board-level risk management committee and a risk officer, as well as risk management policies and internal controls. The changes to disclosure and reporting requirements remove repetitive reporting and allow for electronic filing of reports. We also finalize rules on the examination and enforcement authorities held by the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO) over the Corporation.

DATES:

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joseph Connor, Associate Director for Policy and Analysis, Office of Secondary Market Oversight, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4364, TTY (703) 883-4056, or Laura McFarland, Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TTY (703) 883-4056.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Objective

The purpose of this final rule is to:

• Enhance risk governance at the Corporation to further its long-term safety and soundness and mission achievement;

• Remove repetitious disclosure and reporting requirements, given the dual reporting responsibilities of the Corporation to the FCA and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and

• Clarify the examination and enforcement authority of FCA.

II. Background

Farmer Mac is a stockholder-owned, federally chartered instrumentality that is an institution of the Farm Credit System (System) and a Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE). The Corporation was established and chartered by the Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (1987 Act) 1 to create a secondary market for agricultural real estate mortgage loans, rural housing mortgage loans, rural utility cooperative loans, and the guaranteed portions of USDA-guaranteed farm and rural development loans. Title VIII of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, (Act) governs the Corporation.

1 Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-233, January 6, 1988).

The Corporation has two classes of voting common stock: Class A and Class B. Class A voting common stock is owned by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions. Class B voting common stock is owned by System institutions. In addition, the Corporation has nonvoting common stock (Class C), the ownership of which is not restricted and is a means for the Corporation to raise capital. The Corporation may also issue nonvoting preferred stock.

The Corporation is regulated by FCA through the Office of Secondary Market Oversight (OSMO). Congress charged us to issue regulations to ensure mission compliance and the safety and soundness of the Corporation. When issuing regulations for the Corporation, the Act requires FCA to consider:

• The purpose for which Farmer Mac was created;

• The practices appropriate to the conduct of secondary markets in agricultural loans; and

• The reduced levels of risks associated with appropriately structured secondary market transactions.2

2 Section 8.11(a)(2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2279aa-11(a)(2)).

Farmer Mac, as a publicly traded company, is also subject to many of the governance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley),3 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act),4 and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure regulations for publicly traded companies, all of which address reporting requirements and oversight for publicly held companies and financial institutions. Self-regulatory organizations (SROs), the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in the Corporation's case, have also issued requirements designed to enhance the accountability and transparency of corporate business operations.

3 Public Law 107-204, July 30, 2002.

4 Public Law 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376, (H.R. 4173), July 21, 2010.

As a GSE, the Corporation has a public policy purpose embedded in its corporate mission. One aspect of this public policy mission includes financial services to customer-stakeholders (institutions that lend to farmers, ranchers, rural homeowners, and rural utility cooperatives) and the resulting flow-through benefits to rural borrowers. Another key aspect is the protection of taxpayer-stakeholders because the risk that the Corporation accepts in the course of business exposes both investors (debt and equity holders) and taxpayers to potential loss. The taxpayer's exposure arises in part from the Corporation's authority to issue debt to the Department of the Treasury to cover guarantee losses under certain adverse circumstances.5 Thus, an appropriately comprehensive approach to Board-level risk governance is essential to promote well-reasoned, risk-related decisions and promote public trust in the risk management of the Corporation.

5 According to the 1987 Act, Farmer Mac may, in certain circumstances, borrow up to $1.5 billion from the U.S. Treasury to ensure timely payment of any guarantee obligations of the corporation.

III. Comments and Our Responses: Section-by-Section Analysis

We issued a proposed rule to amend our standards of conduct, board governance, and reporting regulations for the Corporation on March 26, 2015 (80 FR 15931). The comment period for the proposed rule closed on June 24, 2015, and 77 comment letters were received. The comments submitted were from Farmer Mac, stockholders in Farmer Mac, a consultant to Farmer Mac,6 an agent of Farmer Mac,7 the Farm Credit Council (FCC) on behalf of its membership, and a member of the general public. Prior to the proposed rulemaking, we issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit opinions and suggestions from investors, stockholders, and other interested parties on ways to enhance our regulation of the Corporation's governance activities.8

6 The consultant to Farmer Mac explained it had been hired by Farmer Mac to comment on the proposed rule.

7 The agent of Farmer Mac explained it had been working as a consultant for Farmer Mac for over a year on specific projects.

8 79 FR 10426, February 25, 2014. The comment period for the ANPRM ended April 28, 2014, and seven comment letters were received.

The 77 comments submitted in response to the proposed rule made various suggestions for changing what we had proposed. Of these commenters, 69 limited their remarks and suggestions to part 651, “Standards of Conduct.” Comments to the Standards of Conduct provisions involved both existing and proposed provisions.9 These comments were significantly different from what was proposed and lacked uniformity in the type of changes sought.

9 We last issued regulations on Farmer Mac Board governance and standards of conduct on March 1, 1994 (59 FR 9622).

As a GSE, the Corporation has certain strategic objectives that are public policy or “mission” oriented. Standards of conduct must be understood and interpreted not only in the context of the fiduciary responsibilities to the Corporation and its shareholders, but also in the context of the statutory duty to further the Congressional purposes the Corporation was chartered to achieve. We believe standards of conduct to be among the most potentially complex and nuanced areas of corporate governance. For this reason, and because of the variety of comments received to this area of the proposed rule, we believe it prudent to address proposed changes and related comments on the more complex components of standards of conduct and board governance regulations in a separate rulemaking. Thus, we are not finalizing in this rulemaking many of the proposed changes to part 651, but instead intend to revisit changes to part 651 in a separate rulemaking.

Proposed changes to parts 650, 653, and 655 are finalized as proposed unless we say otherwise in this preamble. Included in finalized changes is the reorganization of our rules addressing the Corporation's operations through the addition of a new part 653 and organizational revisions to existing parts 650, 651, and 655. We make no changes to part 652 or reserved part 654.

A. FCA Oversight and Rulemaking [Part 650]

Existing part 650 contains general provisions, without subparts, on the supervision of the Corporation. We finalize adding a new subpart A, entitled “Regulation, examination and enforcement,” as well as moving existing provisions into a new subpart B, entitled “Conservators, receivers, and liquidations.” We finalize the redesignation of existing §§ 650.1 and 650.5 on appointing and removing receivers or conservators as new §§ 650.13 and 650.14, respectively. We make no other changes to these existing provisions.

We discuss comments received to this part and any changes to the appropriate sections below.

1. Part 650 Definitions [New § 650.1]

We finalize as proposed all definitions in new § 650.1. We received no comments objecting to the terms as proposed, but a stockholder-commenter requested we consolidate all proposed definitions for parts 650, 651, 653 and 655 into one section and asked for the term “agent” to be defined for part 650. We cannot accommodate either of these requests. We already maintain a global definition section for all our rules in part 619. Maintaining separate definition sections for use only in certain regulations eliminates confusion that may arise from placing terms having specific application for a secondary market along with terms applicable to Farm Credit banks and associations. We recognize that many of the terms for the definition sections we proposed in parts 650, 651, 652, and 655 are duplicative, but their location in the applicable sections avoids confusion with usage of the terms in other regulations. We also cannot accommodate the request to define in part 650 the term “agent.” The term “agent” as used in part 650 has two different applications: (1) Agents of the Corporation; and (2) agents of FCA. A single definition would not capture the two separate applications of the term, particularly in regards to the existing rules on liquidation and receivership.

2. Regulatory Authority [New § 650.2]

We finalize the addition of new § 650.2, which provides clarity on the situation of the Corporation having FCA as its primary regulator, while also being subject to certain SEC regulatory disclosure requirements. The new § 650.2 identifies FCA as the “primary regulator” of the Corporation, possessing examination, enforcement, conservatorship, liquidation, and receivership authority over the Corporation. We finalize this section with one clarifying change made based on comments received. In § 650.2(b), we clarify that our supervisory authority to ensure the Corporation follows laws and regulations relates to compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

There were four commenters to this section: Farmer Mac, the FCC, and two stockholders in Farmer Mac. The FCC expressed strong support for the section clarifying that the Corporation is a GSE with a public mission. The stockholder-commenters also supported the section addressing the public policy purpose of the Corporation. Farmer Mac objected to the provisions on FCA's authority over it, contending that FCA has no authority over compliance with all laws and regulations. Farmer Mac explained that instead FCA is to ensure a dependable source of credit through its examination of the Corporation and regulation of its safe and sound conduct. Farmer Mac also asked us to either remove § 650.2(c) or specify the SEC regulations to which it is subject and exactly mirror language from the Act when describing our role. However, Farmer Mac added objections to our using the language of the Act to describe its relationship with the SEC. In that instance, Farmer Mac asked us to capture the “nuances of Farmer Mac's regulation by the SEC.” 10

10 Farmer Mac explained it is not subject to complete regulation by SEC and, except for certain mortgage-backed securities, it is not subject to the 1933 Securities Act and must only file reports under the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Farmer Mac comment letter, Appendix B, pages B-2 and B-27.

We have clarified that the laws and regulations referenced are those applicable to the Corporation. We do not name those laws and regulations as they are subject to change. We also decline the request to include in the rule an analysis of the Corporation's relationship with both FCA and SEC, which is not the intent of the rule. The rule at § 650.2 is identifying us as the primary regulator of the Corporation. As explained in the proposed rule, the discussions Congress had surrounding passage of the Dodd-Frank Act recognized the long-standing situation where financial institutions are required to comply with various Federal financial laws and regulations issued and enforced by several banking regulators, although only one regulator is the primary regulator. We did modify the language of § 650.2(c) to add clarity and removed reference to the NYSE based on the comments received.

Farmer Mac asked that we add language in § 650.2(a) for USDA-guaranteed loans sold into the secondary market. The Corporation has established a secondary market for the guaranteed portions of USDA-Farm Service Agency guaranteed Farm Ownership and Operating Loans and USDA-Rural Development Guaranteed Business and Industry, Community Facility and Water and Environmental Program loans.11 As noted by Farmer Mac, we are identifying the statutory purposes of the Corporation, we are not enumerating all of Farmer Mac's business programs. However, we have added language referencing USDA-guaranteed loans.12

11 Under the Farmer Mac 2 program, Farmer Mac's subsidiary, Farmer Mac II LLC, buys guaranteed portions directly from lenders. The original lenders retain the unguaranteed portions of these loans and continue to service the entire loan.

12Refer to section 8.0(9) of the Act, defining “qualified loans”.

3. Supervision and Enforcement [New § 650.3]

We finalize adding a new § 650.3 to incorporate into our regulations the supervision and enforcement authorities over the Corporation that are given us under the Act. Our enforcement authorities provide reasonable assurance that, among other things, the Corporation is adequately capitalized and operating safely. We finalize this section with clarifying changes made based on comments received.

There were six commenters to this section: Farmer Mac, the FCC, three stockholders in Farmer Mac, and an agent of Farmer Mac. Three commenters objected to agents being subject to FCA's enforcement authorities. Sections 5.25 and 5.26 of the Act specify that agents of a System institution are subject to our enforcement authorities and Farmer Mac is identified as a System institution in section 8.1(a)(2) of the Act. It is these provisions we relied upon when proposing the provision so we decline to make changes based on the comments. Two of the stockholder-commenters remarked that financial safety and soundness oversight should include making the Corporation subject to the Basel III capital standards. We decline to make changes to our rules in response to these comments. The existing rules addressing the Corporation's capital requirements already incorporate appropriate Basel capital standards, as well as analogous standards of other U.S. regulators.

Farmer Mac asked for the entire section identifying our enforcement authorities to be removed or that we directly quote the Act when identifying those authorities, using no further interpretation of the statutory language. We are directed by section 5.17(a)(9) of the Act to issue regulations necessary or appropriate for the implementation of the Act's provisions, which involves more than a recitation of the Act. Farmer Mac also asked that we provide a specific “exhaustive list” of our enforcement authorities. We likewise decline this request as our enumerated enforcement authorities may be amended by Congress or court interpretations. Further, we do not agree with Farmer Mac's interpretation of our authorities and decline to make changes to the rule based on its analysis. Farmer Mac also stated that our safety and soundness authority should not be viewed to include addressing board committees, director elections, or recordkeeping activities of the Corporation. Again, our oversight of the safe and sound operations of the Corporation necessitates that we consider the Corporation's board operations and the records of its decision-making analysis and financial condition.13

13See section 8.11(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizing OSMO “general supervision of the safe and sound performance of the powers, functions, and duties vested in the Corporation”.

Farmer Mac objected to § 650.3(b) referencing when the Corporation engages in activities having “excessive risk,” arguing the term is undefined. Farmer Mac stated that all of its activities involve risk and the provision would allow FCA to restrict these activities and substitute our judgment on how to run the Corporation. However, Farmer Mac acknowledged section 8.37 of the Act uses the term “excessive risk”. Farmer Mac also objected to separating risk from its impact on capital and suggested objective, measureable standards be set for risk levels. In § 650.3(b), we clarify that risks having adverse impact to capital, which may lead to certain enforcement actions, generally refers to the adequacy of the Regulatory Capital level maintained by the Corporation.

4. Access to Records and Personnel [New § 650.4]

There were three comments objecting to the inclusion of agents in this section: Farmer Mac, a stockholder in Farmer Mac, and an agent of Farmer Mac. The agent who commented objected to classifying certain types of professional assistance received by the Corporation as an agency relationship, contending that FCA has no authority over certain types of agents (e.g. consultants, vendors), while the stockholder commented that the penalties were burdensome. Farmer Mac objected to being required to make its agents available to our examination staff. Farmer Mac contended that FCA does not have jurisdiction over all agents of the Corporation, as would be covered by the existing part 651 definition of “agent.”

We finalize this section with one change based on comments received. In § 650.4(b), we replace the word “agents” with a more detailed explanation of the personnel required to be available to us when requested, which includes those engaged by the Corporation to participate in the business conducted by the Corporation. For example, during an examination it may be necessary for our exam staff to speak with the External Auditor. The Act specifies that directors, officers, employees, agents, and “other persons participating in the conduct of the affairs” 14 of a System institution are subject to our examination and enforcement authorities.15 We relied on this language when developing the clarification for this final rule. We believe the clarifying language addresses the comments regarding certain “vendor-type” service providers. We also point out that the part 651 definition of “agent” is restricted to the provisions in part 651 and does not carryover to part 650. Also, the stockholder-commenter objecting to the “penalties” listed in this section spoke in error, as there are no “penalties” identified in § 651.4. Notwithstanding this, we believe this comment is adequately addressed in our earlier discussion of our enforcement authorities, which explains the “penalties” identified in § 650.3 are derived from the Act.

14See, for example, section 5.32(a) of the Act.

15Refer to section 8.11(b)(3) of Act (12 U.S.C. 2279aa-11).

Farmer Mac also asked us to limit our access to Corporation documents to non-confidential items. In addition, Farmer Mac asked that there be a materiality and document age threshold controlling which documents and personnel we could access during our examination and enforcement activities. We decline Farmer Mac's suggestions regarding the scope of our access to corporate documents. As the safety and soundness regulator, we require full access to the Corporation's records.16 In accessing these records, our activities are already covered by confidentiality provisions in Federal law.17 Further, we view the act of our requesting the records or access to personnel as establishing the “materiality” to our oversight. We could not permit the Corporation to pre-screen records before release to us in order for Farmer Mac to, on its own, determine if a record is material or not for our purposes. Likewise, we cannot provide full oversight if we restrict our access to a finite period of time. It may be that the matter under review exceeds that period of time, or records within that time period make key reference to other, older records.

16See section 8.11(b)(3) of Act (12 U.S.C. 2279aa-11(b)(3)).

17Refer to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(8). See also 12 CFR 602.2.

5. Reports of Examination and Criminal Referrals [New §§ 650.5 and 650.6]

We finalize as proposed the addition of new §§ 650.5 and 650.6, containing cross-citations to existing regulatory provisions regarding access to FCA Reports of Examination and the Corporation's obligation to make criminal referrals in certain circumstances. We received no comments to these two sections. We believe these cross-cites clarify the applicability of these provisions to the Corporation, and thereby facilitate compliance with them.

B. Farmer Mac Corporate Governance [Part 651]

Part 651 contains the existing corporate governance provisions for Farmer Mac, without subparts. As explained earlier in this preamble, this final rule does not include many of the proposed changes to part 651 since we intend to revisit part 651 in the future. Although we received many comments on the contents of part 651, no comments opposing the proposed organizational changes were made and, therefore, we finalize them as proposed. Specifically, we finalize the addition of a new subpart A, entitled “General,” a new subpart B, entitled “Standards of Conduct,” and a new subpart C, entitled “Board Governance.” We also finalize as proposed the movement of the existing provisions of part 651 into the relevant subparts and adding new sections in reserve for future rulemaking. We discuss other final changes to part 651, and the comments received related to the changed provisions, in the appropriate sections below.

1. Part 651 Definitions [New Subpart A; Existing § 651.1]

We finalize the proposed revisions to our definitions in existing § 651.1, with two changes based on comments received. We are changing the term “potential conflict of interest” to “conflict of interest”, while finalizing the definition as proposed. Two stockholder-commenters pointed out the definition covered both material and potential conflicts of interest and that we had no general definition for the term “conflict of interest.” We agree with the commenters that the definition defined conflicts of interest in general so should be identified as such.

We are also modifying the definition for “reasonable person” by removing the phrase “based on societal requirements for the protection of the general interest.” The proposed definition for the term “reasonable person” was based on general use of the term in conflict-of-interest proceedings and substantially resembled the legal meaning of the term. However, comments from Farmer Mac and a consultant of Farmer Mac objected to the phrase “societal requirements”, arguing it was not part of the Model Business Code. One of these commenters also stated the term should be defined in a manner that directed attention to the Corporation's activities, not the public at large.

We do not agree with the commenters in this regard. As one commenter acknowledged, corporate governance allows consideration of the public impact of corporate behavior. In addition, the Corporation is a GSE with a public policy purpose and has directors appointed by the President of the United States to represent the public's interests in the operations of the Corporation. While we disagree with the reasons given by the commenters, we are removing the phrase “based on societal requirements for the protection of the general interest” from the definition for “reasonable person” as we believe the remaining language allows for addressing public concerns; specifically, the use of “average level of care.” We recognize that these same two commenters also objected to using an average level of care measurement when defining “reasonable person”, arguing it expanded the Corporation's activities to include consideration of the general public and not just stockholders. We agree that using an average level of care standard could involve consideration of the public, but unlike the commenters, we do not view that as a difficulty. We also do not agree with comments that the phrase “average level of care” in the definition for “reasonable person” under our conflict of interest rules expands the mission of the Corporation. Instead, we believe it emphasizes the scope of the Corporation's impact. As explained earlier, the Corporation has a statutory public policy purpose and public representatives on its board of directors. We believe retaining the “average level of care” language in the definition for “reasonable person” is appropriate.

Farmer Mac and stockholders in Farmer Mac commented on the term “material”, asking that we delete the definition. Farmer Mac commented that the definition was appropriate for most of part 651, but stated concerns with how the term would work with securities regulations, which have a different definition for the term. Farmer Mac specified its concern was focused on proposed § 651.24. Stockholder-commenters remarked that the term “material” does not carry the same meaning or standard applied to other System institutions. These commenters made particular note of a separate proposed rulemaking affecting Farm Credit banks and associations, but not Farmer Mac.18 These commenters argued there is no reason for a different standard among System institutions. As we are not finalizing in this rulemaking the proposed contents of § 651.24, we are not deleting the term “material” and note that the term is an existing term in our rules. We also do not consider it appropriate at this time to substitute the existing definition with one that has only been proposed in a separate rulemaking intended for Farm Credit banks and associations.

18 79 FR 9649 (April 3, 2014).

Farmer Mac asked that we remove the existing definition of “agent” from § 651.1, while three stockholder-commenters and an agent of Farmer Mac objected to agents being included in the rule at all, arguing that the existing definition was too broad in its application. Farmer Mac also stated the existing definition was too broad and exceeds the scope of FCA authority. We also received a call from a member of the general public asking about the definition and suggesting it may be problematic for dual compliance with both FCA and SEC requirements. The definition is an existing term that has been in our rules for over 20 years and we proposed no changes to it. Commenters offered no examples of difficulties that had been encountered in that time and did not express past compliance difficulties with the existing rule. As we proposed no changes to the existing term “agent,” we decline to make any in this final rulemaking. However, we may reconsider the issue when revisiting part 651 in the future.

A stockholder-commenter remarked that the term “officer” seemed to exclude risk officers and asked if that was intentional on our part. We reviewed the existing term “officer”, to which we had proposed no changes, and agree that it could result in the risk officer not being included in the definition. However, that would depend on whether the Corporation makes the risk officer a vice president. If not, then the risk officer would be covered by the definition of “employee” instead of “officer.”

2. Standards of Conduct [New Subpart B]

We finalize moving existing § 651.4 to new subpart B and redesignating it as new § 651.24. This section addresses director, officer, employee, and agent responsibilities. We finalize adding new §§ 651.21 and 651.25 under subpart B, but with no content, in reserve for future rulemaking.

a. Conflicts-of-Interest Policy [New § 651.22, Existing §§ 651.1(i) and 651.2]

We finalize the proposed movement of the existing § 651.2 contents, regarding conflict-of-interest policies, to new subpart B and redesignating it as new § 651.22. We are reserving § 651.2, with no content, for future rulemaking. Also, we finalize some amendments to the existing contents of redesignated § 651.22 and make two clarifying changes. Other proposed changes to the contents of this section are not being finalized in this rulemaking.

We finalize moving the list of imputed interests currently contained in the existing § 651.1(i) definition of a “potential conflict-of-interest” to this section (thereby removing it from the definition) as we received no comments on this proposed action. We also finalize the proposed revisions to the list of imputed interest, as they also received no comments: removing highly specific relationships such as “spouse” and “child” and replacing them with language to address all persons residing in the household or who are otherwise legal dependents. These changes are premised on the ever-evolving understanding of what is considered a family, as well as intended to address non-residential dependents whose activities and interests may create a conflict-of-interest for a director, officer, or employee. We make two clarifying changes to the list of imputed interest: A person's general partner refers to a business partner and employment arrangements include both current and prospective employment.

b. Conflicts-of-Interest Reporting and Disclosure [New § 651.23, Existing § 651.3]

We finalize moving existing § 651.3 to new subpart B and redesignating it as new § 651.23. This section addresses implementation of the conflict-of-interest policy. Farmer Mac offered comments on the existing language of this section, asking that the separate disclosure categories be removed. The rule currently requires Farmer Mac to provide its conflict of interest policy to its shareholders, investors, and potential investors when requested. Farmer Mac posed that these parties can obtain the policy from the Corporation's Web site or SEC filings so the provision should be removed. Farmer Mac did not state that this service could not continue to be provided, nor assert that the volume of requests was so high as to create a burden. We decline to remove this existing requirement as we continue to believe the Corporation should strive to accommodate requests from its shareholders, investors and, most especially, potential investors for copies of the policy.

c. Agents and Conflicts-of-Interest [Existing § 651.1 Through 651.4]

Farmer Mac, a stockholder in Farmer Mac, and an agent of Farmer Mac asked that we remove references to “agents” from the existing rule. Some of these commenters remarked that agents should not be treated the same as directors, officers, and employees. Others argued that monitoring agent conduct is burdensome, may deter agents from working for the Corporation, and was contrary to standard contractual agreements with agents. The agent stated that consultants and advisors were not intended by Congress to be subject to our regulatory or examination authority. The stockholder-commenter added that we should instead rely on the Corporation's existing practices regarding monitoring agent behavior.

Congress gave us certain enforcement authorities for agents of Farm Credit institutions.19 We also note that agents have been a part of the existing conflict-of-interest rule for over 20 years. No commenter provided support to demonstrate that the Corporation has had difficulty in all those years obtaining the services of agents because of the existing standards of conduct regulations. We decline to remove agents from part 651 as part of this final rulemaking. However, we may reconsider the issue in the future when revisiting part 651.

19See sections 5.25, 5.26, and 5.32 of the Act. See also sections 5.17(a)(9) and (10), 5.19 and 8.11 of the Act.

3. Board Governance—Committees [New Subpart C]

We finalize adding new §§ 651.30, 651.35, and 651.40 under subpart C, but with no content, in reserve for future rulemaking. We also finalize adding a new § 651.50 on board committees. The new § 651.50 addresses the relationship between the entire board and its committees, requires certain committees, and establish minimum operational requirements for board committees (e.g., charters, meeting minutes). We received comments from Farmer Mac and its consultant on this section and make four changes based on those comments: (1) We specify charter requirements apply to required committees; (2) we clarify that charters are approved by the full board; (3) we are not finalizing the requirement that each type of director serve on each committee; and (4) we clarify that an agenda may be informal, such as a list of issues under discussion.

a. Committee Charters [New § 651.50]

In general, Farmer Mac objected to any regulation of board committees. Farmer Mac asked that we change the requirement for all committees to be chartered, explaining often ad hoc committees are used in the Corporation's business and allowing committees to develop their own charters may be a transfer of board authority. The proposed provision stated that the Corporation's board is the body approving the charter, not the committee. However, we clarify in § 651.50(c) that the committees develop the charters, but those charters are not effective unless approved by action of the full board. In addition, we intended the provision to apply to standing committees of the Corporation, so have modified the rule to clearly limit the charter requirements to those committees required to exist by regulation (i.e. audit, risk, compensation and corporate governance committees). We also made conforming changes elsewhere in this section to clarify that the committee provisions apply to these same “required” committees.

Both commenters objected to the provision in § 651.50(a) that use of a board committee does not relieve board members of their legal responsibilities. The commenters stated that delegations to committees are permitted and the provision was unnecessary. In paragraph (a) of new § 651.50, we proposed regulatory language clarifying that the entire board remains accountable for committee actions. In directing the Corporation, the board of directors may rely on reports from board committees, but doing so does not relieve the board of final responsibility. While activities and tasks may be delegated to a committee, the fact that a committee handles some board responsibilities does not relieve the board of its legal liabilities for such, nor does it relieve the board of the ultimate responsibility for those activities or tasks. Therefore, we decline to make changes to § 651.50(a).

b. Committee Composition

We received comments from Farmer Mac and its consultant on § 651.50, both objecting to the proposed requirement that each committee have representation from the three types of directors serving on the Corporation board (Class A elected, Class B elected, and appointed). The commenters stated the provision may result in conflicts of interest, unqualified directors serving on committees, and create division on the board. Commenters offered no support for the named concerns, but we consider this issue to be among those we plan to review when we revisit part 651 in the future. As a result, we are not finalizing in § 651.50(c) the requirement that each committee have representation from the three types of directors serving on the Corporation board. In conformance with this, we also remove the proposed paragraph designations in paragraph (c).

Farmer Mac and its consultant also objected to limiting the number of committees a director may chair. We proposed in § 651.50(c) that no director may serve as chair of more than one committee. The commenters stated that this was an unnecessary restriction. We decline to change this limitation based on comments received. We believe this limitation is necessary, as it reasonably distributes responsibilities among individual members of the board. We also believe that too great a concentration of responsibilities among too few directors would detract from the board's overall effectiveness and may create potential, and unnecessary, safety and soundness concerns.

c. Committee Agendas

Farmer Mac objected to the § 651.50(d) requirement that board committees have agendas for their meetings. Farmer Mac explained that some ad hoc meetings occur with no prior planning, making development of an agenda impossible. We appreciate that a situation like the one described may occur and have modified the rule to allow for an equivalent list of issues under discussion to be part of the meeting minutes in lieu of an agenda.

C. Risk Management [Part 653, No Subparts]

We finalize adding a part 653, with no subparts, to address risk management within the Corporation. In doing so, we remove proposed references to “risk tolerance” throughout part 653, while retaining references to risk-appetite, as we determined the term “risk-appetite” encompassed risk tolerance consideration. We received comments from Farmer Mac, stockholders of Farmer Mac, and the FCC to this part and discuss them, and any changes, in the appropriate sections below.

1. General [New § 653.2]

We received comments from Farmer Mac, the FCC, and stockholders in Farmer Mac on new § 650.2, which addresses general board-level risk management matters. Farmer Mac expressed agreement with requiring its board to be actively involved in the Corporation's risk framework, but considered it unreasonable to expect it to “ensure” all risk-taking is safe and sound. Farmer Mac asked that it be allowed to address its “risk appetite” by areas, such as liquidity risk or operational risk, instead of one unified assessment, explaining that the risk committee's role represents the intersection of oversight of all risk areas. We generally expect functional area specialists (e.g., finance committee, credit committee, marketing committee) to evaluate risk in terms of the specialized responsibilities of those operational areas. While we view that as generally appropriate for day-to-day risk management, it is nevertheless important that the entire board consider risks from all areas when conducting its enterprise-wide monitoring and oversight. For that reason, the risk committee is expected to evaluate risks from the level of the Corporation, rather than the functional area. To borrow a description from the Treadway Commission,20 we believe the risk committee aims to strike an optimal balance between growth and return goals while attempting to optimize deployment of resources toward the entity's objectives.

20 “Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework”, Executive Summary, Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, September 2004.

In the same way, we view the risk officer as playing a role that represents the intersection of risks across functional area managers. We view the risk officer's role to involve monitoring the balance of risk across all functional areas and, as needed, recommending adjustments to re-balance the enterprise-wide risk profile in a manner consistent with the board-approved risk appetite. This role does not eliminate risk management responsibility from other members of the Corporation's management team. If a functional area manager knows that his or her performance will be evaluated on the basis of the productivity of that area, the manager's focus on that area's performance could become out of proportion to the impact of that effort on the Corporation's enterprise-wide risk position. The risk officer would then serve as a means of alerting senior management and the board of the potential impact that functional area managers' activities and positions may have on the Corporation at the enterprise-wide level. This should enable appropriate actions and strategies to be evaluated and taken when functional area risk taking exceeds the overall risk appetite of the board.

The FCC and two stockholder-commenters agreed with requiring the Corporation's board to be actively involved in the Corporation's risk framework, but wanted it expanded to include capital considerations. These stockholder-commenters added that the requirement was not preventative enough as the Corporation's board should be required to approve risk-bearing capacity and consider the Corporation's public policy mission as well as capital adequacy. A third stockholder-commenter remarked that the part 653 requirements were not unreasonable, but better suited to non-regulatory guidance. This stockholder-commenter explained that the science of risk management is an emerging area, subject to rapid changes, so placing risk management requirements within a rule may hinder the Corporation's ability to keep pace with best practices in risk management.

We are replacing the term “ensure” with the phrase “provide reasonable assurance” when discussing risk-taking activities in response to comments. We also add as a clarifying change that the requirement to monitor risk activities is expected to be on a regular basis. We make no other changes to new § 653.2. While we appreciate the comment regarding the evolving nature of risk management, we believe it appropriate to establish an essential risk management structure within regulation and then supplement the rules with the suggested informal guidance if necessary. We also make no changes in response to comments asking that part 653 address risks associated with capital. We already address risks to capital in § 652.61, where we require the Corporation's board to approve the annual capital plan, which must comply with the board's risk appetite.

2. Risk Management [New § 653.3]

We finalize, with changes, new § 650.3, which contains the minimum required risk management program activities of the Corporation. We received comments to this section from Farmer Mac, the FCC, and three Farmer Mac stockholders. We discuss the comments, and any changes, in the appropriate sections below.

a. Risk Management Program [New § 653.3(a)]

We are making the following changes to new § 653.3(a), which requires the Corporation's board of directors to have a risk management program:

• Replacing the phrase “in effect at all times” in the introductory language of paragraph (a) with the more measurable standard “establish, maintain, and periodically update” the risk management program;

• Removing the language “addresses the Corporation's exposure to credit, market, liquidity, business, and operational risks” in paragraph (a)(3) as it is redundant of language contained § 653.3(b)(2);

• Adding language in paragraph (a) to recognize that implementation of the risk management program may be handled by senior management; and

• Adding language to clarify that the list of requirements in new § 653.3(a) are the minimum.

In furtherance of these clarifications, we remove the proposed paragraph (a)(4) requirement that the risk management policy specify the independence of those carrying-out the program.

We received comments to new § 650.3(a) from the FCC agreeing with the provision, but expressing concern that there was insufficient distinction between risks in the System and risks faced by the Corporation. The FCC asked that “casual” references linking the Corporation to the System be eliminated and that we specify the Corporation is a separate GSE from the System. In response, we clarify in this preamble that the Corporation is an institution of the Farm Credit System, but is not liable for any debt or obligation of any other System institution, and the other System institutions have no liability for Farmer Mac's debt. Also, Farmer Mac is organized as an investor-owned corporation, not a member-owned cooperative as are other System institutions, and the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation does not insure Farmer Mac's securities.

Farmer Mac remarked that the board does not often involve itself in day-to-day risk decisions: That is more properly handled by senior management. As mentioned above, we have made clarifying changes to recognize that daily implementation of the risk management program may reside with senior management. Two stockholder-commenters stated agreement with the risk management provisions, but asked that we expand them to include risk-bearing capacity and require management of the Corporation's capital to be consistent with Basel III. We have previously responded to their comment. These commenters also asked that OSMO provide further guidance to the Corporation on specific risk tolerance measures and for OSMO to closely monitor the program to ensure it is implemented in an effective manner. As noted, FCA may provide for the guidance on risk management as part of its oversight of this area. These stockholder-commenters objected to the § 653.3(a) provision requiring risk management to include consideration of compensation practices and asked for the provision to be removed. We believe the incentive structures related to functional area managers' performance and risk-taking activities, referred to in our earlier response to comments on § 653.2, includes incentive compensation policies and practices and that the Corporation's enterprise-wide risk management oversight would be incomplete without such consideration.

b. Risk Committee [New § 653.3(b)]

We received comments from Farmer Mac and two Farmer Mac stockholders on new § 653.3(b), which addresses the responsibilities of the risk committee. The stockholder-commenters agreed in general with the provisions, but asked that they more closely resemble the requirements for other GSEs, including System institutions. We note that we do not currently require other System institutions to have risk committees and so cannot accommodate the request of those commenters asking for consistency among System institutions. Also, we note that the Corporation is of a different structure than other System institutions, necessitating some different risk management aspects. However, we did consider the provisions of the recent risk management rulemaking by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).21

21 80 FR 72327, December 21, 2015.

Farmer Mac asked that we use the same experience requirement for the risk committee as is used for the risk officer since it could be difficult to ensure a risk expert is always elected to the board. For the same reason, Farmer Mac asked that we change the committee responsibilities to a level of understanding of risk rather than possession of expertise. We agree and substitute in new § 653.3(b)(1) the phrase “an understanding of” and remove the proposed “expertise” requirement when talking about the requirement that the risk committee have at least one member who is familiar with risk management. We also make changes in new § 653.3(b) to replace the requirement that the risk committee be responsible for the oversight of the risk management program, as that responsibility rightfully belongs to the entire Corporation board. In its place, we require the risk committee to assist the Corporation board in overseeing the risk management program. We believe it is essential that the tone of the Corporation's risk culture and its procedures for risk decision-making be set by the Board, even when based on management's recommendations. Further, the board of directors play a critical role in the ongoing oversight of, and cohesive implementation of, operational strategies and plans that conform to established risk appetites.

We also replaced the proposed requirement in paragraph (b)(2)(i) that the risk committee oversee and document risk management activities with a requirement to periodically assess management's implementation of the risk management program. Similarly, we remove the proposed review requirement of paragraph (b)(2)(ii) and clarify that risk committee recommendations relate to changes to the risk management program. We also clarify in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) that the risk committee's receipt of reports from Corporation staff is not limited to the risk officer. We recognize that any personnel responsible for implementing the risk management program may be tasked by Farmer Mac with offering reports to the risk committee.

We are making technical changes in new § 653.3(b) to align language with that contained in other sections (e.g., replacing “risk management practices” with “risk management program”, replacing “risk profile” with “risk appetite”). We also remove language redundant of that contained in new § 651.50 regarding formation of the risk committee. As referenced in the discussion of § 651.50 (preamble section III.B.3.), we are finalizing the requirement that the Corporation have a risk management committee so do not need to state in § 653.3(b) that the risk committee must be formed.

c. Management of Risk [New § 653.3(c)]

We received comments from Farmer Mac and two Farmer Mac stockholders on new § 653.3(c), which requires the Corporation to have a risk officer. The stockholder-commenters agreed in general with the need for a risk officer, but stated that FCA should not require it as FCA should not make staffing decisions within a System institution. These commenters also contended that requiring a risk officer offers no assurance, from a safety and soundness perspective, of compliance with risk management policies. The stockholder-commenters asked that the entire paragraph be removed. Farmer Mac commented on the use of the term “experience” versus “expertise”, asking for similar use for both the risk committee and the risk officer. Farmer Mac explained that using different terms implied different expectations regarding the background of the risk officer versus the risk committee expert. Farmer Mac also asked that the standard be an understanding of risk issues and not direct experience in risk issues to facilitate recruitment. Finally, Farmer Mac asked for a 1-year phase in to fill the position.

We earlier addressed most of Farmer Mac's comment regarding the level of expertise required in § 653.3(b). In response to remaining comments, we are changing the name of paragraph (c) from “Risk Officer” to “Management of risk” and making conforming changes to reference a “risk officer, however styled” so as to encompass other personnel responsible for implementing the risk management program. We also remove specific reporting requirements to “the chief executive officer and board risk committee” in new § 653.3(c)(4) and (5) to recognize that Farmer Mac will exercise its own discretion in designing a risk management position(s). We decline to reduce the level of experience for risk officers to a mere understanding of risk and have retained the requirement for experience in risk management. We are not delaying the effective date of this rule as requested by Farmer Mac to facilitate the Corporation having a risk officer in place before the rule is effective. Should the Corporation encounter difficulties in having a risk officer in place after this rule is effective, Farmer Mac should contact the Director of OSMO.

3. Internal Controls [New § 653.4]

We received comments on new § 653.4 from Farmer Mac and two Farmer Mac stockholders. Farmer Mac asked that we remove the entire section on internal controls, stating the Corporation's internal control activities under SEC regulations are sufficient. Farmer Mac then asked us to mirror SEC regulation if we retained the provision or make the following changes to it: remove the term “ensure”, incorporate more flexibility, and avoid expanding the role of the directors. Farmer Mac also asked for clarification on paragraph (b)(6) regarding information reported to the board of directors, as it considered the provision to be vague.

We decline the request to remove the entire section requiring internal controls. We continue to believe that the Corporation's board oversight of internal controls is a critical component of its responsibility for monitoring corporate activities and providing reasonable assurances that the controls will prevent excessive risk taking, mitigate operational risks, and minimize the potential for unsafe and unsound activities. The corporate environment is influenced by management's philosophy, operating style, integrity, ethical values, and commitment to competence. If this foundation is strong, if the corporate environment is positive, the overall system of internal controls will be more effective. Further, a sound system of comprehensive and integrated internal controls is vital to the operations of any organization and especially those whose business is taking financial risk. In the more than two decades since the Corporation was chartered, business and operational environments have become significantly more complex and technology-driven. A system of internal controls should dynamically respond to such changes in complexity—not just in business unit operations but also in compliance with increasingly complex laws, regulations, and industry standards. We also decline to rely solely on the internal control assessment the Corporation prepares for the SEC since that assessment is targeted at financial reporting issues, pursuant to provisions in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.22 As a safety and soundness regulator, our interest in internal controls extends beyond preparation of financial report. While we believe effective financial controls reduce the risk of asset loss and help ensure that financial information is complete and accurate, and agree that financial statements need to be reliable and comply with laws and regulations, we also believe safety and soundness internal controls extend to the operations, programs, and resources of the Corporation. We are, however, making some changes based on the comments. We change paragraph (a) to clarify the expected internal controls are safety and soundness controls over the Corporation's operations, programs, and resources. We also remove the “ensure” language from paragraph (a), to which a commenter objected. Also, we are substituting the requirement in paragraph (b)(6) for “transparency” with the Corporation's board in response to a comment. We instead require that internal controls address “the completeness and quality” of information shared with the Corporation's board.

22 The Sarbanes-Oxley Act stressed the importance of public companies maintaining internal controls when it comes to their financial reporting by requiring public companies to include details on the company's financial internal controls inside of their annual reports. Also, the SEC requires filers to include an attestation of “internal controls over financial reporting” in annual reports.

Farmer Mac also asserted that requiring it to have internal controls would deviate from what FHFA requires of the only other secondary market GSEs (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).23 We believe that the current differences between the operating structures of the housing GSEs and Farmer Mac, in particular the conservatorships of the housing GSEs, makes comparison of their regulatory structures less useful. We believe internal controls are important for Farmer Mac regardless of whether another regulator adopted them for the housing GSEs. The overall purpose of an internal controls system is to help an entity achieve its mission and accomplish certain goals and objectives. An effective internal control system should promote orderly, economical, efficient and effective operations; safeguard resources against loss due to waste, abuse, mismanagement, errors and fraud; promote adherence to statutes, regulations, and operating procedures; as well as develop and maintain reliable financial and management data (and accurately report that data in a timely manner), all of which can help protect the Corporation's safe and sound operation and its reputation.

23See footnote 15, Appendix B, of the Farmer Mac comment letter to the proposed rulemaking. See also, 12 CFR 1236, Appendix A, “Prudential Management and Operations Standard,” containing some FHFA internal controls requirements for the secondary market housing GSEs (e.g., “Standard 1—Internal Controls and Information Systems”).

We had proposed in paragraphs (c) and (d) that the Corporation establish a monitoring system for its internal controls and to report to us on the effectiveness of those controls. Stockholder-commenters objected to the requirement for annual reports on internal controls, explaining such reports would be burdensome and could reduce the attention given the issue during FCA examinations. The commenters instead stated that FCA should rely primarily on its examination authority for review of internal controls. We make changes to paragraphs (c) and (d) to address the comments objecting to annual reports on internal controls, but do so in a manner that also satisfies the underlying purpose of proposing an annual report on the effectiveness of internal controls. We are removing paragraph (d), which required the annual report to OSMO, in its entirety. In connection with this, we enhance the provision in paragraph (c) to require the monitoring of internal controls to include an identification and documentation of weaknesses in internal controls. We continue to believe the Corporation's internal control system needs to be monitored to assess whether controls are effective and operating as intended. On-going monitoring occurs through routine managerial activities such as supervision, reconciliations, checklists, comparisons, performance evaluations, and status reports. Monitoring may also occur through separate internal evaluations (e.g., internal audits/reviews) or from use of external sources (e.g., comparison to peer groups or industry standards, surveys, etc.). Deficiencies found during monitoring should then be documented and reported to those responsible for the function, with serious deficiencies being reported to top management or the board. To ensure this monitoring occurs, the rule requires the Corporation to document the process used to identify and resolve weaknesses in its internal controls, as well as document what weaknesses were found. This change, along with the internal controls over financial reporting made to SEC, should provide the necessary source documents for our examination of the Corporation's internal controls, similar to what would have resulted from the proposed annual report to OSMO.

D. Disclosure and Reporting [Part 655]

Part 655 contains the existing financial disclosure and reporting provisions for the Corporation. We received comments to part 655 from Farmer Mac, an agent of Farmer Mac, and a Farmer Mac stockholder. There were no comments opposing the proposed organizational changes and, therefore, we finalize them as proposed. We also finalize as proposed the movement of existing provisions into the relevant subparts.

We discuss final changes to part 655, and the related comments received, in the appropriate sections below.

1. Definitions [New Subpart A: New § 655.1]

We received a comment from Farmer Mac on the definition for “material” in part 655, asking us to remove the definition or restate that used by the SEC. We proposed defining “material” as information required when “there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would attach importance in making investor decisions or determining the financial condition of the Corporation.” We decline Farmer Mac's request as it did not argue that the term “material,” as used in part 655, presented any conflict with SEC reporting rules.24 Rather, we note that, like the SEC, our rule interprets the term in a manner similar to the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Concepts Statement No. 2 explanation of “materiality.” 25 FASB, in turn, relied on the U.S. Supreme Court explanation that a fact is material under Federal securities laws if there is a “substantial likelihood” the fact would be “viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the ‘total mix’ of information made available.” 26 We also note that our rule substantially resembles the SEC Rule 405 definition,27 with adjustments made for financial safety and soundness considerations. We finalize the term “material” and its definition as proposed. However, we are not finalizing adding the term “report” and its accompanying definition to new § 651.1 as the term is sufficiently explained in the relevant provisions of the rule.

24See SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin: No. 99—Materiality, 17 CFR part 211 (August 12, 1999), explaining the meaning of “material” as “A matter is ‘material’ if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would consider it important.”

25 FASB, Statement of Financial Accounting Concepts No. 2, Qualitative Characteristics of Accounting Information, 132 (1980). In this bulletin, FASB explained the concept of “materiality” as “The omission or misstatement of an item in a financial report is material if, in the light of surrounding circumstances, the magnitude of the item is such that it is probable that the judgment of a reasonable person relying upon the report would have been changed or influenced by the inclusion or correction of the item.”

26See TSC Industries v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. 438, 449-450 (1976), where the court noted that determining materiality required “delicate assessments of the inferences a ‘reasonable shareholder’ would draw from a given set of facts and the significance of those inferences to him . . .”. See also Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

27 17 CFR 230.405.

2. Prohibitions [Proposed New § 655.2]

We received comments on new § 655.2 from Farmer Mac and an agent of Farmer Mac. Farmer Mac asked that all references to “agents” be removed and that the provision include a materiality standard so as to limit FCA actions. Farmer Mac asserted that FCA has no authority to regulate non-System persons or entities, suggesting FCA limit itself to imposing an obligation on the Corporation to monitor its agents. Farmer Mac again stated that FCA should not intrude into areas under SEC jurisdiction. Farmer Mac also asked that we defer to the SEC for determining compliance, specifically mentioning the SEC rules on omissions and misstatements in reports filed with the SEC. The agent to Farmer Mac stated the regulation of agents was intrusive and burdensome, adding that Congress did not intend consultants and advisors to be subject to FCA authority.

We proposed new § 655.2 to prohibit directors, officers, employees, or agents of the Corporation from making misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete part 655 disclosures. The provision would have covered reports and disclosures made to FCA, stockholders of Farmer Mac, and the general public. Contrary to the remarks of some commenters, the provision did not assert direct regulatory authority over the general actions of an agent of Farmer Mac. Instead, the provision would have required Farmer Mac to control its agents, or issue corrections to disclosures made by the same if those disclosures were determined to be misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete. As explained in section 8.3(c)(4) of the Act, Farmer Mac has a statutory duty to take necessary precautions, including obtaining surety bonds, against any losses caused by the acts of its agents. Further, FCA has statutory authority to issue cease-and-desist orders to agents of the Corporation in appropriate circumstances. In addition, we reject the argument of Farmer Mac that misleading, inaccurate, or incomplete disclosures are the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC. Not every report or disclosure made by Farmer Mac is in response to a requirement of the SEC, particularly those we require under our rules in part 655. Rather, activities of the Corporation extend beyond registered securities issued or guaranteed by Farmer Mac, and we have long had regulations addressing Farmer Mac disclosures related to securities not registered under the Securities Act of 1933. All this notwithstanding, in response to the concerns expressed by commenters regarding dual compliance with SEC regulations, we are not finalizing the contents of § 655.2 at this time.

3. Reports of Condition [New Subpart B: Existing § 655.1; New §§ 655.10 and 655.15]

Our existing rule requires the Corporation to make annual reports to its shareholders, and we had proposed enhancements to this existing requirement. The enhancement included adding quarterly reports, increasing the information in the reports, reducing distribution timeframes, and requiring the reports to be signed and certified as accurate. We received comments on these proposed changes from Farmer Mac and a Farmer Mac stockholder. The stockholder-commenter only remarked that we should remove references to “EDGAR”, the SEC Web site portal, as the name of the portal may change. We agree and have removed all references to “EDGAR” in part 655.

Farmer Mac objected to our rules containing any different reporting or disclosure requirements than those required by the SEC. Farmer Mac stated reporting and disclosures are the jurisdiction of the SEC and FCA should reconsider any regulation of the matter. We reject the argument of Farmer Mac that financial reports and disclosures are the exclusive jurisdiction of the SEC and remind the Corporation that we have long had regulations addressing financial reports and disclosures made by the Corporation. Further, FCA may require disclosure necessary to the safety and soundness of the Corporation.28 In particular, we may require disclosures suitable to the purpose for which Farmer Mac was created, to follow disclosure practices appropriate to secondary market activities, and to aid in reducing risks in secondary market transactions.29 We also point out that SEC rules do not prohibit its filers from making financial reports to other Federal agencies.30

28 Sections 5.17(a)(8) and 8.11 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2252(a)(8) and 2279aa-11).

29 Section 8.11(a)(1) and (2) of the Act (12 U.S.C. 2279aa-11).

30Refer to 17 CFR 240.12b-33.

While we understand Farmer Mac's desire to only concern itself with one unified set of reporting and disclosure requirements, we cannot uniformly adopt SEC reporting and disclosure requirements. As explained in the proposed rulemaking, SEC requires certain reporting and disclosures to satisfy its role in ensuring listed companies provide sufficient information to the investing public. We, on the other hand, concern ourselves with ensuring disclosures and report made by the Corporation address safety and soundness concerns, which include all the activities of the Corporation. Where we can in this rule, we have allowed Farmer Mac to use SEC filings in satisfaction of our requirements. However, the SEC is a separate agency and can change its reporting and disclosure requirements without consulting FCA. For this reason, we limit the extent that SEC filing requirements may also satisfy our requirements and do so in a manner to avoid conflict with SEC requirements and unnecessary duplication of effort by Farmer Mac.

a. Annual Reports

Our existing rule requires the Corporation to make annual reports to its shareholders consistent with shareholder reports required by the SEC, and to submit copies of such to us. We note that the Corporation must also file annual and quarterly reports with the SEC (10Q and 10K, respectively), which may include additional information not part of the annual report to shareholders.31 Farmer Mac asked us to mirror SEC annual reporting requirements. Doing so would include removing the proposed quarterly reporting to shareholders.32 We finalize the proposed language that the annual reports to shareholders must be either equivalent in content to that required under the Securities Act or as we so instruct. However, we are not finalizing the proposed requirement in § 655.10(a) that the Corporation make quarterly shareholder reports. Farmer Mac also asked that we remove the requirement to file any paper copies of reports with OSMO. We decline this request for reasons discussed in the proposed rulemaking preamble.

31 The SEC requires registered entities to file an annual report on Form 10-K, which may contain more detailed information about the company's financial condition than the annual report to shareholders. The annual report on Form 10-K provides a comprehensive overview of the company's business and financial condition and includes audited financial statements. Although similarly named, the annual report on Form 10-K is distinct from the “annual report to shareholders,” which a company must send to its shareholders when it holds an annual meeting to elect directors. www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm.

32 Currently, the SEC does not require registrants to issue a quarterly report to shareholders. However, the issuance of such a report might be required by the listing standards of a national securities exchange or association. In addition, communications about quarterly results are subject to Regulation FD, Fair Disclosure, as well as Form 8-K disclosure requirements.

b. Certification of Reports

Farmer Mac said that there was no need for requiring signatures and certifications on reports as the SEC already addresses how reports are to be signed and certified. Farmer Mac also asked that we define “financially accurate” as used in new § 655.10(b), explaining it is not a term used in the SEC-required certification of reports. We finalize with changes the signature and certification requirements of new § 655.10(b). Our proposed certification did not conflict with SEC laws or regulations, but may have caused compliance issues with SEC instructions. SEC rules §§ 240.13a-14 and 240.15d-14 require certification of quarterly and annual reports filed with them, but SEC instructions for completing these certifications prohibit filers from making changes to the certification language provided in the SEC rules. Our proposed certification requirements captured most of the same information as the SEC certifications, without giving specific language that had to be used. To address the commenter's concern regarding compliance with both the SEC and FCA, we are changing our certification requirements to require the use of SEC certifications.33 We also clarify that the requirements of § 655.10(b) apply to reports issued under new subpart B of part 655.

33 SEC certifications are designed to be consistent with the certification requirements of section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which is intended to improve the quality of public financial disclosures that a company provides in its periodic reports to investors.

c. Distribution Deadlines

Farmer Mac objected to reducing distribution deadlines to 90 days, asking that we keep the current 120-day deadline so as to provide it greater flexibility. Farmer Mac added that the proposed 90-day timeframe “deviates from SEC rules,” but does not name the SEC rules being referenced. Farmer Mac also asserted the shorter timeframe could increase compliance burden.

Absent a citation to the SEC rules, we do not see where the number of days FCA proposed created any compliance problems with SEC requirements. The SEC has a three-tiered deadline for annual reports filed with them that is based on the size of the filer: 60 days after fiscal year end for large accelerated filers, 75 days after fiscal year end for regular accelerated filers, and 90 days after fiscal year end for nonaccelerated filers.34 Our proposed 90-day deadline did not conflict with any of these timeframes. The separate “annual report to shareholders” 35 required by the SEC provides that a registered company must distribute the company's annual report to shareholders at least 40 days before the company holds its annual meeting or elections.36 Again, our proposed 90-day deadline did not conflict with this timeframe as the Corporation is not legally required to hold its annual meeting on any specific date.

34 SEC Web site, www.sec.gov/answers/form10k.htm. See also Instructions to Form 10-K at section A.2, www.sec.gov.

35 The SEC-required annual report to shareholders is usually includes an opening letter from the Chief Executive Officer, financial data, results of operations, market segment information, new product plans, subsidiary activities, and research and development activities on future programs. Companies sometimes elect to send their annual report on Form 10-K to their shareholders in lieu of, or in addition to, providing shareholders with a separate annual report to shareholders. SEC Web site, www.sec.gov/answers/annrep.htm.

36 17 CFR 240.14a-16.

Our existing rule requires distribution of annual reports to shareholders within 120 days of the fiscal year end (i.e. April of each year). The SEC ties distribution of shareholder reports to the annual meeting date (or election date) and reports to the SEC are tied to fiscal year end. We use fiscal year end for both actions. This means to comply with both the SEC and FCA deadlines the Corporation currently must distribute its report to shareholders within 120 days of fiscal year end and may not hold its annual meeting (or elections) until 40 days after the report is distributed (approximately 160 days or June 9th of each year). We proposed reducing our deadline to 90 days, which would result in the Corporation being required to hold its annual meeting (and elections) no earlier than May 10th of each year (approximately 120 days from fiscal year end). As there is no compliance issue with SEC rules, we reject the request of Farmer Mac to follow the SEC in this regard. We prefer a date certain under which the Corporation must distribute its annual report to shareholders. However, we have restored the existing 120-day deadline for distribution of the annual report to shareholders. We continue to believe the Corporation is more than capable of issuing the report sooner, but agree that the additional time is beneficial to the director nomination process (due to the report's connection to holding annual meetings/elections under SEC rules).

d. Interim Reports, Proxy Statements, and Notices

We proposed in § 655.15 that the Corporation provide us copies of interim reports (e.g., 8-K), proxy statements, and notices sent to SEC. We also proposed that this same information be posted on the Corporation's Web site for public viewing, but that links to the SEC electronic filings may be used to satisfy this requirement. Farmer Mac commented that these requirements were an unjustified regulatory burden. Farmer Mac then asked that we clarify the scope of notices, interim reports, and proxy statements required to be sent to OSMO under § 655.15(a). Farmer Mac also asked that we remove the requirement to post on its Web site these same notices, interim reports, and proxy statements. Farmer Mac stated concern with the public posting requirement since these filings include all papers and documents made part of the filing, contending confidential communication with the SEC may be made public.

We decline to remove the § 655.15(a) requirement to provide these complete filings to OSMO as we continue to believe it is essential that communications between the Corporation and OSMO, its primary regulator, include the substantive communications the Corporation has with the SEC. We also fail to see how providing us copies of reports and filings already being prepared is a burden on the Corporation. We have clarified in § 655.15(b) that the public Web site postings may be limited to the public aspects of the notices, interim reports, and proxy statements.

4. Reports Related to Securities Activities [New Subpart C: Existing § 655.50; New § 655.20]

Farmer Mac objected to being required in § 655.20 to send paper copies to us of reports on unregistered securities activities. We have removed the requirement for both electronic and paper copies, replacing it with a requirement for either a paper or electronic copy, whichever is most conducive to transmitting the information. We also added language to clarify the reports are to be sent to the Director of OSMO.

Farmer Mac requested we clarify the types of documents covered by § 655.20 and whether daily transactions (e.g., issuance of unregistered debt securities) needed to be filed with us. Farmer Mac explained that many documents and daily activities could be covered by the rule under some interpretations. If so, the burden of providing that information to us would be significantly increased. As we made little change to existing requirements in this area, we question the assertion that the rule could be misinterpreted or is a burden on Farmer Mac. Farmer Mac has made reports to us on its activities regarding securities not registered under the Securities Act under this regulatory requirement since 1993. As such, Farmer Mac should continue its current practices addressing daily activities for filings made under this requirement, unless we later advise them otherwise. The Corporation at a minimum must make special filings with us regarding those items specifically listed in the rule. We encourage the Corporation to contact us when questions arise as to whether a specific securities action requires a filing under § 655.20.

Farmer Mac requested we update existing terminology in § 655.20(b)(2) regarding securities purchased by the Corporation under section 8.6(e) of the Act. We agree that the specific citation to the Act needed to be updated to reference the correct paragraph of section 8.6.37 The current reference predates Congress moving the relevant provision from section 8.6(g) to section 8.6(e) of the Act.38 We also revise the “pooling and servicing agreements” terminology as requested by Farmer Mac. The existing rule used this phrase to reference those documents employed in the exercise of the Corporation's authority to purchase and hold securities that are backed by pools of qualified loans (which loans are secured by a first lien on agricultural real estate, per section 8.0(9)(A) of the Act).39 The phrase “pooling and servicing agreements” is outdated as such documents are no longer a fundamental prerequisite to doing business with Farmer Mac. We replace this phrase with one that refers to those documents supporting issuances of these types of guaranteed securities and which are material to the transaction(s).

37 12 U.S.C. 2279aa-6(e).

38 Public Law 104-105, 110 Stat. 164 (February 10, 1996).

39See former § 621.20(b)(2)(ii) (58 FR 48786, September 20, 1993) referring to Farmer Mac I securities, relocated to existing § 655.50(b)(2)(ii)(70 FR 40635, July 14, 2005). Farmer Mac I securities are those backed by pools of qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9)(A) of the Act.

5. Correspondence Related to Securities Activities [New Subpart C: Existing § 655.50; New § 655.21]

We proposed expanding the existing requirement to send us copies of substantive correspondence between Farmer Mac and the SEC or U.S. Treasury to cover all subject matters, instead of just those substantive communications related to securities activities and SEC compliance matters. We also proposed adding similar communications with the NYSE and setting timeframes for providing the information to us. Farmer Mac asked for clarification on the types of correspondence between the Corporation and the SEC or NYSE that needed to be sent to us, adding that sending all substantive communique could be unworkably burdensome. Farmer Mac did acknowledge that the provision was within our oversight authority, but stated the scope of communication was too broad. Farmer Mac went on to equate “substantive” correspondence with “routine” communications received by many employees of the Corporation through subscriptions to NYSE market data.

Material such as mass-produced market updates are not “substantive correspondence between the Corporation and the SEC, U.S. Treasury, or NYSE” nor would we expect to be sent SEC and NYSE communique provided to a subscriber list. However, to alleviate any confusion, we clarify that correspondence directly addressing the activities of the Corporation is what is covered by the provision. Further, we refer to past clarifications on this issue, explaining that non-substantive transmittal letters accompanying SEC filings, for example, would not be considered “substantial” and therefore not required to be filed with the FCA.40 On the other hand, we have particular interest in interpretive rulings of the NYSE, the SEC, or the Treasury Department bearing on Farmer Mac's ongoing business activities and expect such correspondence to be filed with us under this provision.

40See 58 FR 48786 (September 20, 1993), where FCA responded in 1993 to a similar comment of Farmer Mac regarding the meaning of “substantive”.

Farmer Mac asked that we exclude communications to NYSE that would be duplicative of official filings with the SEC. We agree and have changed the language of § 655.21(a) accordingly. Farmer Mac also requested guidance on how to transmit to us communique issued via secure electronic portals. We encourage Farmer Mac to contact us when they have such communique, at which time we will provide instructions on how to provide us copies of such.

In addition, Farmer Mac objected to being required in § 655.21(c) to notify us of any exemption it obtained from the SEC. Farmer Mac asked that we limit the requirement to those SEC exemptions obtained under the Securities Act of 1934. In making this request, Farmer Mac explained it is not subject to complete regulation by SEC and, except for certain mortgage-backed securities, it is not subject to the 1933 Securities Act and must only file reports under the 1934 Securities Act. We decline the request to limit the rule by naming a specific securities law. The definition for “securities” contained in § 655.1 explains that it means the securities law(s) appropriate to the context of the employing provision. However, we have changed the requirement to only require notice to us of those exemptions that are not generally available under SEC rules to similarly situated filers.

E. Other Comments

We received comments on portions of the proposed rule preamble language that do not address regulatory provisions and result in no change to the rule. These comments are discussed below.

1. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

We received a comment from an agent of Farmer Mac regarding the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).41 The commenter argued this rulemaking would impact a substantial number of small businesses, with whom Farmer Mac conducts business, and therefore would alter our assessment of the economic impact of the rulemaking. In the proposed rule, we certified that the rule would not have a significant economic impact on a large number of small entities, and that Farmer Mac did not qualify as a “small entity” as defined under the RFA. The RFA does not: (1) Seek preferential treatment for small entities; (2) require agencies to adopt regulations that impose the least burden on small entities; or (3) mandate exemptions for small entities. Rather, it requires agencies to examine public policy issues using an analytical process that identifies, among other things, barriers to small business competitiveness. Meaning, it requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of proposed regulations when there is likely to be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities covered by the rulemaking, and to consider regulatory alternatives that will achieve the agency's goal while minimizing the burden on those same small entities. The rule is directed at Farmer Mac, which is not a small business. Further, we see nothing in this final rulemaking that creates significant economic barriers to small businesses. Those areas of the rule referencing agents of Farmer Mac expound upon existing regulations or statutory provisions and make no reference to the size of entity serving as an agent to Farmer Mac.

41 Regulatory Flexibility Act, Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164 (codified at 5 U.S.C. 601).

2. Need for Rulemaking

One stockholder-commenter expressed general concern with FCA regulating the corporate governance and disclosures for Farmer Mac given existing SEC rules in these areas. This commenter asked FCA to use caution as SEC rules are constantly changing. The commenter also stated FCA did not need to regulate governance behavior at Farmer Mac as the Corporation has a strong history of sophisticated corporate governance practices.

Voluntary governance is valuable, but it does not replace the stability that rules provide in assuring stakeholders of the safety and soundness of the Corporation. Our governance rules set a minimum level of performance that is mandatory for the Corporation. While we believe it is important to preserve individual operating flexibility wherever and whenever possible, our responsibility as regulator requires us to issue regulations we determine appropriate for safety and soundness reasons. We believe the assurances derived from a regulatory minimum standard, combined with the Corporation's voluntary governance efforts, will increase stockholder, investor, and public confidence in Farmer Mac.

Farmer Mac questioned the need for any regulatory changes, stating that insufficient recognition was given to its status as a public company. Farmer Mac also stated that it is unnecessary for FCA to regulate many corporate governance areas due to SEC requirements and thus we should remove those provisions. Farmer Mac explained that it is the mission of the SEC to protect investors, and the SEC provides sufficient regulation of board activities and corporate disclosures. Farmer Mac added that portions of the rule presented compliance concerns with other regulatory elements unrelated to FCA, but provided no specific citation to these other rules. Farmer Mac also asserted that the rulemaking would potentially harm the Corporation and those it serves in a material way instead of enhance safe and sound operations, but again offered no specifics.

The FCA, acting through OSMO, examines and provides general supervision over the activities of Farmer Mac pursuant to section 8.11 of the Act. As discussed elsewhere in this preamble, the role the SEC plays in the disclosure and reporting aspects of the Corporation does not remove our responsibility to regulate Farmer Mac's safe and sound operations. We have a responsibility to address corporate governance within the Corporation given its importance to the safe and sound operations of the Corporation and the current business climate in which Farmer Mac operates. As a GSE, the Corporation has strategic objectives that are both commercially and public policy oriented. Thus, governance of the Corporation must be understood and interpreted not only in the context of the fiduciary responsibilities to the Corporation and its shareholders, but also in the context of the statutory duty to further the Congressional purposes the Corporation was chartered to achieve. In addition, we explained in the proposed rule preamble that Farmer Mac, as a publicly traded company, is subject to many of the governance requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank, and SEC disclosure regulations for publicly traded companies. However, with the recent events in the financial industry, increased sophistication in financial markets, and on-going scrutiny of GSE financial activities and related reporting practices, we believed it prudent to update our current regulatory standards related to Farmer Mac's Board governance, reporting, and disclosures.

Farmer Mac stated that FCA did not publish its current concerns with the risk management and governance operations of the Corporation in support of the rulemaking. This rulemaking is intended to ensure that appropriate board governance and risk management practices are in place at Farmer Mac. We are not limited to issuing regulations only when there is an existing adverse risk or problem. Our responsibilities as a safety and soundness regulator requires us to be proactive and prudent in our rulemaking, as well as reactive by providing standards that help avert potential problems. Thus, we have flexibility to issue rules either in response to a problem or proactively to ensure the Corporation's continued safe and sound business operations.

Farmer Mac also asserted FCA has in the past “deferred” to the oversight of the SEC and NYSE. We reject this assertion. The FCA, as an independent regulator of the Corporation, is not required to follow the actions of other regulators and we have never deferred our regulatory oversight to another agency. We do not view our past efforts to accommodate the Corporation's requests to modify our regulations in light of those issued by other regulators (whose regulations also affect the Corporation's operations) as a relinquishment of our safety and soundness authority.

3. Terminology

Farmer Mac asked that we define an assortment of terms and phrases used throughout the rule, asserting that many of these terms and phrases are not “established” in a body of law. Most of the terms and phrases identified by Farmer Mac are derived from corporate case law, model codes, and the Act itself. As such, we do not believe it necessary to further define them.

4. Regulatory Burden

Farmer Mac commented that it viewed many aspects of the rule as unnecessary and burdensome, making them inconsistent with the “Congressional mandate” that we eliminate unnecessary regulations. As we understand this comment, Farmer Mac is referring to the instructions of the Farm Credit System Reform Act of 1996 (1996 Act) 42 to reduce regulatory burdens. Section 212(b) of the 1996 Act requires us to continuously review our regulations to eliminate rules that are unnecessary, unduly burdensome, costly, or not based on law. The 1996 Act specifies that we are to make these eliminations only if they would be consistent with law, safety, and soundness. As explained throughout this preamble, Congress charged us to issue regulations to ensure the safety and soundness of the Corporation and this rule is consistent with the law and safety and soundness concerns.

42 Public Law 104-105, 110 Stat. 162 (February 10, 1996).

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FCA hereby certifies the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Corporation has assets and annual income over the amounts that would qualify it as a small entity. Therefore, the Corporation is not considered a “small entity” as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 650

Agriculture, Banks, banking, Credit, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.

12 CFR Part 651

Agriculture, Banks, banking, Conduct standards, Conflict of interests, Elections, Ethical conduct, Rural areas.

12 CFR Part 653

Agriculture, Banks, banking, Capital, Conduct standards, Credit, Finance, Rural areas.

12 CFR Part 655

Accounting, Agriculture, Banks, banking, Accounting and reporting requirements, Disclosure and reporting requirements, Financial disclosure, Rural areas.

For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 650, 651, 653, and 655 of chapter VI, title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 650—FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. The authority citation for part 650 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 5.25, 8.11, 8.12, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2261, 2279aa-11, 2279aa-12, 2279bb, 2279bb-1, 2279bb-2, 2279bb-3, 2279bb-4, 2279bb-5, 2279bb-6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 168.

2. Add subpart B, under the heading “Conservators, Receivers, and Liquidations” consisting of existing §§ 650.1 through 650.80 as redesignated in the following table: Old section New section 650.1, no subpart 650.13, subpart B 650.5, no subpart 650.14, subpart B 650.10, no subpart 650.10, subpart B 650.15, no subpart 650.15, subpart B 650.20, no subpart 650.20, subpart B 650.25, no subpart 650.25, subpart B 650.30, no subpart 650.30, subpart B 650.35, no subpart 650.35, subpart B 650.40, no subpart 650.40, subpart B 650.45, no subpart 650.45, subpart B 650.50, no subpart 650.50, subpart B 650.55, no subpart 650.55, subpart B 650.60, no subpart 650.60, subpart B 650.65, no subpart 650.65, subpart B 650.70, no subpart 650.70, subpart B 650.75, no subpart 650.75, subpart B 650.80, no subpart 650.80, subpart B 3. Add a new subpart A to read as follows: Subpart A—Regulation, Examination and Enforcement Sec. 650.1 Definitions. 650.2 Regulatory authority. 650.3 Supervision and enforcement. 650.4 Access to Corporation records and personnel. 650.5 Reports of examination. 650.6 Criminal referrals. Subpart A—Regulation, Examination and Enforcement
§ 650.1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

Act or Authorizing statute means the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended.

Business day means a day the Corporation is open for business, excluding the legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 6103(a).

Corporation or Farmer Mac means the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and its affiliates.

FCA means the Farm Credit Administration, an independent Federal agency of the executive branch.

NYSE means the New York Stock Exchange, a listing exchange.

OSMO means the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight, which is responsible for the general supervision of the safe and sound exercise of the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties and compliance with laws and regulations.

Our or we means the FCA or OSMO, as appropriate to the context of the provision employing the term.

SEC means the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Securities Act means the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq.) or the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.), or both, as appropriate to the context of the provision employing the term.

Signed, when referring to paper form, means a manual signature, and, when referring to electronic form, means marked in a manner that authenticates each signer's identity.

§ 650.2 Regulatory authority.

(a) General. The Corporation is a for-profit Government-sponsored enterprise developed to provide a secondary market for qualified agricultural, USDA-guaranteed, and rural utility loans, with public policy objectives included in its statutory charter. The Corporation is regulated by the FCA, operating through OSMO. The Corporation also lists securities on the NYSE, making it subject to certain SEC listing and disclosure requirements.

(b) Primary regulator. The FCA, operating through OSMO, holds primary regulatory, examination, and enforcement authority over the Corporation. The FCA, operating through OSMO, is responsible for the general supervision of the safe and sound exercise of the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties and compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

(c) Other regulatory authorities. The Corporation registers its common stock and certain offerings of Farmer Mac Guaranteed Securities under the Securities Act and related regulations so must comply with certain SEC reporting requirements.

§ 650.3 Supervision and enforcement.

The Act provides FCA, acting through OSMO, with enforcement authority to protect the financial safety and soundness of the Corporation and to ensure that the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties are exercised in a safe and sound manner.

(a) General supervision. When we determine the Corporation has violated a law, rule, or regulation or is engaging in an unsafe or unsound condition or practice, we have enforcement authority that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(1) Issue an order to cease and desist;

(2) Issue a temporary order to cease and desist;

(3) Assess civil monetary penalties against the Corporation and its directors, officers, employees, and agents; and

(4) Issue an order to suspend, remove, or prohibit directors and officers.

(b) Financial safety and soundness of the Corporation. When we determine the Corporation is taking excessive risks that adversely impact the adequacy of Regulatory Capital, we have authority to address that risk. This includes, but is not limited to, requiring capital restoration plans, restricting dividend distributions, requiring changes in the Corporation's obligations and assets, requiring the acquisition of new capital and restricting those Corporation activities determined to create excessive risk to the Corporation's Regulatory Capital.

§ 650.4 Access to Corporation records and personnel.

(a) The Corporation must make its records available promptly upon request by OSMO, at a location and in a form and manner acceptable to OSMO.

(b) The Corporation must make directors, officers, employees and other individuals or entities engaged by the Corporation to participate in the conduct of the Corporation's business available to OSMO during the course of an examination or supervisory action when OSMO determines it necessary to facilitate an examination or supervisory action.

§ 650.5 Reports of examination.

The Corporation is subject to the provisions in 12 CFR part 602 regarding FCA Reports of Examination.

§ 650.6 Criminal referrals.

The rules at 12 CFR part 612, subpart B, regarding “Referral of Known or Suspected Criminal Violations” are applicable to the Corporation.

4. Revise part 651 to read as follows: PART 651—FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION GOVERNANCE Subpart A—General Sec. 651.1 Definitions. 651.2 [Reserved] Subpart B—Standards of Conduct 651.21 [Reserved] 651.22 Conflict-of-interest policy. 651.23 Implementation of policy. 651.24 Director, officer, employee, and agent responsibilities. Subpart C—Board Governance 651.30 [Reserved] 651.35 [Reserved] 651.40 [Reserved] 651.50 Committees of the Corporation's board of directors. Authority:

Secs. 4.12, 5.9, 5.17, 8.3, 8.11, 8.14, 8.31, 8.32, 8.33, 8.34, 8.35, 8.36, 8.37, 8.41 of Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (12 U.S.C. 2183, 2243, 2252, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-11, 2279aa-14, 2279bb, 2279bb-1, 2279bb-2, 2279bb-3, 2279bb-4, 2279bb-5, 2279bb-6, 2279cc); sec. 514 of Pub. L. 102-552, 106 Stat. 4102; sec. 118 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 168.

Subpart A—General
§ 651.1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

Act or Authorizing statute means the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended.

Agent means any person (other than a director, officer, or employee of the Corporation) who represents the Corporation in contacts with third parties or who provides professional services such as legal, accounting, or appraisal services to the Corporation.

Affiliate means any entity established under authority granted to the Corporation under section 8.3(c)(14) of the Act.

Appointed director means a member of the Corporation's board of directors who was appointed to the Corporation board by the President of the United States of America.

Business day means a day the Corporation is open for business, excluding the legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 6103(a).

Class A stockholders means holders of common stock in the Corporation that are insurance companies, banks, or other financial institutions or entities.

Class B stockholders means holders of common stock in the Corporation that are Farm Credit System institutions.

Conflict-of-interest means a director, officer, or employee of the Corporation has an interest in a transaction, relationship, or activity that might adversely affect, or appear to adversely affect, the ability of the director, officer, or employee to perform his or her official duties on behalf of the Corporation in an objective and impartial manner in furtherance of the interest of the Corporation and its statutory purposes.

Corporation means the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and its affiliates.

Director elections mean the process of searching for director candidates, conducting director nominations, and voting for directors.

Elected director means a member of the Corporation's board of directors who was elected by either Class A or Class B stockholders.

Employee means any salaried individual working part-time, full-time, or temporarily for the Corporation.

Entity means a corporation, company, association, firm, joint venture, partnership (general or limited), society, joint stock company, trust (business or otherwise), fund, or other organization or institution.

FCA means the Farm Credit Administration, an independent Federal agency of the executive branch.

Material means conflicting interests of sufficient magnitude or significance that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would question the ability of the person having such interest to discharge official duties in an objective and impartial manner in furtherance of the interests and statutory purposes of the Corporation.

Officer means the salaried president, vice presidents, secretary, treasurer, and general counsel, or other person, however designated, who holds a position of similar authority in the Corporation.

OSMO means the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight, which is responsible for the general supervision of the safe and sound exercise of the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties and compliance with laws and regulations.

Our or we means the FCA or OSMO, as appropriate to the context of the provision employing the term.

Person means individual or entity.

Reasonable person means a person under similar circumstances exercising the average level of care, skill, and judgment in his or her conduct.

Resolved means an actual or potential material conflict-of-interest that has been altered so that a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts would conclude that the conflicting interest would not adversely affect the person's performance of official duties in an objective and impartial manner and in furtherance of the interests and statutory purposes of the Corporation.

Signed, when referring to paper form, means a manual signature, and, when referring to electronic form, means marked in a manner that authenticates each signer's identity.

§ 651.2 [Reserved]
Subpart B—Standards of Conduct
§ 651.21 [Reserved]
§ 651.22 Conflict-of-interest policy.

The Corporation shall establish and administer a conflict-of-interest policy that will provide reasonable assurance that the directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Corporation discharge their official responsibilities in an objective and impartial manner in furtherance of the interests and statutory purposes of the Corporation. The policy shall, at a minimum:

(a) Define the types of transactions, relationships, or activities that could reasonably be expected to give rise to potential conflicts of interest. For the purpose of determining whether a potential conflict of interest exists, the following interests shall be imputed to a person subject to this regulation as if they were that person's own interests:

(1) Interests of any individual residing in that person's household;

(2) Interests of any individual identified as a legal dependent of that person;

(3) Interests of that person's general business partner;

(4) Interests of an organization or entity that the person serves as officer, director, trustee, general partner or employee; and

(5) Interests of a person, organization, or entity with which that person is negotiating for or has an arrangement concerning current or prospective employment.

(b) Require each director, officer, and employee to report in writing, annually, and at such other times as conflicts may arise, sufficient information about financial interests, transactions, relationships, and activities to inform the Corporation of potential conflicts of interest;

(c) Require each director, officer, and employee who had no transaction, relationship, or activity required to be reported under paragraph (b) of this section at any time during the year to file a signed statement to that effect;

(d) Establish guidelines for determining when a potential conflict is material in accordance with this subpart;

(e) Establish procedures for resolving or disclosing material conflicts of interest.

(f) Provide internal controls to ensure that reports are filed as required and that conflicts are resolved or disclosed in accordance with this subpart.

(g) Notify directors, officers, and employees of the conflict-of-interest policy and any subsequent changes thereto and allow them a reasonable period of time to conform to the policy.

§ 651.23 Implementation of policy.

(a) The Corporation shall disclose any unresolved material conflicts of interest involving its directors, officers, and employees to:

(1) Shareholders through annual reports and proxy statements; and

(2) Investors and potential investors through disclosure documents supplied to them.

(b) The Corporation shall make available to any shareholder, investor, or potential investor, upon request, a copy of its policy on conflicts of interest. The Corporation may charge a nominal fee to cover the costs of reproduction and handling.

(c) The Corporation shall maintain all reports of all potential conflicts of interest and documentation of materiality determinations and resolutions of conflicts of interest for a period of 6 years.

§ 651.24 Director, officer, employee, and agent responsibilities.

(a) Each director, officer, employee, and agent of the Corporation shall:

(1) Conduct the business of the Corporation following high standards of honesty, integrity, impartiality, loyalty, and care, consistent with applicable law and regulation in furtherance of the Corporation's public purpose;

(2) Adhere to the requirements of the conflict-of-interest policy established by the Corporation and provide any information the Corporation deems necessary to discharge its responsibilities under this subpart.

(b) Directors, officers, employees, and agents of the Corporation shall be subject to the penalties of part C of title V of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended, for violations of this regulation, including failure to adhere to the conflict-of-interest policy established by the Corporation.

Subpart C—Board Governance
§ 651.30 [Reserved]
§ 651.35 [Reserved]
§ 651.40 [Reserved]
§ 651.50 Committees of the Corporation's board of directors.

(a) General. No committee of the board of directors may be delegated the authority of the board of directors to amend Corporation bylaws. No committee of the board of directors shall relieve the board of directors or any board member of a responsibility imposed by law or regulation.

(b) Required committees. The board of directors of the Corporation must have committees, however styled, that address risk management, audit, compensation, and corporate governance. Neither the risk management committee nor the audit committee may be combined with any other committees. This provision does not prevent the board of directors from establishing any other committees that it deems necessary or useful to carrying out its responsibilities.

(c) Charter. Each committee required by this section must develop a formal written charter that specifies the scope of the committee's powers and responsibilities, as well as the committee's structure, processes, and membership requirements. To be effective, the charter must be approved by action of the full board of directors. No director may serve as chairman of more than one of the board committees required by this section.

(d) Frequency of meetings and records. Each committee of the board of directors required by this section must meet with sufficient frequency to carry out its obligations and duties under applicable laws, regulations, and its operating charter. Each of these committees must maintain minutes of its meetings. The minutes must record attendance, the agenda (or equivalent list of issues under discussion), a summary of the relevant discussions held by the committee during the meeting, and any resulting recommendations to the board. Such minutes must be retained for a minimum of 3 years and must be available to the entire board of directors and to OSMO.

5. Add part 653 to read as follows: PART 653—FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION RISK MANAGEMENT Sec. 653.1 Definitions. 653.2 General. 653.3 Risk management. 653.4 Internal controls. Authority:

Secs. 8.3, 8.4, 8.6, 8.8, and 8.10 of Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (12 U.S.C. 2279aa-3, 2279aa-4, 2279aa-6, 2279aa-8, and 2279aa-10).

§ 653.1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

Corporation means the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and its affiliates.

FCA means the Farm Credit Administration, an independent Federal agency of the executive branch.

OSMO means the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight, which is responsible for the general supervision of the safe and sound exercise of the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties and compliance with laws and regulations.

§ 653.2 General.

The Corporation's board of directors must approve the overall risk-appetite of the Corporation and regularly monitor internal controls to provide reasonable assurance that risk-taking activities are conducted in a safe and sound manner.

§ 653.3 Risk management.

(a) Risk management program. The Corporation's board of directors must establish, maintain, and periodically update an enterprise-wide risk management program addressing how the Corporation's activities are exercised in a safe and sound manner. The implementation of the risk management program may reside with senior management. The risk management program at a minimum must:

(1) Periodically assess and document the Corporation's risk profile.

(2) Align the Corporation's risk profile with the board-approved risk appetite and the Corporation's operational planning strategies and objectives.

(3) Specify management's authority to carry out risk management responsibilities.

(4) Integrate risk management and control objectives into management goals and compensation structures.

(5) Comply with all applicable FCA regulations and policies.

(b) Risk committee. The Corporation's board-level risk committee assists the full board of directors in the oversight of the enterprise-wide risk management program of the Corporation.

(1) The risk committee must have at least one member with an understanding of risk management commensurate with the Corporation's capital structure, risk profile, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk-related factors.

(2) The responsibilities of the risk committee include, but are not limited to:

(i) Periodically assessing management's implementation of the enterprise-wide risk management program;

(ii) Recommending changes to the risk management program to keep the program commensurate with the Corporation's capital structure, risk appetite, complexity, activities, size, and other appropriate risk-related factors; and

(iii) Receiving and reviewing regular reports directly from personnel responsible for implementing the Corporation's risk management program.

(c) Management of risk. The Corporation must have a risk officer, however styled, who is responsible for implementing and maintaining the enterprise-wide risk management practices of the Corporation. The risk officer must have risk management experience commensurate with the Corporation's capital structure, risk appetite, complexity, activities, and size. The responsibilities of the risk officer include, but are not limited to:

(1) Identifying and monitoring compliance with risk limits, exposures, and controls;

(2) Implementing risk management policies, procedures, and risk controls;

(3) Developing appropriate processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks, including emerging risks;

(4) Reporting on risk management issues, emerging risks, and compliance concerns; and

(5) Making recommendations on adjustments to the risk management policies, procedures, and risk controls of the Corporation.

§ 653.4 Internal controls.

(a) The Corporation's board of directors must adopt an internal controls policy that provides adequate directions for, and identifies expectations in, establishing effective safety and soundness control over, and accountability for, the Corporation's operations, programs, and resources.

(b) The internal controls system must address:

(1) The efficiency and effectiveness of the Corporation's activities;

(2) Safeguarding the assets of the Corporation;

(3) Evaluating the reliability, completeness, and timely reporting of financial and management information;

(4) Compliance with applicable laws, regulations, regulatory directives, and the policies of the Corporation's board of directors and senior management;

(5) The appropriate segregation of duties among the Corporation personnel so that personnel are not assigned conflicting responsibilities; and

(6) The completeness and quality of information provided to the Corporation's board of directors.

(c) The Corporation is responsible for establishing and implementing an effective system to identify internal controls weaknesses and taking action to correct detected weaknesses. The Corporation must document:

(1) The process used to identify weaknesses,

(2) Any found weaknesses, and

(3) How identified weaknesses were addressed.

6. Revise part 655 to read as follows: PART 655—FEDERAL AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION DISCLOSURE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Subpart A—General Sec. 655.1 Definitions. Subpart B—Report of Condition of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 655.10 Reports of condition. 655.15 Interim reports, notices, and proxy statements. Subpart C—Reports Relating to Securities Activities of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation 655.20 Securities not registered under the Securities Act. 655.21 Filings and communications with the U.S. Treasury, the SEC and NYSE. Authority:

Secs. 5.9, 8.3, 8.11, and 8.12 of Pub. L. 92-181, 85 Stat. 583 (12 U.S.C. 2243, 2279aa-3, 2279aa-11, 2279aa-12).

Subpart A—General
§ 655.1 Definitions.

The following definitions apply to this part:

Act or authorizing statute means the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended.

Business day means a day the Corporation is open for business, excluding the legal public holidays identified in 5 U.S.C. 6103(a).

Corporation means the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation and its affiliates.

FCA means the Farm Credit Administration, an independent Federal agency of the executive branch.

Material, when used to qualify a requirement to furnish information as to any subject, means the information required for those matters to which there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable person would attach importance in making investor decisions or determining the financial condition of the Corporation.

NYSE means the New York Stock Exchange, a listing exchange.

OSMO means the FCA Office of Secondary Market Oversight, which is responsible for the general supervision of the safe and sound exercise of the Corporation's powers, functions, and duties and compliance with laws and regulations.

Our or us means the FCA or OSMO, as appropriate to the context of the provision employing the term.

Person means individual or entity.

SEC means the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Securities Act means the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et seq. ) or the Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq. ), or both, as appropriate to the context of the provision employing the term.

Signed, when referring to paper form, means a manual signature, and, when referring to electronic form, means marked in a manner that authenticates each signer's identity.

Subpart B—-Reports of Condition of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
§ 655.10 Reports of condition.

(a) General. The Corporation must prepare and publish annual reports to its shareholders of its condition, including financial statements and related schedules, exhibits, and other documents that are part of the reports. The contents of each report must be equivalent in content to the annual report to shareholders required by the Securities Act unless we issue instructions otherwise.

(b) Signatures and certification. Each report issued under this subpart must be signed. The Corporation must designate the representatives who will sign each report. The name and position title of each person signing the report must be printed beneath his or her signature. The signatories must certify the report by using the SEC rules on certifications for disclosures in annual reports to shareholders.

(c) Distribution. The Corporation must distribute the signed annual report of condition to its shareholders within 120 days of its fiscal year-end. Within 5 days of signing, the Corporation must provide us one paper and one electronic copy of every signed report that is distributed to its shareholders. If the report is the same as that filed with the SEC, the Corporation may instead provide the signed reports to us only in electronic form and simultaneous with filing the report with the SEC.

(1) The Corporation must publish on its Web site a copy of each annual report to shareholders within 3 business days of filing the report with us. The report must remain on the Web site until the next report is posted. When the reports are the same as those filed with the SEC, electronic links to the SEC filings Web site may be used in satisfaction of this requirement.

(2) Upon receiving a request for an annual report of condition from a stockholder, investor, or the public, the Corporation must promptly provide the requester the most recent annual report issued in compliance with this section.

§ 655.15 Interim reports, notices, and proxy statements.

(a) The Corporation must provide to us one paper and one electronic copy of every interim report, notice, and proxy statement filed with the SEC within 1 business day of filing the item with the SEC, including all papers and documents that are a part of the report, notice, or statement.

(b) The Corporation must publish a copy of each interim report, notice, and proxy statement on its Web site within 5 business days of filing the document(s) with the SEC. The Corporation may omit from these postings confidential, non-public information contained in the interim report, notice, or proxy statement. The interim report, notice, or proxy statement must remain on the Web site for 6 months or until the next annual report of condition is posted, whichever is later. Electronic links to the SEC filings Web site may be used in satisfaction of this requirement.

Subpart C—-Reports Relating to Securities Activities of the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
§ 655.20 Securities not registered under the Securities Act.

The Corporation must make special filings with the Director of OSMO for securities either issued or guaranteed by the Corporation that are not registered under the Securities Act. These filings include, but are not limited to:

(a) Either one paper or one electronic copy of any offering circular, private placement memorandum, or information statement prepared in connection with the securities offering at or before the time of the securities offering.

(b) For securities backed by qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9)(A) of the Act, either one paper or one electronic copy of the following within 1 business day of the finalization of the transaction:

(1) The private placement memoranda for securities sold to investors; and

(2) The final agreement and all supporting documents material to the Corporation's purchase of a security under section 8.6(e) of the Act.

(c) For securities backed by qualified loans as defined in section 8.0(9)(B) of the Act, the Corporation must provide summary information on such securities issued during each calendar quarter in the form prescribed by us. Such summary information must be provided with each report of condition and performance (Call report) filed pursuant to § 621.12, and at such other times as we may require.

§ 655.21 Filings and communications with the U.S. Treasury, the SEC, and NYSE.

(a) The Corporation must send us one paper and one electronic copy of every filing made with U.S. Treasury, the SEC, or NYSE, including financial statements and related schedules, exhibits, and other documents that are a part of the filing. Such items must be filed with us no later than 1 business day after the U.S. Treasury, SEC, or NYSE filing. For those filings with the NYSE that duplicate ones made to the SEC, the Corporation may send only the SEC filing to us. If the filing is one addressed in subpart B of this part, no action under this paragraph is required.

(b) The Corporation must send us, within 3 business days and according to instructions provided by us, copies of all substantive correspondence between the Corporation and the U.S. Treasury, the SEC, or NYSE that are directed at the activities of the Corporation.

(c) The Corporation must notify us within 1 business day if it becomes exempt or claims exemption from the filing requirements of the Securities Act. Notice is not required when the Corporation claims an exemption that is generally available under SEC rules and regulations to similarly situated filers.

Date: July 20, 2016. Dale L. Aultman, Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-17455 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD; Amendment 39-18594; AD 2016-15-03] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. This AD requires the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the airplane operating temperatures. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

DATES:

This AD is effective August 31, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8435.

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-2015-8435; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone 800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1584) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. The NPRM proposed to require the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the airplane operating temperatures. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door and impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 13, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

There have been reports where operators experienced an inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions.

Investigation determined that the nylon slider in the plunger assembly of the door handle is susceptible to thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider.

This condition, if not corrected, could result in an inability to open the main passenger door and could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the incorporation of a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent to enhance the performance across the full range of the aeroplanes operating temperatures.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8435.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier issued the following service Information:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

The service information describes procedures to incorporate a new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $20,400, or $340 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-15-03 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18594. Docket No. FAA-2015-8435; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-049-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective August 31, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 9002 through 9515 inclusive and S/N 9998.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of operator inability to open the main passenger door following severe hot soak conditions. We are issuing this AD to prevent thermal expansion and permanent deformation at severe hot soak conditions, creating high friction between the spring pot housing and the slider that could result in inability to open the main passenger door that could impede evacuation in the event of an emergency.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Modification

Within 15 months after the effective date of this AD, incorporate the new configuration to the passenger door external handle detent, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of this AD:

(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015 (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the following service information, as applicable. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(1) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, dated November 9, 2012.

(2) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, dated November 9, 2012.

(3) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, dated November 9, 2012.

(4) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, dated November 9, 2012.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2015-03, dated March 26, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8435.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-1A11-52-021, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-044, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-5008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

(iv) Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-52-6008, Revision 01, dated February 3, 2015.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 514-855-5000; fax 514-855-7401; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 19, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17538 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 145 [Docket No.: FAA-2016-8744; Amdt. No. 145-31] RIN 2120-AK86 Repair Stations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is revising its repair station rules to remove the requirement that a repair station with an airframe rating provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model aircraft listed on its operations specifications. The FAA is also revising its general housing and facilities regulation to provide that a repair station's housing for its facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel must be consistent not only with its ratings, but also with its limitations to those ratings. Finally, the FAA is adding an additional general purpose limited rating to cover maintenance work not covered by the existing 12 limited rating categories. These changes are necessary because the existing ratings and housing rules impose unnecessary housing requirements on certain repair stations that work only on component parts of an aircraft. These changes will enable some repair stations to obtain a limited rating that is tailored to their intended scope of work, and will relieve repair stations that have a limited airframe rating, but that work only on component parts of an aircraft, from having to provide large and expensive housing to enclose the entire aircraft when that type of housing is not needed for the limited scope of their work.

DATES:

Effective July 27, 2016.

Submit comments on or before August 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8744 using any of the following methods:

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

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 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:

For technical questions concerning this action, contact Susan Traugott Ludwig, Aircraft Maintenance Division, Repair Station Branch, AFS-340, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (214) 587-8887; email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Good Cause for Final Adoption

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

The FAA finds that notice and public comment to this interim final rule are unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. The provisions in this interim final rule will remove restrictive housing language affecting repair stations that hold limited airframe ratings and perform maintenance on airframe component parts rather than the entire aircraft. This rule will also amend the limited ratings section by adding a rating that will provide certificate holders and applicants with an additional option for defining the work they actually intend to perform. The removal of the restrictive housing language and adding an additional limited rating will not adversely affect current and future certificate holders. Regarding the restrictive housing language, this change is also consistent with how this regulation has been applied in practice. In addition, the removal of the restrictive language and adding an additional limited rating will not have a negative safety impact. The language is adopted to relieve economic burdens on the repair station industry and the possibility of forced repair station closings if the amended language were to be applied literally. Therefore, the FAA has determined that notice and public comment prior to publication are unnecessary.

In addition, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), the FAA is making this interim final rule effective upon publication because it is a substantive rule that relieves a restriction.

Comments Invited

The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT), (44 FR 1134; February 26, 1979), provide that to the maximum extent possible, operating administrations for the DOT should provide an opportunity for public comment on regulations issued without prior notice. Although the FAA is inviting comments, we have made the determination to adopt this interim final rule without prior notice and public comment due to the need to expedite a resolution for repair stations that perform maintenance on airframe component parts by removing the restrictive housing requirement and providing an additional limited rating as another option.

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.

This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements, and section 44707, Examining and rating air agencies. Under section 44701, the FAA may prescribe equipment and facilities for, and the timing and manner of, inspecting, servicing, and overhauling of aircraft, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances and constituent parts thereof. Under section 44707, the FAA may examine and rate repair stations. This regulation is within the scope of section 44701 since it specifies the facilities required, and the regulation is within the scope of 44707 since it specifies the ratings that are held by the repair stations.

I. Background Statement of the Problem

The FAA's rules provide for two categories of repair station ratings that define and govern which articles 1 repair stations may work on under the part 145 regulations. These are class ratings (provided for in § 145.59) and limited ratings (provided for in § 145.61). Class ratings are broadly defined, and generally cover all articles listed in the category. Under § 145.61, however, the “FAA may issue a limited rating to a repair station that maintains or alters only a particular type of airframe, powerplant, propeller, radio, instrument, or accessory, or part thereof.” Section 145.61(b) provides that the FAA may issue limited ratings for 12 categories of aircraft articles. These are:

1 Ref. 14 CFR 145.3, “Article” means aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, or component part.

(1) Airframes of a particular make and model;

(2) Engines of a particular make and model;

(3) Propellers of a particular make and model;

(4) Instruments of a particular make and model;

(5) Radio equipment of a particular make and model;

(6) Accessories of a particular make and model;

(7) Landing gear components;

(8) Floats, by make;

(9) Nondestructive inspection, testing, and processing;

(10) Emergency equipment;

(11) Rotor blades, by make and model; and

(12) Aircraft fabric work.

Prior to 2001, § 145.33(b) 2 listed 13 categories for which the FAA issued limited ratings. The last of these (the 13th category) covered “Any other purpose for which the Administrator finds the applicant's request is appropriate.” In the 2001 amendments, the FAA, among other things, removed the 13th category of limited ratings. Now, as before 2001, if an applicant for a repair station certificate did not want a full class rating, but wanted to work only on a particular component or component parts of an aircraft, the applicant would seek a limited rating. After that amendment became effective in 2003, if the component part or parts listed in the application were not airframe components and did not fit in one of the other 11 limited rating categories, the agency often issued a limited airframe rating anyway with the make and model of the aircraft listed on the operations specifications, and the scope of work pertaining to the component parts requested, included as a limitation. In most of these cases, the FAA did not consider the requirements in § 145.103(b) that airframe-rated repair stations must provide housing to enclose the entire aircraft because the scope of the requested work did not require the entire aircraft to be enclosed.

2 The FAA amended part 145 in 2001 (66 FR 41088, August 6, 2001). The new rules became effective on April 6, 2003.

In many cases, the issuance of these ratings ran afoul of the agency's repair station housing and facilities regulations because many airframe-rated repair stations performing only component part maintenance did not provide housing that could enclose the entire aircraft listed on their operations specifications. Although these categories of repair stations could easily meet the requirements of § 145.103(a)(1) (which requires housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with the repair station's ratings) if their work was limited to working only on component parts, many did not meet the requirements of § 145.103(b). To answer the question whether the term “airframe rating” as used in § 145.103(b) contemplates a limited airframe rating, in March 2015, the FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel issued a legal interpretation concluding that a limited airframe rating is an airframe rating as the term is used in that regulation.3 The interpretation essentially stated that an airframe-rated repair station, whether limited airframe or class airframe-rated, must obtain the housing as required in § 145.103(b).

3 FAA legal interpretation to Finazzo (March 4, 2015) concluded that 14 CFR 145.103(b) requires a repair station with a limited airframe rating to have housing large enough to enclose the largest aircraft listed on its operations specifications. The opinion stated that “nothing in the regulatory history or plain language of the regulation supports a conclusion that the airframe rating of section § 145.103(b) applies only to class ratings and excludes limited airframe ratings.” See Docket No. FAA-2016-8744.

Prior to the March 2015 interpretation, some FAA offices that issued limited airframe ratings for component parts work interpreted the term airframe rating in § 145.103(b) to refer only to a class airframe rating. Thus, in those cases, the issue of requiring housing to enclose the largest aircraft on the repair station's operations specifications was never addressed. According to that reasoning, a class rating as described in § 145.59(a) would require housing large enough to enclose the entire aircraft, but a limited airframe rating provided as described in § 145.61(b)(1) would not.4 Consequently, if an applicant sought only a limited airframe rating for a component part(s), those FAA offices did not believe § 145.103(b) applied to those situations.

4 This, despite that § 145.61(b)(1) provides for a limited airframe rating for a “particular make and model” aircraft. An example could be a limited airframe rating for a Boeing Model 737 aircraft that would allow a repair station to perform maintenance on only that model aircraft and no others. In that case, the holder of that limited rating would be required to provide housing to enclose that entire aircraft. It would be an anomalous result if the holder of a class airframe rating with a Boeing 737 aircraft listed on its operations specifications were required to house the entire aircraft, but the holder of a limited airframe rating for the same aircraft were not.

Currently, many repair stations hold a limited airframe rating and do not have housing to enclose the largest type and model aircraft listed on their operations specifications. As one consequence of the above-referenced legal interpretation, some repair stations that perform maintenance on component parts only, and hold a limited airframe rating, are being advised by their local FAA offices to either obtain costly housing to enclose the largest type and model aircraft on their operations specifications, or to seek an exemption from the housing requirement. This has created an economic burden on these repair stations and a potential resource burden on the FAA to process a likely flood of petitions for exemption.

II. Overview of Interim Final Rule

To remedy the situations whereby some limited airframe-rated repair stations are not in full compliance with the housing regulation, and where, in some cases, the scope of work being performed does not technically fit within the airframe rating, this interim final rule will remove the one-size-fits-all requirement of current § 145.103(b) and provide an additional limited rating category to cover work not addressed by the existing 12 categories. These actions will assist the repair station industry by eliminating the costly housing requirement that is not necessary in many cases. In place of that housing regulation, we are adding two amendments that will address and resolve this issue.

First, the FAA is adding “and limitations” to the housing and facilities requirements in § 145.103(a)(1). With this change, the housing for a repair station's facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel must be consistent not only with its ratings, but also with the limitations to those ratings. Adding “limitations” to this regulation will assist both the repair stations and the FAA in determining a repair station's housing needs by considering the limitations associated with the rating under review. For example, a repair station with a limited powerplant rating may list a certain make and model of powerplant under its limited rating, but intend to maintain or repair only specified component parts of the engine, such as blade or vane repairs. The repair station would only need to provide housing, equipment, materials, and personnel to perform maintenance on blades and vanes if it does not perform work on the entire engine.

Second, the FAA is adding the 13th limited rating category under § 145.61(b) that was removed in the 2001 final rule. The new limited rating will allow the FAA to issue a limited rating for any other purpose for which it finds the applicant's request is appropriate. The additional limited rating is intended to be issued for repair stations that wish to perform maintenance on items such as aircraft interiors, upholstering, serving carts, cabinets, unit load devices, and other component items that do not necessarily fit into one of the 12 existing limited ratings. This action provides future certificate holders another option for ratings that will better define the type of maintenance they wish to perform. It will reduce the number of limited airframe ratings issued for component part work for which an airframe rating is not needed. In some cases, existing repair stations that hold limited airframe ratings issued for items that do not fit the category may amend their rating to the newly restored 13th limited rating, but such amendments are not required. If, however, an existing airframe-rated repair station wishes to add a non-airframe component to its operations specifications or capabilities list, it would have to apply for a limited rating in one of the other 12 categories, as appropriate.

III. Discussion of Interim Final Rule

In order to remedy the above-described problems caused by the restrictive housing requirements of § 145.103(b), the FAA is removing the text in its entirety. Removing existing § 145.103(b) provides flexibility to certificate holders and applicants with regard to the type of housing they are required to provide. Current § 145.103(c) provides that a certificated repair station may perform maintenance on articles outside of its housing if it provides suitable facilities that meet the general housing and facilities requirements of § 145.103(a) so that the work can be done in accordance with 14 CFR part 43. This paragraph is renumbered as § 145.103(b).

Although the requirement to enclose the largest type and model aircraft is no longer required, suitable housing as identified in §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a) remains applicable for all repair stations, regardless of whether they hold class or limited ratings. Section 145.101 requires, generally, that each certificated repair station “must provide housing, facilities, equipment, materials, and data that meet the applicable requirements for the issuance of the certificate and ratings the repair station holds.” Therefore, the FAA must evaluate each repair station application to assure that the housing and other requirements appropriate to the rating sought are met. In order to meet the requirements of §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a), repair stations that intend to work on an entire aircraft, or large portions of it, would still be required to provide housing that ensures appropriate protection from environmental elements for the work being performed.

The FAA is removing the introductory phrase of § 145.205(d) (“Notwithstanding the housing requirement of § 145.103(b)”) because the referenced section is being withdrawn by this rulemaking. As a result of that withdrawal, part 145 will no longer contain a specific housing regulation requiring an entire aircraft to be enclosed—rather the general requirements of §§ 145.101 and 145.103 will require housing and other protections appropriate for the work performed. Newly renumbered § 145.103(b) (formerly § 145.103(c)) permits repair stations (including those authorized to perform line maintenance under § 145.205(d)) to perform maintenance outside of its housing so long as they provide suitable facilities to adequately protect the work and personnel. Although new § 145.103(b) will still require a repair station to provide suitable facilities if the repair station works outside of its housing, the intent remains that those repair stations authorized to perform line maintenance at airport locations on the ramp outside of housing should ensure, to the extent practicable, that the work is protected from adverse elements in accordance with §§ 145.101 and 145.103.

In addition, the FAA is adding the phrase “and limitations” to the end of paragraph (1) of § 145.103(a). The section will now require that each certificated repair station must provide: “(1) Housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with its ratings and limitations.” With this change, if a repair station's scope of work is limited to work that does not require the size and type of housing that the rating without the limitation would require, the repair station would need to provide housing only sufficient to accommodate its limited scope of work.

Finally, this interim final rule adds a limited rating to § 145.61(b) that allows the FAA to issue limited ratings for any other purpose for which it finds the applicant's request is appropriate. This new rating provides applicants and existing certificate holders another option for ratings that will better define the type of maintenance they wish to perform, whether it be on component parts of an airframe, powerplant, propeller, or on any other article in the class ratings identified in § 145.59. Without this additional rating category, many repair stations could continue to be issued a limited airframe rating as a catch all rating, which does not always clearly identify the actual type of work being performed.

IV. 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 interim 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 rule. The reasoning for this determination follows.

Currently, § 145.103(b) states that a certificated repair station with an airframe rating must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications. This requirement is problematic for airframe rated repair stations that perform maintenance only on component parts and not the entire aircraft. Airframe-rated repair stations that do not provide the housing because they do not need it for their scope of work need to petition for an exemption from it. This rule will remove § 145.103(b) and retain the general housing and facilities requirements in §§ 145.101 and 145.103(a) and (c), which specify that each repair station must provide suitable housing consistent with its ratings. Thus this rule will remove an unnecessary burden for airframe-rated repair stations, and the costs would be minimal, as it is relieving in nature.

The FAA's review of past exemption requests prompted by the existing requirement in § 145.103(b) showed that from 2004 to the present, the agency processed 15 petitions for exemption. The FAA estimates that, on average, a petitioner spends 20 hours to prepare a petition for exemption from § 145.103(b), and the FAA takes 50 hours to process each of those petitions. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 2016 the mean hourly wage with benefits is $41.38 for a mechanic and supervisor. The average hourly wage for a J band FAA employee in Washington DC is $58.00. Over a twelve-year period at today's wages, the estimated savings equals 15 exemptions multiplied by 20 hours per exemption multiplied by $41.38 per hour, plus 15 exemptions multiplied by 50 hours per exemption multiplied by $58.00 per hour, which equals $56,000, or approximately $4,700 annually. This is a minimal cost; therefore, under Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5, the agency is not required to prepare a full regulatory evaluation.

The FAA has, therefore, determined that this 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.

Many repair stations are small entities. Future business decisions to provide repair of aircraft components can be negatively impacted if the existing housing rule for airframe-rated repair stations remains in place. Currently each airframe-rated repair station must provide suitable permanent housing to enclose the largest type and model of aircraft listed on its operations specifications. For those airframe-rated repair stations that provide component maintenance only, and not full aircraft maintenance, the requirement to provide permanent housing for the aircraft would be very expensive and counterproductive. Most of the petitions for exemption from § 145.103(b) are from repair stations that do not work on an entire aircraft. This rule removes § 145.103(b) so that all repair stations will need to provide only the housing necessary to conduct their repair business. Thus this rule will be relieving in nature and be a benefit to small entities, albeit a small benefit. While the rule will impact a substantial number of small entities, it will not impose a significant economic impact on them.

If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA. 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 rule and determined that it offers the same relieving impact on affected international repair stations.

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 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 interim 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.

Harmonization. This rulemaking will not be involved in harmonization with any foreign aviation authorities.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no extraordinary circumstances.

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

The FAA has analyzed this interim 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 interim 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.

C. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) 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.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information A. Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by using the Internet—

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

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

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

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

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. 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 145

Aircraft, Aviation safety, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

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

PART 145—REPAIR STATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows: Authority:

49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44707, 44709, 44717.

2. Amend § 145.61 by— A. Removing “and” from the end of paragraph (b)(11); B. Removing the period from the end of paragraph (b)(12) and adding “; and” in its place; and C. Adding paragraph (b)(13).

The addition reads as follows:

§ 145.61 Limited ratings.

(b) * * *

(13) Any other purpose for which the FAA finds the applicant's request is appropriate.

3. Revise § 145.13 to read as follows:
§ 145.103 Housing and facilities requirements.

(a) Each certificated repair station must provide—

(1) Housing for the facilities, equipment, materials, and personnel consistent with its ratings and limitations.

(2) Facilities for properly performing the maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of articles or the specialized service for which it is rated. Facilities must include the following:

(i) Sufficient work space and areas for the proper segregation and protection of articles during all maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations.

(ii) Segregated work areas enabling environmentally hazardous or sensitive operations such as painting, cleaning, welding, avionics work, electronic work, and machining to be done properly and in a manner that does not adversely affect other maintenance or alteration articles or activities;

(iii) Suitable racks, hoists, trays, stands, and other segregation means for the storage and protection of all articles undergoing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations, and;

(iv) Space sufficient to segregate articles and materials stocked for installation from those articles undergoing maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations to the standards required by this part.

(v) Ventilation, lighting, and control of temperature, humidity, and other climatic conditions sufficient to ensure personnel perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations to the standards required by this part.

(b) A certificated repair station may perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations on articles outside of its housing if it provides suitable facilities that are acceptable to the FAA and meet the requirements of § 145.103(a) so that the work can be done in accordance with the requirements of part 43 of this chapter.

4. Amend § 145.205(d) by revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 145.205 Maintenance, preventive maintenance, and alterations performed for certificate holders under parts 121, 125, and 135, and for foreign persons operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under part 129.

(d) The FAA may grant approval for a certificated repair station to perform line maintenance for an air carrier certificated under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, or a foreign air carrier or foreign person operating a U.S.-registered aircraft in common carriage under part 129 of this chapter on any aircraft of that air carrier or person, provided-

Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016. Michael Huerta, Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17612 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 17 CFR Part 240 [Release No. 34-78169] Order Recognizing the Resource Extraction Payment Disclosure Requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as Substantially Similar to the Requirements of Rule 13q-1 Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 AGENCY:

Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION:

Order.

SUMMARY:

We are issuing an order recognizing the resource extraction payment disclosure requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as substantially similar to the requirements of Rule 13q-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

DATES:

July 27, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Shehzad K. Niazi, Special Counsel; Office of Rulemaking, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3430; or Elliot Staffin, Special Counsel; Office of International Corporate Finance, Division of Corporation Finance, at (202) 551-3450, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Order Recognizing the Resource Extraction Payment Disclosure Requirements of the European Union, Canada and the U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative as Substantially Similar to the Requirements of Rule 13q-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”).

June 27, 2016

For the reasons set forth in the adopting release for Rule 13q-1 and the accompanying amendments to Form SD,1 the Commission hereby finds that the following resource extraction payment disclosure regimes are substantially similar to the disclosure requirements of Rule 13q-1 for purposes of the alternative reporting provisions of paragraph (c) of Item 2.01 of Form SD:

1See Section II.J.3.b of Exchange Act Release No. 34-78167 (June 27, 2016).

1. Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings (“EU Accounting Directive”) as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country;

2. Directive 2013/50/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending Directive 2004/109/EC on transparency requirements in relation to information about issuers whose securities are admitted to trading on a regulated market, Directive 2003/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are offered to the public or admitted to trading and Commission Directive 2007/14/EC on the implementation of certain provisions of Directive 2004/109/EC (“EU Transparency Directive”) as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country;

3. Canada's Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (“ESTMA”); and

4. The U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (“USEITI”).

Issuers are advised that our determination of substantial similarity with respect to each of these four regimes may be subject to reconsideration if there should be any significant modifications to those regimes.

The Commission also hereby finds that this determination is in the public interest and consistent with the protection of investors. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act that a resource extraction issuer, as defined in Item 2.01(d) of Form SD, that files a report complying with the reporting requirements of either the EU Accounting Directive or the EU Transparency Directive, in each case as implemented in a European Union or European Economic Area member country, ESTMA, or the USEITI, in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph (c) of Item 2.01(c) of Form SD and the conditions specified below, will satisfy its disclosure obligations under Rule 13q-1.

Conditions

1. USEITI reports only satisfy a resource extraction issuer's disclosure obligations under Item 2.01(a) of Form SD for payments made to the Federal Government.

2. A resource extraction issuer may not follow the USEITI submission deadline to the extent it differs from the 150 day deadline in General Instruction B.2 of Form SD and must provide the required payment information on a fiscal year basis.

By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15677 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0517] Special Local Regulation; Annual Marine Events on the Colorado River, Between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) Within the San Diego Captain of the Port Zone AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of enforcement of regulation.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations for the Bullhead City River Regatta marine event on the navigable waters of the Colorado River on August 13, 2016. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the annual marine events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) identifies the regulated area for this event. During the enforcement period, no spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, nor impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels within this regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or a designated representative.

DATES:

The regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 will be enforced from 6 a.m. through 6 p.m. on August 13, 2016 for Item 16 in Table 1 of 33 CFR 100.1102.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this publication, call or email Petty Officer Randolph Pahilanga, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone 619-278-7656, [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.1102 for the Bullhead City River Regatta in 33 CFR 100.1102, Table 1, Item 16 of that section from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on August 13, 2016. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants, crew, spectators, safety vessels, and general users of the waterway. Our regulation for the annual marine events on the Colorado River, between Davis Dam (Bullhead City, Arizona) and Headgate Dam (Parker, Arizona) identifies the regulated entities for this event. Under the provisions of 33 CFR 100.1102, no spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, nor impede the through transit of participants or official patrol vessels within this regulated area of the Colorado River unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, state, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.1102 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this document in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide the maritime community with extensive advance notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and local advertising by the event sponsor.

If the Captain of the Port or his designated representative determines that the regulated area need not be enforced for the full duration stated on this document, he or she may use a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or other communications coordinated with the event sponsor to grant general permission to enter the regulated area.

Dated: June 18, 2016. E.M. Cooper, Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2016-17765 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0612] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway (NJICW), Atlantic City, NJ AGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ. The deviation is necessary to facilitate the 2016 6th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES:

The deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0612] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH”. Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Michael Thorogood, Bridge Administration Branch Fifth District, Coast Guard, telephone 757-398-6557, email [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The DelMoSports, LLC, on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Transportation, who owns the US40-322 (Albany Avenue) Bridge across the NJICW (Inside Thorofare), mile 70.0, at Atlantic City, NJ, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.733(f) to ensure the safety of the participants and spectators associated with the 2016 6th Annual Atlantic City Triathlon.

Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be maintained in the closed-to-navigation position from 6:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. on August 14, 2016. The bridge is a double bascule bridge and has a vertical clearance in the closed-to-navigation position of 10 feet above mean high water.

The NJICW (Inside Thorofare) is used by recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully considered the nature and volume of vessel traffic in publishing this temporary deviation.

Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open in case of an emergency. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused by the temporary deviation.

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

Dated: July 21, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2016-17847 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 180 [EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735; FRL-9948-73] Etoxazole; Pesticide Tolerance AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of etoxazole in or on soybean seed. Valent U.S.A. Corporation requested this tolerance under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES:

This regulation is effective July 27, 2016. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before September 26, 2016, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Lewis, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (703) 305-7090; email address: [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:

• Crop production (NAICS code 111).

• Animal production (NAICS code 112).

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before September 26, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).

In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735, by one of the following methods:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.

Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

In the Federal Register of April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24044) (FRL-9944-86), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP 5F8398) by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, 1600 Riveira Avenue, Suite 200, Walnut Creek, CA 94596. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by establishing a tolerance for residues of the insecticide, etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean at 0.01 parts per million (ppm). A comment was received on the notice of filing. EPA's response to this comment is discussed in Unit IV.C.

Based upon review of the data supporting the petition, EPA has modified the level at which the tolerance is being established. The reason for this change is explained in Unit IV.D.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”

Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for etoxazole including exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with etoxazole follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.

The effects in the etoxazole database show liver toxicity in all species tested (enzyme release, hepatocellular swelling and histopathological indicators), and the severity does not appear to increase with time. In rats only, there were effects on incisors (elongation, whitening, and partial loss of upper and/or lower incisors). There is no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity. No toxicity was seen at the limit dose in a 28-day dermal toxicity study in rats. Etoxazole was not mutagenic.

No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies; however, offspring toxicity was more severe (increased pup mortality) than maternal toxicity (increased liver and adrenal weights) at the same dose (158.7 mg/kg/day) in the rat reproduction study indicating increased qualitative susceptibility. Etoxazole is not likely to be carcinogenic based on the lack of carcinogenicity effects in the database.

Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by etoxazole as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at http://www.regulations.gov on pages 20-23 of the document titled “Etoxazole: Human Health Risk Assessment in Support of Proposed Use and Tolerances for Residues of Etoxazole in/on Soybean Seed” in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0735.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/assessing-human-health-risk-pesticides.

A summary of the toxicological endpoints for etoxazole used for human risk assessment is discussed in Unit III.B. of the final rule published in the Federal Register of December 2, 2015 (80 FR 75426) (FRL-9934-60).

C. Exposure Assessment

1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary exposure to etoxazole, EPA considered exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing etoxazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.593. EPA assessed dietary exposures from etoxazole in food as follows:

i. Acute exposure. Quantitative acute dietary exposure and risk assessments are performed for a food-use pesticide, if a toxicological study has indicated the possibility of an effect of concern occurring as a result of a 1-day or single exposure.

No such effects were identified in the toxicological studies for etoxazole; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.

ii. Chronic exposure. In conducting the chronic dietary exposure assessment EPA used the food consumption data from the USDA National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America (NHANES/WWEIA; 2003-2008). As to residue levels in food, EPA assumed tolerance-level residues or tolerance-level residues adjusted to account for the residues of concern, 100% crop treated (PCT), and in the absence of empirical data, Dietary Exposure Evaluation Model (DEEM) (ver 7.81) default processing factors.

iii. Cancer. Based on the data summarized in Unit III.A., EPA has concluded that etoxazole does not pose a cancer risk to humans. Therefore, a dietary exposure assessment for the purpose of assessing cancer risk is unnecessary.

iv. Anticipated residue and percent crop treated (PCT) information. EPA did not use anticipated residue or PCT information in the dietary assessment for etoxazole. Tolerance level residues and 100 PCT were assumed for all food commodities.

2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. The Agency used screening level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for etoxazole in drinking water. These simulation models take into account data on the physical, chemical, and fate/transport characteristics of etoxazole. Further information regarding EPA drinking water models used in pesticide exposure assessment can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/about-water-exposure-models-used-pesticide.

Based on the FQPA Index Reservoir Screening Tool (FIRST) and Pesticide Root Zone Model Ground Water (PRZM GW) models, the estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of etoxazole for chronic exposures are estimated to be 4.761 parts per billion (ppb) for surface water and 0.746 ppb for ground water.

Modeled estimates of drinking water concentrations were directly entered into the dietary exposure model. For the chronic dietary risk assessment, the water concentration of value 4.761 ppb was used to assess the contribution to drinking water.

3. From non-dietary exposure. The term “residential exposure” is used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary exposure (e.g., for lawn and garden pest control, indoor pest control, termiticides, and flea and tick control on pets). Etoxazole is not registered for any specific use patterns that would result in residential exposure.

4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider “available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a particular pesticide's residues and “other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity.”

EPA has not found etoxazole to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and etoxazole does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that etoxazole does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-science-and-assessing-pesticide-risks/cumulative-assessment-risk-pesticides.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.

2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. No increased quantitative or qualitative susceptibilities were observed following in utero exposure to rats or rabbits in the developmental studies. There is evidence of increased qualitative offspring susceptibility in the rat reproduction study, but the concern is low since: (1) The effects in pups are well-characterized with a clear NOAEL; (2) the selected endpoints are protective of the doses where the offspring toxicity is observed; and (3) offspring effects occur in the presence of parental toxicity. There are no residual uncertainties for pre-/post-natal toxicity.

3. Conclusion. EPA has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1x. That decision is based on the following findings:

i. The toxicity database for etoxazole is complete.

ii. There is no indication that etoxazole is a neurotoxic chemical and there is no need for a developmental neurotoxicity study or additional UFs to account for neurotoxicity.

iii. The observed qualitative postnatal susceptibility is protected for by the selected endpoints.

iv. There are no residual uncertainties identified in the exposure databases. The dietary food exposure assessments were performed based on 100 PCT and tolerance-level residues. EPA made conservative (protective) assumptions in the ground and surface water modeling used to assess exposure to etoxazole in drinking water. These assessments will not underestimate the exposure and risks posed by etoxazole.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an adequate MOE exists.

1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore, etoxazole is not expected to pose an acute risk.

2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to etoxazole from food and water will utilize 15% of the cPAD for children 1-2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure. There are no residential uses for etoxazole.

3. Short- and Intermediate-term risk. Short- and intermediate-term aggregate exposure takes into account short- and intermedieate-term residential exposure plus chronic exposure to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level).

A short- and intermediate-term adverse effect was identified; however, etoxazole is not registered for any use patterns that would result in either short- or intermediate-term residential exposure. Short- and intermediate-term risk is assessed based on short- or intermediate-term residential exposure plus chronic dietary exposure. Because there is no short- or intermediate-term residential exposure and chronic dietary exposure has already been assessed under the appropriately protective cPAD (which is at least as protective as the POD used to assess short- or intermediate-term risk), no further assessment of short- or intermediate-term risk is necessary, and EPA relies on the chronic dietary risk assessment for evaluating short- and intermediate-term risk for etoxazole.

4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the lack of evidence of carcinogenicity in two adequate rodent carcinogenicity studies, etoxazole is not expected to pose a cancer risk to humans.

5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to etoxazole residues.

IV. Other Considerations A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography/mass-selective detector (GC/MSD) or GC/nitrogen-phosphorus detector (NPD)) are available to enforce the tolerance expression.

The methods may be requested from: Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number: (410) 305-2905; email address: [email protected]

B. International Residue Limits

In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S. tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons for departing from the Codex level.

The Codex has not established a MRL for etoxazole in or on soybean seed.

C. Response to Comments

A comment was submitted by the Center for Food Safety and was primarily concerned about environmental risks, including impacts on pollinators and endangered species, and Agency's assessment of the pesticide product under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The comment did not raise any specific issues concerning the safety of etoxazole under the FFDCA. As such, this comment is not relevant to the Agency's evaluation of safety of the etoxazole tolerances; section 408 of the FFDCA focuses on potential harms to human health and does not permit consideration of effects on the environment.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-For Tolerances

The proposed tolerance of 0.01 ppm is below the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.02 ppm for the analytical method and is therefore being raised to the LOQ level.

V. Conclusion

Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of etoxazole, 2-(2,6-difluorophenyl)-4-[4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-2-ethoxyphenyl]-4,5-dihydrooxazole, in or on soybean, seed at 0.02 ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), do not apply.

This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).

This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: July 14, 2016. Susan Lewis, Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

2. In § 180.593, add alphabetically the commodity “Soybean, seed” to the table in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 180.593 Etoxazole; tolerances for residues.

(a) * * *

Commodity Parts
  • (per million)
  • *    *    *    *    * Soybean, seed 0.02 *    *    *    *    *
    [FR Doc. 2016-17786 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8439] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region VI Arkansas: Clay County, Unincorporated Areas 050423 September 19, 1979, Emerg; March 1, 1990, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp Aug. 3, 2016 Aug. 3, 2016. Corning, City of, Clay County 050030 November 1, 1974, Emerg; July 2, 1980, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do*   Do. Knobel, Town of, Clay County 050032 July 15, 1975, Emerg; June 25, 1976, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. McDougal, City of, Clay County 050033 October 8, 1975, Emerg; June 1, 1987, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Peach Orchard, City of, Clay County 050034 May 29, 1975, Emerg; March 25, 1985, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Piggott, City of, Clay County 050035 May 5, 1975, Emerg; August 4, 1987, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pollard, City of, Clay County 050036 April 11, 1975, Emerg; August 31, 1982, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Rector, City of, Clay County 050366 March 15, 1976, Emerg; August 31, 1982, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Saint Francis, City of, Clay County 050037 April 22, 1975, Emerg; September 14, 1982, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Success, Town of, Clay County 050289 December 12, 1975, Emerg; August 31, 1982, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region VII Nebraska: Colon, Village of, Saunders County 310290 N/A, Emerg; September 21, 2010, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ithaca, Village of, Saunders County 310198 November 12, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1987, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mead, Village of, Saunders County 310301 August 5, 1976, Emerg; September 24, 1984, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Saunders County, Unincorporated Areas 310195 April 6, 1973, Emerg; December 1, 1978, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Wahoo, City of, Saunders County 310204 August 25, 1972, Emerg; December 1, 1977, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Weston, Village of, Saunders County 310205 October 24, 1979, Emerg; July 3, 1985, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region IX California: American Canyon, City of, Napa County 060755 N/A, Emerg; January 11, 1994, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Benicia, City of, Solano County 060368 May 28, 1975, Emerg; May 31, 1977, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Napa, City of, Napa County 060207 July 25, 1975, Emerg; September 5, 1979, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Napa County, Unincorporated Areas 060205 January 29, 1971, Emerg; February 1, 1980, Reg; August 3, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. *......do and Do. = Ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg—Emergency; Reg—Regular; Susp—Suspension.
    Dated: July 11, 2016 Michael M Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency
    [FR Doc. 2016-17732 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8437] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community No. Effective date authorization/cancellation of sale of flood insurance in community Current effective map date Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region I Maine: Bald Island, Hancock County 231011 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp July 20, 2016 July 20, 2016. Bar Harbor, Town of, Hancock County 230064 May 7, 1975, Emerg; May 2, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do*   Do. Bar Island, Hancock County 231000 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Beach Island, Hancock County 231025 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Bear Island, Hancock County 231019 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Big Barred Island, Hancock County 231016 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Birch Island, Hancock County 230997 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Blue Hill, Town of, Hancock County 230274 April 1, 1976, Emerg; May 3, 1990, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Bradbury Island, Hancock County 231005 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Brooklin, Town of, Hancock County 230275 March 8, 1985, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Brooksville, Town of, Hancock County 230276 June 11, 1976, Emerg; May 15, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Bucksport, Town of, Hancock County 230065 October 17, 1975, Emerg; November 4, 1988, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Butter Island, Hancock County 231015 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Castine, Town of, Hancock County 230277 July 24, 1975, Emerg; May 2, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Chain Links Islands—North, Hancock County 231052 July 29, 2014, Emerg; N/A, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Chain Links Islands—South, Hancock County 231053 July 29, 2014, Emerg; N/A, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Channel Rock Island, Hancock County 231029 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Colt Head Island, Hancock County 231027 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Compass Island, Hancock County 231022 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Cranberry Isles, Town of, Hancock County 230278 June 30, 1976, Emerg; June 17, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Crow Island, Hancock County 231006 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Dedham, Town of, Hancock County 230279 November 19, 2010, Emerg; March 1, 2011, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Deer Isle, Town of, Hancock County 230280 April 2, 1976, Emerg; May 2, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Eagle Island, Hancock County 231008 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Eastbrook, Town of, Hancock County 230281 June 14, 1976, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Eaton Island, Hancock County 231001 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ellsworth, City of, Hancock County 230066 January 15, 1975, Emerg; November 4, 1988, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Fletchers Landing, Township of, Hancock County 230458 March 19, 1975, Emerg; October 1, 1986, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Fling Island, Hancock County 231012 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Franklin, Town of, Hancock County 230282 February 4, 1976, Emerg; July 16, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Frenchboro, Town of, Hancock County 230594 April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Gouldsboro, Town of, Hancock County 230283 July 20, 1976, Emerg; June 4, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Grass Ledge Island, Hancock County 231017 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Great Spruce Head Island, Hancock County 231018 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hancock, Town of, Hancock County 230284 June 1, 1976, Emerg; June 3, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hardhead Island, Hancock County 231007 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hog Island, Hancock County 230994 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Horsehead Island, Hancock County 231024 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Inner Porcupine Island, Hancock County 231009 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Lamoine, Town of, Hancock County 230285 June 11, 1975, Emerg; May 2, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Little Barred Island, Hancock County 231054 July 29, 2014, Emerg; N/A, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Little Marshall Island, Hancock County 231031 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Little Spruce Head, Hancock County 231023 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mariaville, Town of, Hancock County 230286 June 30, 1997, Emerg; October 1, 2005, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Marshall Island, Hancock County 231030 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mount Desert, Town of, Hancock County 230287 December 23, 1976, Emerg; August 2, 1990, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Orland, Town of, Hancock County 230288 June 11, 1975, Emerg; February 4, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Otis, Town of, Hancock County 230289 April 24, 1998, Emerg; April 1, 2009, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Outer Porcupine Island, Hancock County 231010 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Peak Island, Hancock County 231055 July 29, 2014, Emerg; N/A, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Penobscot, Town of, Hancock County 230290 June 14, 1976, Emerg; July 16, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pickering Island, Hancock County 231002 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pond Island, Hancock County 230993 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pumpkin Island, Hancock County 230996 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Resolution Island, Hancock County 231028 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Scott Island, Hancock County 230998 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Scrag Island, Hancock County 231020 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sedgwick, Town of, Hancock County 230291 December 23, 1976, Emerg; February 4, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sheep Island, Hancock County 230999 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sloop Island, Hancock County 231013 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sloop Island Ledge, Hancock County 231014 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sorrento, Town of, Hancock County 230292 November 17, 1976, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Southwest Harbor, Town of, Hancock County 230293 January 13, 1976, Emerg; June 3, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Spectacle Island, Hancock County 230995 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Stonington, Town of, Hancock County 230294 April 14, 1977, Emerg; June 3, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sugarloaf, Hancock County 231056 July 29,1974, Emerg; N/A, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Sullivan, Town of, Hancock County 230295 April 15, 1976, Emerg; September 4, 1985, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Surry, Town of, Hancock County 230296 April 30, 1979, Emerg; May 2, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Swan's Island, Town of, Hancock County 230297 July 16, 1976, Emerg; March 1, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. T07 SD, Township of, Hancock County 230598 April 25, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Tremont, Town of, Hancock County 230298 January 17, 1977, Emerg; August 2, 1990, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Trenton, Town of, Hancock County 230299 October 7, 1976, Emerg; August 2, 1990, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Two Bush Island, Hancock County 231003 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Waltham, Town of, Hancock County 230301 September 26, 1977, Emerg; July 2, 1987, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Western Island, Hancock County 230992 April 4, 1979, Emerg; April 30, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Winter Harbor, Town of, Hancock County 230302 March 31, 1975, Emerg; May 15, 1991, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Massachusetts: Aquinnah, Town of, Dukes County 250070 September 7, 1976, Emerg; October 15, 1985, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Gosnold, Town of, Dukes County 250071 September 29, 1977, Emerg; June 4, 1980, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Tisbury, Town of, Dukes County 250073 June 20, 1975, Emerg; June 15, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region II New Jersey: East Windsor, Township of, Mercer County 340244 December 19, 1973, Emerg; March 16, 1983, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ewing, Township of, Mercer County 345294 October 2, 1970, Emerg; January 30, 1976, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hamilton, Township of, Mercer County 340246 December 3, 1971, Emerg; June 15, 1982, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hightstown, Borough of, Mercer County 340247 June 9, 1972, Emerg; March 15, 1977, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hopewell, Borough of, Mercer County 340248 February 22, 1974, Emerg; February 15, 1978, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hopewell, Township of, Mercer County 345298 April 9, 1971, Emerg; June 15, 1973, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Lawrence, Township of, Mercer County 340250 June 16, 1972, Emerg; December 1, 1977, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pennington, Borough of, Mercer County 340251 April 12, 1974, Emerg; June 25, 1976, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Princeton, Municipality of, Mercer County 340252 September 15, 1972, Emerg; December 4, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Robbinsville, Township of, Mercer County 340255 May 28, 1974, Emerg; September 29, 1978, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Trenton, City of, Mercer County 345325 January 15, 1971, Emerg; December 3, 1971, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. West Windsor, Township of, Mercer County 340256 October 17, 1974, Emerg; May 1, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region III Maryland: Easton, Town of, Talbot County 240067 October 9, 1974, Emerg; September 28, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Oxford, Town of, Talbot County 240068 March 27, 1974, Emerg; September 28, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Saint Michaels, Town of, Talbot County 240069 February 7, 1975, Emerg; November 1, 1984, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Talbot County, Unincorporated Areas 240066 September 6, 1974, Emerg; May 15, 1985, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Trappe, Town of, Talbot County 240108 N/A, Emerg; August 15, 2006, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region VII Missouri: Marion County, Unincorporated Areas 290222 June 28, 1973, Emerg; May 16, 1977, Reg; July 20, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. *......do and Do. = ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg—Emergency; Reg—Regular; Susp—Suspension
    Dated: July 1, 2016 Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency
    [FR Doc. 2016-17741 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 64 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8441] Suspension of Community Eligibility AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying the current participation status of a community can be obtained from FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at http://www.fema.gov/fema/csb.shtm.

    DATES:

    The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is the third date (“Susp.”) listed in the third column of the following tables.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you want to determine whether a particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for further information, contact Patricia Suber, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NFIP enables property owners to purchase Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such communities will be published in the Federal Register.

    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities. The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.

    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less than 30 days.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action takes place.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

    PART 64—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376.

    § 64.6 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 64.6 are amended as follows: State and location Community
  • No.
  • Effective date authorization/cancellation of
  • sale of flood insurance in community
  • Current effective
  • map date
  • Date certain
  • Federal
  • assistance no
  • longer available
  • in SFHAs
  • Region II New Jersey: Audubon, Borough of, Camden County 340121 July 3, 1975, Emerg; October 13, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp Aug. 17, 2016 Aug. 17, 2016. Bellmawr, Borough of, Camden County 340124 August 1, 1974, Emerg; February 15, 1980, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Brooklawn, Borough of, Camden County 340127 July 16, 1975, Emerg; September 14, 1979, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Camden, City of, Camden County 340128 May 16, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Cherry Hill, Township of, Camden County 340129 January 14, 1972, Emerg; August 15, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Collingswood, Borough of, Camden County 340131 April 9, 1973, Emerg; July 17, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Deptford, Township of, Gloucester County 340199 June 16, 1975, Emerg; November 17, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. East Greenwich, Township of, Gloucester County 340200 March 27, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Gloucester, City of, Camden County 340132 December 19, 1974, Emerg; September 14, 1979, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Gloucester, Township of, Camden County 340133 July 24, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Greenwich, Township of, Gloucester County 340204 April 18, 1973, Emerg; September 16, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Haddon, Township of, Camden County 340134 April 12, 1974, Emerg; March 1, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Haddon Heights, Borough of, Camden County 340136 May 27, 1975, Emerg; August 26, 1977, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Logan, Township of, Gloucester County 340206 June 29, 1976, Emerg; January 6, 1983, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mantua, Township of, Gloucester County 340207 May 8, 1975, Emerg; November 3, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Mount Ephraim, Borough of, Camden County 340140 April 15, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. National Park, Borough of, Gloucester County 340209 January 3, 1975, Emerg; September 2, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Oaklyn, Borough of, Camden County 340141 September 16, 1975, Emerg; November 3, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Paulsboro, Borough of, Gloucester County 340210 May 13, 1975, Emerg; September 2, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pennsauken, Township of, Camden County 340142 January 28, 1972, Emerg; April 15, 1977, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Runnemede, Borough of, Camden County 340144 August 7, 1973, Emerg; January 2, 1980, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Swedesboro, Borough of, Gloucester County 340519 July 23, 1975, Emerg; July 5, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Washington, Township of, Gloucester County 340213 February 1, 1974, Emerg; November 17, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Wenonah, Borough of, Gloucester County 340503 December 19, 1973, Emerg; May 11, 1979, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. West Deptford, Township of, Gloucester County 340214 December 22, 1972, Emerg; June 1, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Westville, Borough of, Gloucester County 340215 July 2, 1975, Emerg; May 1, 1980, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Woodbury, City of, Gloucester County 340216 August 6, 1975, Emerg; May 11, 1979, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Woodbury Heights, Borough of, Gloucester County 340550 January 21, 1976, Emerg; May 18, 1979, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Woodlynne, Borough of, Camden County 340149 June 24, 1975, Emerg; December 1, 1981, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Woolwich, Township of, Gloucester County 340217 May 13, 1975, Emerg; September 2, 1982, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region III West Virginia: Kermit, Town of, Mingo County 540136 December 1, 1972, Emerg; March 1, 1978, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Matewan, Town of, Mingo County 545538 February 3, 1970, Emerg; February 3, 1970, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Williamson, City of, Mingo County 540138 April 2, 1975, Emerg; January 16, 1981, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region IV Alabama: Argo, City of, Jefferson and Saint Clair County 010450 N/A, Emerg; April 2, 2013, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ashville, City of, Saint Clair County 010186 June 5, 1975, Emerg; April 17, 1987, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Margaret, City of, Saint Clair County 010393 January 3, 2012, Emerg; June 19, 2012, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Moody, City of, Saint Clair County 010187 May 21, 1975, Emerg; July 4, 1989, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Odenville, City of, Saint Clair County 010188 July 11, 1975, Emerg; August 5, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Pell City, City of, Saint Clair County 010189 May 5, 1975, Emerg; July 4, 1989, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ragland, Town of, Saint Clair County 010190 June 26, 1975, Emerg; June 3, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Riverside, City of, Saint Clair County 010288 June 6, 1977, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Springville, City of, Saint Clair County 010289 April 16, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Saint Clair County, Unincorporated Areas 010290 February 9, 1979, Emerg; September 29, 1989, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Steele, Town of, Saint Clair County 010291 August 25, 1977, Emerg; September 18, 1985, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Trussville, City of, Jefferson and Saint Clair Counties 010133 June 26, 1975, Emerg; November 18, 1981, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Region V Illinois: Ashton, Village of, Lee County 170415 May 2, 1975, Emerg; April 30, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Byron, City of, Ogle County 170526 July 21, 1975, Emerg; December 4, 1984, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Dixon, City of, Lee County 170417 March 3, 1975, Emerg; April 15, 1988, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Hillcrest, Village of, Ogle County 170956 May 23, 1994, Emerg; December 17, 2010, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Lee County, Unincorporated Areas 170413 June 6, 1975, Emerg; April 15, 1988, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Nelson, Village of, Lee County 170418 September 30, 1976, Emerg; April 15, 1988, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Ogle County, Unincorporated Areas 170525 August 17, 1973, Emerg; April 5, 1988, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Oregon, City of, Ogle County 170530 April 30, 1975, Emerg; October 15, 1981, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Rochelle, City of, Lee and Ogle Counties 170532 March 7, 1975, Emerg; August 19, 1986, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. Steward, Village of, Lee County 170420 October 10, 1975, Emerg; September 1, 1987, Reg; August 17, 2016, Susp ......do   Do. *......do and Do. = ditto. Code for reading third column: Emerg.—Emergency; Reg.—Regular; Susp.—Suspension.
    Dated: July 11, 2016. Michael M. Grimm, Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17728 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    DATES:

    The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for inspection as indicated in the table below.

    ADDRESSES:

    The final BFEs for each community are available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the address cited below for each community.

    The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.

    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

    List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

    PART 67—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 376.

    § 67.11 [Amended]
    2. The tables published under the authority of § 67.11 are amended as follows: Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation * Elevation in feet
  • (NGVD)
  • + Elevation in feet
  • (NAVD)
  • # Depth in feet
  • above ground
  • ⁁ Elevation in meters (MSL)
  • Modified
  • Communities affected
    Onondaga County, New York (All Jurisdictions) Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1002 and B-1076 DeRuyter Reservoir Shoreline of DeRuyter Reservoir within Onondaga County + 1282 Town of Fabius. Geddes Brook Approximately 245 feet downstream of Gere Lock Road + 381 Village of Solvay. At Gere Lock Road bridge + 396 Harbor Brook Approximately 300 feet upstream of the Onondaga Lake confluence + 372 City of Syracuse, Town of Geddes, Town of Onondaga. Approximately 860 feet upstream of State Route 173 + 782 Limestone Creek Approximately 2,990 feet upstream of North Manlius Road + 399 Town of Manlius, Village of Fayetteville, Village of Manlius, Village of Minoa. Approximately 160 feet upstream of Pompey Center Road + 725 Meadow Brook At the Old Erie Canal Feeder confluence + 429 City of Syracuse, Town of Dewitt. Approximately 220 feet downstream of Meadow Brook Drive + 541 Ninemile Creek Approximately 2,150 feet upstream of the Onondaga Lake confluence + 371 Town of Camillus, Town of Geddes, Town of Marcellus, Village of Camillus, Village of Marcellus. Approximately 350 feet upstream of Otisco Valley Road + 781 Onondaga Creek Just upstream of Bear Street + 371 City of Syracuse, Town of Onondaga. Approximately 1.1 miles upstream of Dorwin Avenue + 431 Otisco Lake Entire shoreline of Otisco Lake within the Towns of Marcellus, Spafford and Otisco + 789 Town of Marcellus, Town of Otisco, Town of Spafford. Skaneateles Creek Approximately 1.4 miles downstream of Interstate 90 + 385 Town of Elbridge, Town of Skaneateles, Village of Elbridge, Village of Jordan, Village of Skaneateles. Approximately 960 feet upstream of Kelley Street + 860 Thompson Brook At South Bay Road Bridge + 382 Village of North Syracuse. Approximately 265 feet upstream of I-481 ramp + 383 Tully Lake Shoreline of Tully Lake within Onondaga County + 1195 Town of Tully. * National Geodetic Vertical Datum. + North American Vertical Datum. # Depth in feet above ground. ⁁ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. ADDRESSES: City of Syracuse Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 233 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202. Town of Camillus Maps are available for inspection at the Camillus Municipal Building, 4600 West Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY 13219. Town of Dewitt Maps are available for inspection at the Dewitt Town Hall, 5400 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057. Town of Elbridge Maps are available for inspection at the Elbridge Municipal Offices, 5 State Route 31, Jordan, NY 13080. Town of Fabius Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 7786 Main Street, Fabius, NY 13063. Town of Geddes Maps are available for inspection at the Geddes Town Hall, 1000 Woods Road, Solvay, NY 13209. Town of Manlius Maps are available for inspection at the Manlius Town Hall, 301 Brooklea Drive, Fayetteville, NY 13066. Town of Marcellus Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 24 East Main Street, Marcellus, NY 13108. Town of Onondaga Maps are available for inspection at the Onondaga Town Hall, 5020 Ball Road, Syracuse, NY 13215. Town of Otisco Maps are available for inspection at the Otisco Town Hall, 1924 Barker Street, Tully, NY 13159. Town of Skaneateles Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 24 Jordan Street, Skaneateles, NY 13152. Town of Spafford Maps are available for inspection at the Spafford Town Hall, 1984 State Route 174, Skaneateles, NY 13152. Town of Tully Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 5833 Meetinghouse Road, Tully, NY 13159. Village of Camillus Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 37 Main Street, Camillus, NY 13031. Village of Elbridge Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 210 West Main Street, Elbridge, NY 13060. Village of Fayetteville Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 425 East Genesee Street, Fayetteville, NY 13066. Village of Jordan Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 7 Mechanic Street, Jordan, NY 13080. Village of Manlius Maps are available for inspection at the Village Centre, One Arkie Albanese Avenue, Manlius, NY 13104. Village of Marcellus Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 6 Slocombe Avenue, Marcellus, NY 13108. Village of Minoa Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 240 North Main Street, Minoa, NY 13116. Village of North Syracuse Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 600 South Bay Road, North Syracuse, NY 13212. Village of Skaneateles Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 26 Fennell Street, Skaneateles, NY 13152. Village of Solvay Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 1100 Woods Road, Solvay, NY 13209.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17731 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1 [GEN Docket No. 86-285; FCC 16-87] Schedule of Application Fees AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    In this document, the Commission makes changes to the Commission's rules, and amends its Schedule of Application Fees to adjust its fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Commission to “assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as it shall establish pursuant to” section 8(b). Section 8(b)(1) requires that the Schedule of Application Fees “be reviewed by the Commission every two years after October 1, 1991, and adjusted by the Commission to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.” As required by section 8(b)(1), this Order increases application fees to reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) of 1.8 percent.

    DATES:

    Effective August 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing Director at (202) 418-0444.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of the Commission's Order, FCC 16-87, GEN Docket No. 86-285, adopted on July 6, 2016 and released on July 7, 2016.

    Administrative Matters Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    1. This document does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

    Congressional Review Act

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

    Introduction and Executive Summary

    3. By this Order, the Commission makes rule changes to Part 1 of the Commission's rules, and amends its Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 et seq., as listed in the Appendix, to adjust its fees for processing applications and other filings. Section 8(a) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“the Act”), requires the Commission to “assess and collect application fees at such rates as the Commission shall establish or at such modified rates as it shall establish pursuant to” section 8(b).1 Section 8(g) contains the Schedule of Charges for a broad range of application categories as well as procedures for modifying and collecting these charges. Section 8(b)(1) requires that the Schedule of Application Fees “be reviewed by the Commission every two years after October 1, 1991, and adjusted by the Commission to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index.” As required by section 8(b)(1), this Order increases application fees to reflect the net change in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (“CPI-U”) of 1.8 percent, an increase of 4.292 index points calculated from October 2013 (233.546) to October 2015 (237.838).2 The adjustments comply with the statutory formula set forth in section 8(b).

    1 47 U.S.C. 158(a).

    2 Application fees are calculated based upon the process set forth in 47 U.S.C. 158(b)(1). The increase in the CPI-U between October 2013 (the month used to calculate the last CPI-U adjustment of the Schedule of Application Fees) and October 2015 is 4.292 index points, a 1.8 percent increase. Section 8(b)(1) prescribes that increases or decreases in application fees are to be “determined by the net change in the Consumer Price Index since the date of enactment of this section,” i.e., since December 1989. The actual calculation of fees is based on index points that are averaged over a time period beginning in December 1989. See Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI-U Index, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1511.pdf (showing a CPI-U Index of 233.546 for October 2013 and 237.838 for October 2015).

    4. The methodology and timing of adjustments to application fees are prescribed by statute at 47 U.S.C. 158(b). Because our action implementing the statute leaves us no discretion, prior notice and comment is unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This Order is also exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Copies of this Order will be sent to Congress and the Comptroller General in compliance with the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. Notification of the fee adjustments made in this Order will be published in the Federal Register.

    Ordering Clauses

    5. Accordingly, it is ordered, that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), and 8 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), and 158, the rule changes specified herein are adopted and the Schedule of Application Fees, 47 CFR 1.1102 et seq., is amended as set forth in the attached table of fees.

    6. It is further ordered that the rule changes and amendment to the Schedule of Application Fees made herein shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    Administrative practice and procedure.

    Federal Communications Commission.

    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    Schedule of Application Fees

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as follows:

    PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    2. Section 1.1102 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1102 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings in the wireless telecommunications services.

    In the table below, the amounts appearing in the column labeled “Fee Amount” are for application fees only. Those services designated in the table below with an asterisk (*) in the column labeled “Payment Type Code” also have associated regulatory fees that must be paid at the same time the application fee is paid. Please refer to the FY 2014 Wireless Telecommunications Fee Filing Guide (updated and effective 9/17/15) for the corresponding regulatory fee amount located at https://www.fcc.gov/document/wtb-application-fee-filing-guide-effective-september-17-2015. For additional guidance, please refer to § 1.1152 of the Commission's rules.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979097, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Marine Coast: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM b. Modification; Public Coast CMRS; Non-Profit 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM c. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 135.00 PBMM d. Transfer of Control 603 & 159 70.00 PATM Spectrum Leasing for Public Coast 608 & 159 70.00 PATM e. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 190.00 PCMM g. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM h. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PBMR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM i. Renewal Only (Non-Profit; CMRS) 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM j. Renewal (Electronic Filing) Non-profit, CMRS 601 & 159 135.00 PBMM k. Rule Waiver 601, 603, 608 or 609-T & 159 200.00 PDWM l. Modification for Spectrum Leasing for Public Coast Stations 608 & 159 135.00 PBMM m. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 2. Aviation Ground: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM b. Modification; Non-Profit 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM c. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 135.00 PBVM d. Transfer of Control 603 & 159 70.00 PATM e. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 190.00 PCVM g. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM h. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PBVR * 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM i. Renewal Only Non-Profit 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM j. Renewal Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 135.00 PBVM k. Rule Waiver 601 or 603 & 159 200.00 PDWM 3. Ship: a. New; Renewal/Modification; Renewal Only 605 & 159 PASR * 605 & 159 70.00 PASM b. New; Renewal/Modification; Renewal Only (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PASR * 605 & 159 70.00 PASM c. Renewal Only Non-profit 605 & 159 70.00 PASM d. Renewal Only Non-profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PASM e. Modification; Non-profit 605 & 159 70.00 PASM f. Modification; Non-profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PASM g. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM h. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM i. Exemption from Ship Station Requirements 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM j. Rule Waiver 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM k. Exemption from Ship Station Requirements (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM 4. Aircraft: a. New; Renewal/Modification 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM c. Modification; Non-Profit 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM d. Modification Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM e. Renewal Only 605 & 159 PAAR*  605 & 159 70.00 PAAM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAAR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM g. Renewal Only Non-Profit 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM h. Renewal; Renewal/Modification Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAAM i. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM j. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM k. Rule Waiver 603, 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM 5. Private Operational Fixed Microwave and Private DEMS: a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM c. Modification; Consolidate Call Signs; Non-Profit 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM d. Modification; Consolidate Call Signs; Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM e. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PEOR * 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM g. Renewal Only Non-Profit 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM h. Renewal Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 295.00 PEOM i. Assignment 603 & 159 295.00 PEOM j. Assignment (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 295.00 PEOM k. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 608 & 159 70.00 PATM l. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PATM 608 & 159 70.00 PATM m. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM n. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM o. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PAOM p. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAOM q. Rule Waiver 601, 603 or 200.00 PDWM 608, 609T & 159 200.00 PDWM r. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 601, 603 or 200.00 PDWM 608, 609T & 159 200.00 PDWM s. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 295.00 PEOM t. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 295.00 PEOM u. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 6. Land Mobile PMRS; Intelligent Transportation Service: a. New or Renewal/Modification (Frequencies below 470 601 & 159 PALR *    MHz (except 220 MHz)) 902-928 MHz & RS. 601 & 159 70.00 PALM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies below 470 601 & 159 PALR *    MHz (except 220 MHz)) (Electronic Filing). 601 & 159 70.00 PALM c. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies 470 MHz and 601 & 159 PALS *    above and 220 MHz Local). 601 & 159 70.00 PALM d. New; Renewal/Modification (Frequencies 470 MHz and 601 & 159 PALS *    above and 220 MHz Local) (Electronic Filing). 601 & 159 70.00 PALM e. New; Renewal/Modification (220 MHz Nationwide) 601 & 159 PALT * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM f. New; Renewal/Modification (220 MHz Nationwide) 601 & 159 PALT *    (Electronic Filing). 601 & 159 70.00 PALM g. Modification; Non-Profit; For Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety; and CMRS 601 & 159 70.00 PALM h. Modification; Non-Profit; For Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety; and CMRS (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM i. Renewal Only 601 & 159 PALR * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALS * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALT * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM j. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PALR * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALS * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM 601 & 159 PALT * 601 & 159 70.00 PALM k. Renewal Only (Non-Profit; CMRS; For-Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM l. Renewal (Non-Profit; CMRS; For-Profit Special Emergency and Public Safety) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM m. Assignment of Authorization (PMRS & CMRS) 603 & 159 70.00 PALM n. Assignment of Authorization (PMRS & CMRS) (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PALM o. Transfer of Control (PMRS & CMRS); Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • p. Transfer of Control (PMRS & CMRS); Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • q. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM r. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM s. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PALM t. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM u. Rule Waiver 601, 603 or
  • 608 & 159
  • 200.00
  • 200.00
  • PDWM
  • PDWM
  • v. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 601, 603 or
  • 608, 609T 159
  • 200.00
  • 200.00
  • PDWM
  • PDWM
  • w. Consolidate Call Signs 601 & 159 70.00 PALM x. Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PALM y. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 70.00 PALM z. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 70.00 PALM aa. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 7. 218-219 MHz (previously IVDS): a. New; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM c. Modification; Non-Profit 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM d. Modification; Non-Profit (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM e. Renewal Only 601 & 159
  • 601 & 159
  • 70.00
  • PAIR *
  • PAIM
  • f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 PAIR * 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM g. Assignment of Authorization 603 & 159 70.00 PAIM h. Assignment of Authorization (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159 70.00 PAIM i. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • j. Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • PATM
  • PATM
  • k. Duplicate License 601 & 159 70.00 PADM l. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM m. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM n. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 PAIM o. Modification for Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 70.00 PAIM p. Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing) 608 & 159 70.00 PAIM q. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 PATM 8. General Mobile Radio (GMRS): a. New; Renewal/Modification 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM b. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM c. Modification 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM d. Modification (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM e. Renewal Only 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 PAZR * 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM g. Duplicate License 605 & 159 70.00 PADM h. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PADM i. Special Temporary Authority 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM j. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 70.00 PAZM k. Rule Waiver 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM l. Rule Waiver (Electronic Filing) 605 & 159 200.00 PDWM 9. Restricted Radiotelephone: a. New (Lifetime Permit) 605 & 159 70.00 PARR New (Limited Use) 605 & 159 70.00 PARR b. Duplicate/Replacement Permit 605 & 159 70.00 PADM Duplicate/Replacement Permit (Limited Use) 605& 159 70.00 PADM 10. Commercial Radio Operator: a. Renewal Only; Renewal/ Modification 605 & 159 70.00 PACS b. Duplicate 605 & 159 70.00 PADM 11. Hearing Corres & 159 12,755.00 PFHM 12. Common Carrier Microwave (Pt. To Pt., Local TV Trans. & Millimeter Wave Service): a. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJPR * 601 & 159 295.00 CJPM b. Major Modification; Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 295.00 CJPM c. Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJPR * 601 & 159 295.00 CJPM d. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 105.00
  • 105.00
  • CCPM
  • CCPM
  • Additional Stations (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CAPM e. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Extension of Construction Authority (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 105.00 CCPM g. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 135.00 CEPM h. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 135.00 CEPM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 295.00 CJPM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CAPM 13. Common Carrier Microwave (DEMS): a. New; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJLR * 601 & 159 295.00 CJLM b. Major Modification; Consolidate Call Signs (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 295.00 CJLM c. Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 CJLR * 601 & 159 295.00 CJLM d. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control; Spectrum Leasing 603 & 159
  • 608 & 159
  • 105.00
  • 105.00
  • CCLM
  • CCLM
  • Additional Stations (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CALM e. Duplicate License (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 PADM f. Extension of Construction Authority (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 105.00 CCLM g. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 135.00 CELM h. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 135.00 CELM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 295.00 CJLM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CALM 14. Broadcast Auxiliary (Aural and TV Microwave): a. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 165.00 MEA b. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 165.00 MEA c. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 190.00 MGA d. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 190.00 MGA e. Renewal Only 601 & 159 70.00 MAA f. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 MAA 15. Broadcast Auxiliary (Remote and Low Power): a. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification 601 & 159 165.00 MEA b. New; Modification; Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 165.00 MEA c. Renewal Only 601 & 159 70.00 MAA d. Renewal (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 70.00 MAA e. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 190.00 MGA f. Special Temporary Authority (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 190.00 MGA 16. Pt 22 Paging & Radiotelephone: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Amendment; Major Renewal/Mod; Fill in Transmitter (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 435.00 CMD b. Minor Mod; Renewal; Minor Renewal/Mod; (Per Call Sign) 900 MHz Nationwide Renewal Net Organ; New Operator (Per Operator/Per City) Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAD c. Auxiliary Test (Per Transmitter); Consolidate Call Signs (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 380.00 CLD d. Special Temporary Authority (Per Location/Per Frequency) 601 & 159 380.00 CLD e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Location/Per Frequency) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 380.00 CLD f. Assignment of License or Transfer of Control; 603 & 159 435.00 CMD Spectrum Leasing (Full or Partial) (Per First Call Sign); 608 & 159 435.00 CMD Additional Call Signs (Per Call Signs) (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CAD g. Subsidiary Comm. Service (Per Request) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 190.00 CFD h. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 435.00 CMD i. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CAD j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CAD 17. Cellular: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Renewal/Mod (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 435.00 CMC b. Minor Modification; Minor Renewal/Mod (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 115.00 CDC c. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) (Per Call Sign) 603 & 159 435.00 CMC Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 435.00 CMC d. Notice of Extension of Time to Complete Construction; (Per Request) Renewal (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAC e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Request) 601 & 159 380.00 CLC f. Special Temporary Authority (Per Request) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 380.00 CLC g. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 435.00 CMC h. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 115.00 CDC 18. Rural Radio: a. New; Major Renew/Mod; Additional Facility (Per Trans- 601 & 159 CGRR *    mitter) (Electronic Filing Required). 601 & 159 200.00 CGRM b. Major Mod; Major Amendment (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 200.00 CGRM c. Minor Modification; (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CARM d. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) (Per Call Sign) 603 & 159 200.00 CGRM Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 200.00 CGRM Additional Calls (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CARM e. Renewal (Per Call Sign); Minor Renewal/Mod (Per 601 & 159 CARR *    Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required). 601 & 159 70.00 CARM f. Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CARM g. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) 601 & 159 380.00 CLRM h. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 380.00 CLRM i. Combining Call Signs (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 380.00 CLRM j. Auxiliary Test Station (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 380.00 CLRM k. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 200.00 CGRM l. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CARM 19. Offshore Radio: a. New; Major Mod; Additional Facility; Major Amendment; Major Renew/Mod; Fill in Transmitters (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 200.00 CGF b. Consolidate Call Signs (Per Call Sign); Auxiliary Test (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 380.00 CLF c. Minor Modification; Minor Renewal/Modification (Per Transmitter); Notice of Completion of Construction or Extension of Time to Construct (Per Application); Renewal (Per Call Sign) (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 70.00 CAF d. Assignment of License; Transfer of Control (Full or Partial) 603 & 159 200.00 CGF Spectrum Leasing 608 & 159 200.00 CGF Additional Calls (Electronic Filing Required) 603 or 608 & 159 70.00 CAF e. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) 601 & 159 380.00 CLF f. Special Temporary Authority (Per Transmitter) (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 380.00 CLF g. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 200.00 CGF h. Minor Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 70.00 CAF 20. Broadband Radio Service (Previously Multipoint Distribution Service): a. New station/Renewal/Modification (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 295.00 (Per call sign) CJM b. Major Modification of Licenses (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 295.00 CJM c. Certification of Completion of Construction (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 860.00 (Per call sign) CPM d. License Renewal (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 295.00 CJM e. Assignment of Authorization; Transfer of Control (first station) (Electronic Filing Required) 603 & 159 105.00 CCM Spectrum Leasing (first station) 608 & 159 105.00 CCM Additional Station 608 & 159 70.00 CAM f. Extension of Construction Authorization (Electronic Filing Required) 601 & 159 250.00 (Per call sign) CHM g. Special Temporary Authority or Request for Waiver of Prior Construction Authorization (Electronic Filing) 601 & 159 135.00 (Per call sign) CEM h. Special Temporary Authority 601 & 159 135.00 (Per call sign) CEM i. Major Modification for Spectrum Leasing (Electronic Filing Required) 608 & 159 295.00 (Per Lease Id.) CJM j. Designated Entity Licensee Reportable Eligibility Event 609-T & 159 70.00 CAM 21. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Petitions: Correspondence & 159 6,695.00 CALA
    3. Section 1.1103 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1103 Schedule of charges for equipment approval, experimental radio services (or service).

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, OET Services, P.O. Box 979095, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • Equipment Approval Service(s) 1. Certification: a. Receivers (except TV and FM) (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 540.00 EEC b. Devices Under Parts 11, 15 & 18 (except receivers) (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 1,390.00 EGC c. All Other Devices (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 700.00 EFT d. Modifications and Class II Permissive Changes (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 70.00 EAC e. Request for Confidentiality under Certification (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 200.00 EBC f. Class III Permissive Changes (Electronic Filing Only) 731 & 159 700.00 ECC 2. Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems Corres & 159 4,255.00 EIS a. Request for Confidentiality For Advance Approval of Subscription TV Systems Corres & 159 200.00 EBS 3. Assignment of Grantee Code: a. For all Application Types, except Subscription TV (Electronic Filing Only—Optional Electronic Payment) Electronic Assignment & Form 159 or Optional Electronic Payment 70.00 EAG 4. Experimental Radio Service(s): a. New Station Authorization 442 & 159 70.00 EAE b. Modification of Authorization 442 & 159 70.00 EAE c. Renewal of Station Authorization 405 & 159 70.00 EAE d. Assignment of License or Transfer of Control 702 & 159 or 703 & 159 70.00
  • 70.00
  • EAE
  • EAE
  • e. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 70.00 EAE f. Additional fee required for any of the above applications that request withholding from public inspection Corres & 159 70.00 EAE
    4. Section 1.1104 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1104 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for media services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau Services, P.O. Box 979089, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. The asterisk (*) indicates that multiple stations and multiple fee submissions are acceptable within the same post office box.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Commercial TV Services: a. New and Major Change Construction Permits (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 4,785.00 MVT b. Minor Change (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,070.00 MPT c. Main Studio Request Corres & 159 1,070.00 MPT d. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-TV & 159
  • 302-DTV & 159
  • 325.00
  • 325.00
  • MJT
  • MJT
  • e. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 190.00 MGT f. License Assignment (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,070.00 MPT* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDT* g. Transfer of Control (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,070.00 MPT* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDT* h. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 105.00 MBT i. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGT j. Petition for Rulemaking for New Community of License (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159
  • 302-TV & 159
  • 2,955.00
  • 2,955.00
  • MRT
  • MRT
  • k. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159
  • Corres &159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAT*
  • MAT*
  • 2. Commercial AM Radio Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 4,255.00 MUR b. Minor Change (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,070.00 MPR c. Main Studio Request (per request) Corres & 159 1,070.00 MPR d. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-AM & 159 700.00 MMR e. AM Directional Antenna (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-AM & 159 805.00 MOR f. AM Remote Control (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 70.00 MAR g. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 190.00 MGR h. License Assignment (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,070.00 MPR* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDR* i. Transfer of Control (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,070.00 MPR* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDR* j. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 105.00 MBR k. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGR l. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159 or
  • Corres & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAR
  • MAR
  • 3. Commercial FM Radio Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 3,830.00 MTR b. Minor Change (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 1,070.00 MPR c. Main Studio Request (per request) Corres & 159 1,070.00 MPR d. New License (Electronic Filing) 302-FM & 159 220.00 MHR e. FM Directional Antenna (Electronic Filing) 302-FM & 159 670.00 MLR f. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 190.00 MGR g. License Assignment (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,070.00 MPR* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDR* h. Transfer of Control (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,070.00 MPR* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDR* i. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 105.00 MBR j. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGR k. Petition for Rulemaking for New Community of License or Higher Class Channel (Electronic Filing) 301 & 159 or
  • 302-FM & 159
  • 2,955.00
  • 2,955.00
  • MRR
  • MRR
  • l. Ownership Report (Electronic Filing) 323 & 159 or
  • Corres & 159
  • 70.00
  • 70.00
  • MAR
  • MAR
  • 4. FM Translators: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 349 & 159 805.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 350 & 159 165.00 MEF c. License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 70.00 MAF d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGF e. License Assignment (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 155.00 MDF* 314 & 159 155.00 MDF* 316 & 159 155.00 MDF* f. Transfer of Control (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 155.00 MDF* 315 & 159 155.00 MDF* 316 & 159 155.00 MDF* 5. TV Translators and LPTV Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (per application) (Electronic Filing) 346 & 159 805.00 MOL b. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 347 & 159 165.00 MEL c. License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 70.00 MAL* d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGL e. License Assignment (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 155.00 MDL* 314 & 159 155.00 MDL* 316 & 159 155.00 MDL* f. Transfer of Control (Electronic Filing) 345 & 159 155.00 MDL* 315 & 159 155.00 MDL* 316 & 159 155.00 MDL* g. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 105.00 MBT 6. FM Booster Stations: a. New or Major Change Construction Permit (Electronic Filing) 349 & 159 805.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 350 & 159 165.00 MEF c. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGF 7. TV Booster Stations: a. New or Major Change (Electronic Filing) 346 & 159 805.00 MOF b. New License (Electronic Filing) 347 & 159 165.00 MEF c. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGF 8. Class A TV Services: a. New and Major Change Construction Permits (per application) (Electronic Filing) 301-CA & 159 4,785.00 MVT b. New License (per application) (Electronic Filing) 302-CA & 159 325.00 MJT c. License Renewal (per application) (Electronic Filing) 303-S & 159 190.00 MGT d. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 MGT e. License Assignment (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 314 & 159 1,070.00 MPT* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDT* f. Transfer of Control (i) Long Form (Electronic Filing) 315 & 159 1,070.00 MPT* (ii) Short Form (Electronic Filing) 316 & 159 155.00 MDT* g. Main Studio Request Corres & 159 1,070.00 MPT h. Call Sign (Electronic Filing) 380 & 159 105.00 MBT 9. Cable Television Services: a. CARS License 327 & 159 295.00 TIC b. CARS Modifications 327 & 159 295.00 TIC c. CARS License Renewal (Electronic Filing) 327 & 159 295.00 TIC d. CARS License Assignment 327 & 159 295.00 TIC e. CARS Transfer of Control 327 & 159 295.00 TIC f. Special Temporary Authority Corres & 159 190.00 TGC g. Cable Special Relief Petition Corres & 159 1,495.00 TQC h. Cable Community Registration (Electronic Filing) 322 & 159 70.00 TAC i. Aeronautical Frequency Usage Notifications (Electronic Filing) 321 & 159 70.00 TAC
    5. Section 1.1105 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1105 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the wireline competition services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979091, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Domestic 214 Applications Corres & 159 1,155.00 CDT 2. Tariff Filings: a. Filing Fees (per transmittal or cover letter) Corres & 159 925.00 CQK b. Application for Special Permission Filing (request for waiver of any rule in Part 61 of the Commission's Rules) (per request) Corres & 159 925.00 CQK c. Waiver of Part 69 Tariff Rules (per request) Corres & 159 925.00 CQK 3. Accounting: a. Review of Depreciation Update Study (single state) Corres & 159 40,015.00 BKA (i) Each Additional State Corres & 159 1,285.00 CVA b. Petition for Waiver (per petition) (i) Waiver of Part 69 Accounting Rules & Part 32 Accounting Rules, Part 43 Reporting Requirements Part 64 Allocation of Costs Rules Part 65 Rate of Return & Rate Base Rules Corres & 159 8,790.00 BEA (ii) Part 36 Separation Rules Corres & 159 8,790.00 BEB
    6. Section 1.1106 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1106 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the enforcement services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, P.O. Box 979094, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000 with the exception of Accounting and Audits, which will be invoiced. Carriers should follow invoice instructions when making payment.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Formal Complaints Corres & 159 230.00 CIZ 2. Accounting and Audits: a. Field Audit Carriers will be invoiced for the amount due 117,490.00 BMA b. Review of Attest Audit Carriers will be invoiced for the amount due 64,130.00 BLA 3. Development and Review of Agreed upon—Procedures Engagement Corres & 159 64,130.00 BLA 4. Pole Attachment Complaint Corres & 159 285.00 TPC
    7. Section 1.1107 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1107 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the international services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, International Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979093, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. International Fixed Public Radio (Public & Control Stations): a. Initial Construction Permit (per station) 407 & 159 965.00 CSN b. Assignment or Transfer (per Application) 702 & 159 or
  • 704 & 159
  • 965.00
  • 965.00
  • CSN
  • CSN
  • c. Renewal (per license ) 405 & 159 700.00 CON d. Modification (per station) 403 & 159 700.00 CON e. Extension of Construction Authorization (per station) 701 & 159 350.00 CKN f. Special Temporary Authority or request for Waiver (per request) Corres & 159 350.00 CKN 2. Section 214 Applications: a. Overseas Cable Construction Corres & 159 17,215.00 BIT b. Cable Landing License (i) Common Carrier Corres & 159 1,935.00 CXT (ii) Non-Common Carrier Corres & 159 19,145.00 BJT c. All other International 214 Applications Corres & 159 1,155.00 CUT d. Special Temporary Authority (all services) Corres & 159 1,155.00 CUT e. Assignments or transfers (all services) Corres & 159 1,155.00 CUT 3. Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations: a. Initial Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 2,880.00 BAX b. Modification of License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGX c. Assignment or Transfer (i) First station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 570.00 CNX (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 190.00 CFX d. Renewal of License (per station ) 312-R & 159 200.00 CGX e. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 Main & 159 200.00 CGX f. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGX g. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station) 312 Main & 159 200.00 CGX 4. Fixed Satellite transmit/receive Earth Stations (2 meters or less operating in the 4/6 GHz frequency band): a. Lead Application 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 6,380.00 BDS b. Routine Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 70.00 CAS c. Modification of License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGS d. Assignment or Transfer (i) First Station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 570.00 CNS (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 70.00 CAS e. Renewal of License (per station) 312-R & 159 200.00 CGS f. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 Main & 159 200.00 CGS g. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 200.00 CGS h. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station ) 312 & 159 200.00 CGS 5. Receive Only Earth Stations: a. Initial Applications for Registration or License (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 435.00 CMO b. Modification of License or Registration (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGO c. Assignment or Transfer (i) First Station 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 570.00 CNO (ii) Each Additional Station Attachment to 312-Schedule A 190.00 CFO d. Renewal of License (per station) 312-R & 159 200.00 CGO e. Amendment of Pending Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 200.00 CGO f. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per station) 312 Main & 159 200.00 CGO g. Waivers (per request) Corres & 159 200.00 CGO 6. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems: a. Initial Application (per station) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 10,620.00 BGV b. Modification of License (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGV c. Assignment or Transfer of System 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 2,840.00 CZV d. Renewal of License (per system) 312-R & 159 200.00 CGV e. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 & 159 200.00 CGV f. Amendment of Pending Application (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A or B & 159 200.00 CGV g. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per system) 312 & 159 200.00 CGV 7. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations: a. Initial Applications of Blanket Authorization 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 10,620.00 BGB b. Initial Application for Individual Earth Station 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 2,550.00 CYB c. Modification of License (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGB d. Assignment or Transfer (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 2,840.00 CZB e. Renewal of License (per system) 312-R & 159 200.00 CGB f. Special Temporary Authority (per request) 312 & 159 200.00 CGB g. Amendment of Pending Application (per system) 312 Main & Schedule B & 159 200.00 CGB h. Extension of Construction Permit (modification) (per system) 312 & 159 200.00 CGB 8. Space Stations (Geostationary): a. Application for Authority to Launch & Operate (per satellite) (i) Initial Application 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 132,030.00 BNY (ii) Replacement Satellite 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 132,030.00 BNY b. Assignment or Transfer (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 9,435.00 BFY c. Modification (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 9,435.00 BFY d. Special Temporary Authority (per satellite) 312 & 159 945.00 CRY e. Amendment of Pending Application (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 1,890.00 CWY f. Extension of Launch Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & Corres & 159 945.00 CRY 9. Space Stations (NGSO): a. Application for Authority to Launch & Operate (per system of technically identical satellites) satellites) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 454,705.00 CLW b. Assignment or Transfer (per system) 312 Main & Schedule A & 159 13,000.00 CZW c. Modification (per system) 312 Main & Schedule S (if needed) & 159 32,480.00 CGW d. Special Temporary Authority (per request) Corres & 159 3,255.00 CXW e. Amendment of Pending Application (per request) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 6,500.00 CAW f. Extension of Launch Authority (per system) 312 Main & 159 3,255.00 CXW 10. Direct Broadcast Satellites: a. Authorization to Construct or Major Modification (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 3,830.00 MTD b. Construction Permit and Launch Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 37,180.00 MXD c. License to Operate (per satellite) 312 Main & Schedule S & 159 1,070.00 MPD d. Special Temporary Authority (per satellite) 312 Main & 159 190.00 MGD 11. International Broadcast Stations: a. New Station & Facilities Change Construction Permit (per application) 309 & 159 3,220.00 MSN b. New License (per application) 310 & 159 730.00 MNN c. License Renewal (per application) 311 & 159 180.00 MFN d. License Assignment or Transfer of Control (per station license) 314 & 159 or
  • 315 & 159
  • or 316 & 159
  • 115.00
  • 115.00
  • 115.00
  • MCN
  • MCN
  • MCN
  • e. Frequency Assignment & Coordination (per frequency hour) Corres & 159 70.00 MAN f. Special Temporary Authorization (per application) Corres & 159 190.00 MGN 12. Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations (per application): a. Commercial Television Stations 308 & 159 105.00 MBT b. Commercial AM or FM Radio Stations 308 & 159 105.00 MBR 13. Recognized Operating Agency (per application): Corres & 159 1,155.00 CUG
    8. Section 1.1108 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1108 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the international telecommunication services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, International Telecommunication Fees, P.O. Box 979096, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Administrative Fee For Collections (per line item) 99 & 99A 2.00 IAT 2. Telecommunication Charges 99 & 99A ITTS
    9. Section 1.1109 is revised to read as follows:
    § 1.1109 Schedule of charges for applications and other filings for the Homeland services.

    Payment can be made electronically using the Commission's electronic filing and payment system “Fee Filer” (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual filings and/or payments for these services to: Federal Communications Commission, Homeland Bureau Applications, P.O. Box 979092, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.

    Service FCC Form No. Fee amount
  • ($)
  • Payment
  • type code
  • 1. Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) Petitions Corres & 159 6,695.00 CLEA
    [FR Doc. 2016-17621 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 144 Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration 23 CFR Chapter I [Docket No. FHWA-2016-0002] RIN 2125-AF70 Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program; Negotiated Rulemaking Proposed Committee Membership and First Meeting AGENCY:

    Federal Highway Administration, DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of rulemaking committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, the Secretary of Transportation has selected the proposed members of a committee to develop proposed rules for the Tribal Transportation Self-Governance Program (TTSGP). Tribes in each of the 12 Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Regions, as well as national and regional tribal organizations were invited to nominate a primary and alternate representative to serve on the committee. After considering the nominations received, the Secretary proposes to appoint the persons named in this document as committee members. Tribes, tribal organizations, and individual tribal members who believe that their interests will not be adequately represented by the persons identified in this document may submit comments on the proposed selection, apply for membership on the committee, or submit other nominations. Additionally, the Agency announces that the first meeting of the TTSGP committee will be held August 16-18, 2016. The meeting is open to the public.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed committee membership to this negotiated rulemaking committee must be received no later than August 26, 2016.

    The meeting will be held on August 16-18, 2016, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division, Loudoun Tech Center, 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166-6511. Attendance is open to the public up to the room's capacity. Copies of the TTSPG Committee materials and an agenda will be made available in advance of the meeting at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/.

    Send nominations and comments to Mr. Robert Sparrow, Designated Federal Official, Federal Highway Administration, Room E61-314, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. Or email to: [email protected]

    Nominations and comments received by FHWA will be available for inspection at the address listed above from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Robert W. Sparrow, Designated Federal Official, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-9483 or at [email protected] Vivian Philbin, Assistant Chief Counsel, 12300 West Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO 80228. Telephone: (720) 963-3445 or at [email protected] Additional information may be posted on the FHWA Tribal Transportation Program Web site at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/ as it comes available.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    As required by Section 1121 of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the Secretary shall, pursuant to a negotiated rulemaking process, develop a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that contains the regulations required to carry the TTSGP. Section 1121 also requires that in establishing this committee, the Secretary will (1) apply the procedures of negotiated rulemaking under subchapter III of chapter 5 of title 5 (the Negotiated Rulemaking Act) in a manner that reflects the unique government-to-government relationship between the Indian tribes and the United States and (2) select the tribal representatives for the committee from among elected officials of tribal governments (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf), acting in their official capacities. To the maximum extent possible, FHWA considered geographical location, size, and existing transportation and self-governance experience, in selecting tribal committee representatives.

    The Secretary invites organizations and individuals to comment on the nominations in this document or nominate other persons for membership on the committee. The Secretary intends that the proposed committee (including any additional members selected) reflect balanced interests as follows:

    (1) Members of geographically diverse small, medium, and large Indian tribes;

    (2) Members of tribes identified as Self-Governance Tribes in transportation or other programs as well as from tribes whose tribes have existing Title 23 U.S.C. funding agreements with the Department; and

    (3) Members of tribes with various levels and types of experience in the diverse concerns of transportation, management, and leadership.

    On April 25, 2016 (81 FR 24158), FHWA announced its intent to establish a negotiated rulemaking committee to negotiate and develop proposed regulations to implement Section 1121 of the FAST Act and to solicit applications for nominations for membership on the TTSGP committee. A total of 33 nominations were received for tribal membership to the committee. This included multiple nominations from tribes located within 10 of the 12 BIA Regions. Only one nomination was received from tribes located within the BIA Midwest Region as well as the BIA Rocky Mountain Region. In addition, nominations and letters of support were received from national and regional tribal organizations.

    The Secretary has selected 12 primary regional tribal representatives, 2 tribal representatives that received backing and support from national or regional tribal organization/committees, and 4 additional tribal representatives based on their experience and knowledge as well as to improve the overall diversity of the committee. In addition, the Secretary has selected 7 Federal representatives for the committee, bringing the total proposed committee membership to 25, which meets the requirements of Negotiated Rulemaking Act (5 U.S.C. 565). Five additional alternate representatives were also selected. Generally, tribal members selected to the committee as either representing a tribal organization or a Secretarial selection will also perform as a regional alternate if required. After careful review of all of the individuals nominated to be TTSGP committee members, the Secretary of Transportation hereby proposes the following committee membership:

    Federal Representatives

    • Robert Sparrow, Designated Federal Official, FHWA, Washington, DC.

    • Vivian Philbin, Assistant Chief Counsel, FHWA, Lakewood, CO.

    • Basharat Siddiqi, Division Administrator, FHWA, Oklahoma City, OK.

    • Kenneth Martin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tribal Government Affairs, Office of the Secretary, USDOT, Washington, DC.

    • Elan Flippin, Tribal Transit Program Manager, FTA, Washington, DC.

    • (TBD), USDOT, Washington, DC.

    • LeRoy Gishi, Chief, BIA Division of Transportation, Washington, DC.

    Primary Tribal Representatives

    • ALASKA REGION—Denise Michaels, Director of Transportation, Kawerak, Inc., Nome, AK.

    • EASTERN REGION—Wesley Woodruff, Facilities Division Director, Poarch Band of Creek Indians, Atmore, AL.

    • EASTERN OKLAHOMA REGION—Palmer S. Mosely V, Executive Officer of Self-Determination, The Chickasaw Nation, Ada, OK.

    • GREAT PLAINS REGION—Ron His Horse is Thunder, Transportation Director, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ft. Yates, SD.

    • MIDWEST REGION—David Conner, Self-Governance Coordinator, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Red Lake, MN.

    • NAVAJO REGION—Darryl Bradley, Principal Civil Engineer, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ.

    • NORTHWEST REGION—Timothy Ballew II, Tribal Chairman, Lummi Nation, Bellingham, WA.

    • PACIFIC REGION—Michael Hostler, Transportation Director, Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa, CA.

    • ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION—John Smith, Transportation Director, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes' Joint Business Council on the Wind River Indian Reservation, Arapahoe, WY.

    • SOUTHERN PLAINS REGION—Beverly Edwina Butler Wolfe, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Shawnee, OK.

    • SOUTHWEST REGION—Joe Garcia, Head Councilman, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, Ohkay Owingeh, NM.

    • WESTERN REGION—Jennifer Lynn Jack, Roads Manager, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, Scottsdale, AZ.

    Other Tribal Representatives

    • Mickey Peercy, Executive Director of Self-Governance, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Tishomingo, OK, proposed by the DOI Self-Governance Workgroup.

    • Jody Clark, Director—Seneca Nation DOT, Seneca Nation, Salamanca, NY, proposed by United Southern and Eastern Tribes (USET). Will also act as the Alternate representative for the Eastern Region, if required.

    • Gerald Hope, Transportation Director, Sitka Tribe of Alaska, Sitka, AK. Will also act as the Alternate representative for the Alaska Region, if required.

    • Karen Woodard, Administrator—Realty, Planning, Construction Services and Facilities, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Banning, CA. Will also act as the Alternate representative for the Pacific Region, if required.

    • Elizabeth Kay Wallace Rhoads, Principal Chief—Sac and Fox Nation, Meeker, OK. Will also act as the Alternate representative for the Southern Plains Region, if required.

    • Royce Gchachu, Transportation Director, Zuni Pueblo, Zuni, NM. Will also act as the Alternate representative for the Southwest Region, if required.

    Alternate Tribal Representatives

    • EASTERN OKLAHOMA REGION—Lindsay Earls, Legislative Counsel for Government Relations, The Cherokee Nation, Tahlequah, OK.

    • GREAT PLAINS REGION—David Kelly, Transportation Director, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD.

    • NAVAJO REGION—Jonah Begay, GIS Supervisor, Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ.

    • NORTHWEST REGION—Mary Beth Frank-Clark, Transportation Planner, Nez Pierce Tribe, Lewiston, ID.

    • WESTERN REGION—Octavio Machado, Transit Manager, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Maricopa, AZ.

    If you believe that your interests will not be adequately represented by any person identified as being a member of the committee, you may apply or nominate another person for membership on the committee. Each application or nomination must include:

    (1) The name of the nominee.

    (2) The tribal interest(s) to be represented by the nominee (based on the interests listed above).

    (3) Evidence that the applicant or nominee is authorized to represent parties related to the interest(s) the person proposed to represent.

    (4) The reasons that the proposed members of the committee identified in this document do not represent the interests of the person submitting the application or nomination.

    (5) Your name, address, telephone number, and the name of the tribe or tribal organization with which you are affiliated. To be considered, comments and nominations must be received by the close of business on August 26, 2016, at the location indicated in the ADDRESSES section.

    II. Meeting Participation

    The meeting will be open to the public. Time has been set aside during each day of the meeting for members of the public to contribute to the discussion and provide oral comments.

    The committee will dedicate a substantial amount of time at the first meeting to establishing the rules, procedures, and process of the committee, such as outlining the voting rights of the committee members and defining the meaning of “consensus.”

    III. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by August 1, 2016, to Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FHWA-2016-0002. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this document (FHWA-2016-0002). You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. The FHWA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FHWA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.

    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov, put the docket number, FHWA-2016-0002, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” When the new screen appears, click on the “Comment Now!” button and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf of a third party and then submit.

    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 81/2 by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing.

    Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket number, FHWA-2016-0002, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the “Open Docket Folder” button and choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the Internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Privacy Act

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

    IV. Future Committee Meetings and Rulemaking Calendar

    Decisions with respect to future meetings will be made at the first meeting and from time to time thereafter. Notices of all future meetings will be shown on the FHWA TTP Web site at https://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ttp/ at least 15 calendar days prior to each meeting. The FHWA has developed a provisional schedule of committee meetings, running through June 2017, which we plan to finalize with the committee during the first meeting. The FHWA intends to complete the negotiated rulemaking process for the proposed rule within the first half of 2017 and to publish a NPRM, followed by a Final Rule in 2018. After the conclusion of the committee meetings, the Agency will draft the NPRM, which is expected to take approximately 6-8 weeks, depending on the degree of consensus on the issues and the supporting data developed by the committee. The NPRM will then be reviewed by DOT's Office of the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Agency will then publish the NPRM for public comment. Following the close of the public comment period the Agency will evaluate and respond to public comments as it drafts a final rule, which will also undergo Departmental and OMB review. Although the time needed to address public comments to an NPRM that has been developed through a successful negotiated rulemaking process is typically shorter than for rules conducted through the ordinary informal notice and comment process, the Agency must nonetheless address substantive public comments in the final rule, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. While the Agency cannot state with certainty the time required to complete the negotiated rulemaking process and notice and comment rulemaking, the target date for publication of an NPRM is September 2017.

    Issued on: July 21, 2016. Gregory G. Nadeau, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17761 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0500] RIN 1625-AA08 Special Local Regulation; Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, Crisfield, MD AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish special local regulations for certain waters of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters located in Somerset County at Crisfield, MD, during an open water swim competition on September 17, 2016. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0500 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone 410-576-2674, 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, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On June 1, 2016, OC Tri-Running Sports of Bishopville, MD notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting the swim portion of the Crisfield CrabMan Triathlon from 6:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. on September 17, 2016. The open water swim competition is to be held along a designated 0.93-mile (1500 meters/1.5k) linear course that starts from a stationary barge located in the Little Annemessex River in approximate position latitude 37°58′15″ N., longitude 075°52′09″ W., and finishes at the Somers Cove Marina in Somers Cove at Crisfield, MD. Prior to the swim start, participants will be transported from the Crisfield City Dock to the barge on board a ferry. Hazards from the swim competition include approximately 200 participants operating within and adjacent to designated navigation channels and interfering with vessels intending to operate within those channels, as well as operating within the narrow entrance to Somers Cove. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the swim competition would be a safety concern for anyone intending to operate within certain waters of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove at Crisfield, MD.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants, spectators and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove before, during, and after the scheduled event.

    The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1233, which authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define special local regulations.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region proposes to establish special local regulations from 5:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 17, 2016, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 5:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 18, 2016. The regulated area would cover all navigable waters of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the eastern shoreline of Janes Island at latitude 37°58′39″ N., longitude 075°52′05″ W. and thence eastward to the Crisfield City Dock at latitude 37°58′39″ N., longitude 075°51′50″ W., and bounded to the south by a line drawn from Long Point on Janes Island at latitude 37°58′12″ N., longitude 075°52′42″ W. and thence eastward to Hammock Point at latitude 37°57′58″ N., longitude 075°51′58″ W., located at Crisfield, MD. The duration of the regulated area is intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the scheduled 6:30 a.m. until 9 a.m. swim competition. Except for Crisfield CrabMan Triathlon participants, no vessel or person would be permitted to enter the regulated area without obtaining permission from the COTP Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.

    IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 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 size and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small designated area of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove for 4.5 hours. The Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the Coast Guard Patrol Commander deems it safe to do so.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area 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 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore side activities in the event area lasting for 4.5 hours. The category of water activities includes but is not limited to sail boat regattas, boat parades, power boat racing, swimming events, crew racing, canoe and sail board racing. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(h) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist and Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

    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 NPRM as being available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule is published.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

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

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

    33 U.S.C. 1233.

    2. Add § 100.35-T05-0500 to read as follows:
    § 100.501-T05-0500 Special Local Regulation; Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, Crisfield, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following location is a regulated area: All navigable waters of the Little Annemessex River and Somers Cove, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a line drawn from the eastern shoreline of Janes Island at latitude 37°58′39″ N., longitude 075°52′05″ W. and thence eastward to the Crisfield City Dock at latitude 37°58′39″ N., longitude 075°51′50″ W., and bounded to the south by a line drawn from Long Point on Janes Island at latitude 37°58′12″ N., longitude 075°52′42″ W. and thence eastward to Hammock Point at latitude 37°57′58″ N., longitude 075°51′58″ W., located at Crisfield, MD. All coordinates reference Datum NAD 1983.

    (b) Definitions. (1) Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.

    (2) Coast Guard Patrol Commander means a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (3) Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.

    (4) Participant means all persons and vessels participating in the swim portion of the Crisfield CrabMan Triathlon event under the auspices of the Marine Event Permit issued to the event sponsor and approved by Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

    (c) Special local regulations: (1) The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including event participants, in the regulated area. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol, a vessel or person in the regulated area shall immediately comply with the directions given. Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for failure to comply, or both. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander may terminate the event, or the operation of any support vessel participating in the event, at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of life or property.

    (2) Except for participants and vessels already at berth, mooring, or anchor, all persons and vessels within the regulated area at the time it is implemented are to depart the regulated area.

    (3) Persons desiring to transit the regulated area must first obtain authorization from the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or Coast Guard Patrol Commander. Prior to the enforcement period, to seek permission to transit the area, the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone number 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). During the enforcement period, to seek permission to transit the area, the Coast Guard Patrol Commander can be contacted on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) for direction.

    (4) The Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other Federal, State, and local agencies. The Coast Guard Patrol Commander and official patrol vessels enforcing this regulated area can be contacted on marine band radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) and channel 22A (157.1 MHz).

    (5) The Coast Guard will publish a notice in the Fifth Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and issue a marine information broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio announcing specific event date and times.

    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 5:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 17, 2016, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 5:30 a.m. until 10 a.m. on September 18, 2016.

    Dated: July 5, 2016. Lonnie P. Harrison, Jr., Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17774 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 62 RIN 2900-AP61 Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its regulations that govern the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program. This rulemaking would clarify VA's procedures for continuing to fund SSVF Program services in communities that have lost grants due to the non-renewal or termination of services of an existing award to a grantee by awarding non-renewed or deobligated funds to other existing SSVF grantees in or near the affected community. This award of non-renewed or deobligated funds would prevent potential access issues associated with grant termination. This rulemaking would also reduce the number of satisfaction surveys grantees are required to provide to participants in order to reduce the burden on grantees and participants.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (00REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP61—Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System at www.Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Kuhn, National Center for Homelessness Among Veterans, Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program Office, 4100 Chester Avenue, Suite 200, Philadelphia, PA 19104, (877) 737-0111. (This is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title 38, section 2044, United States Code (U.S.C.), requires the Secretary to provide financial assistance to eligible entities to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services for very low-income veteran families occupying permanent housing. The Secretary's implementing regulations are in 38 CFR part 62, which established the SSVF Program. Through the SSVF Program, VA awards supportive services grants to private non-profit organizations or consumer cooperatives to provide or coordinate the provision of supportive services to very low-income veteran families who are residing in permanent housing and at risk of becoming homeless; lacking a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, at risk of remaining so but for grantee assistance, and scheduled to become residents of permanent housing within 90 days pending the location or development of housing suitable for permanent housing; or, after exiting permanent housing, are seeking other housing that is responsive to their needs and preferences. This proposed rulemaking would clarify existing VA policy regarding award of non-renewed or deobligated funds to other existing SSVF grantees in or near the affected community where the funds were originally used in order to maintain continuity in the services offered to these communities.

    62.25 Selecting Grantees for Renewal or Non-Renewal of Supportive Services Grants

    Current § 62.25 provides the process to select grantees applying for renewal of supportive services grants. Paragraph (a) of § 62.25 of 38 CFR states that VA will score the grantee using the scoring criteria set forth in § 62.24 as long as the grantee continues to meet the threshold requirements in § 62.21. Paragraph (b) provides that VA will rank in order from highest to lowest the grantees who receive at least the minimum amount of total points and points per category in the Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Lastly, paragraph (c) states that VA will use the grantee's ranking as the basis for selection for funding and fund the highest-ranked grantees for which funding is available. Although § 62.25 does not expressly address the award of any non-renewed funds, it is VA's policy under this authority to offer to award non-renewed funds to other qualifying existing grantees within the same community applying the same criteria in this section when re-awarding non-renewed funds. Otherwise, the community that was served by the grantee may suffer an interruption in services to those who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless. We propose to amend § 62.25 to expressly codify this current practice in the regulation. We propose to add a new paragraph (d) to state the process by which VA would, in its discretion, offer to award any non-renewed funds to other qualifying existing grantees. This process would be similar to the award of deobligated funds under the proposed revisions to § 62.80(d)(2).

    62.36 General Operation Requirements

    Section 62.36 establishes the operation requirements for grantees that provide supportive services. Paragraph (c) establishes the notifications a grantee must provide to participants before the grantee provides supportive services, which include that the services are paid for in whole or part by VA, the types of services available to the participant, and any restrictions or conditions on the receipt of the services. Paragraph (c) also states that a grantee must provide each participant with a satisfaction survey. This satisfaction survey helps VA evaluate the provision of supportive services by a grantee to a participant. The results of the satisfaction survey also assist VA in determining if future SSVF Program funds should be awarded to a grantee.

    Under current paragraph (c)(2), a satisfaction survey must be provided to the participant within 45 to 60 days of the participant's entry into the grantee's program, and also within 30 days prior to the participant's pending exit from the program. However, requesting two satisfaction surveys has resulted in poor response rates by participants and has created an unnecessary burden on the grantees and the participants. Therefore, we propose to reduce the number of satisfaction surveys by eliminating the survey that must be provided to the participant within 45 to 60 days of the participant's entry to the program. By reducing the number of satisfaction surveys, VA expects to reduce the burden to the grantees and the participants and, in turn, improve the response rate. We propose to amend paragraph (c)(2) to state that a “grantee must provide each participant with a satisfaction survey, which the participant can submit directly to VA, within 30 days of such participant's pending exit from the grantee's program.”

    62.80 Withholding, Suspension, Deobligation, Termination, and Recovery of Funds by VA

    Current paragraph (a) of § 62.80 states that VA will recover from grantees any SSVF funds that are not used in accordance with the SSVF Program requirements. In addition, paragraph (b) of § 62.80 provides that if a grantee fails to comply with these requirements, VA may withhold further payment, suspend the supportive services grant, or prohibit the grantee from incurring additional obligations of supportive services grant funds, pending corrective action by the grantee or a decision to terminate the grant. Paragraph (c) of § 62.80 provides the circumstances under which VA may terminate a grant in whole or in part, including: When a grantee materially fails to comply with the terms and conditions of a grant award, the grantee consents to termination, or the grantee notifies VA of its intent to terminate the grant. Paragraph (d) of § 62.80 establishes the circumstances under which VA may deobligate amounts approved for use by a grantee. The SSVF Program has a robust monitoring and compliance program to ensure that community agencies awarded VA grant funds perform in accordance with their grant agreements. As part of these oversight responsibilities, SSVF Program funds may be deobligated for several reasons, including: The activity for which funding was approved is not provided, the approved amounts have not been expended within one year from the date the agreement was signed, or other circumstances as set forth in the agreement, for example, if the grantee goes bankrupt. Under § 62.80(d)(2), VA has discretionary authority to re-advertise in a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) the availability of funds that have been deobligated, or to award deobligated funds to applicants who previously submitted applications in response to the most recently published SSVF Program NOFA. Under this authority, it is VA's current policy that VA could award deobligated funds to existing SSVF grantees in or near the impacted community of those grantees so long as those grantees applied to the most recently published NOFA applicable to the geographic area at issue, or in the case of multi-year awards, the most recently published NOFA to which the grantee applied applicable to the geographic area at issue. This policy is designed to prevent potential access issues associated with grant termination. Otherwise, in the case of deobligated funds, it is possible that no SSVF Program services would be available in the affected communities for months before VA is able to publish a NOFA in the Federal Register to make available the funds to qualified grantees. This rulemaking would clarify this policy in the regulation.

    We would amend § 62.80(d) by revising paragraph (d)(2). The proposed revision to § 62.80(d)(2) would state that VA may award deobligated or non-renewed funds to a qualified existing SSVF grantee serving the community where the deobligation or non-renewal occurred. A grantee who is currently serving the affected community would be better able to address the needs of the community because the grantee is already working within that community. VA understands that there may be more than one grantee in a community that is qualified to receive the deobligated funds. We would, therefore, first offer to award the deobligated or non-renewed funds to the grantee with the highest grant score (based on existing grantees most recent scores) that has the capacity to provide immediate services to the affected community. The requirement that the grantee be able to immediately offer services would be made in order to make certain that the grantee who is offered the funds is quickly able to address the needs of the impacted community and reduce added delays in providing services. However, such grantee may not want to take on the added funds or responsibilities. In such case, VA would offer the funds to the next qualified grantee in rank order until all funds are awarded. There may be instances where there are no other grantees serving the community where the deobligation occurred. In such circumstances, VA would offer to award the deobligated funds to qualified grantees in rank order who serve the adjacent community, subject to the grantee's agreement to use the funds to serve the community where the deobligation occurred. We would add the requirement that the funds must be used in the community where the funds were deobligated because the deobligated funds are offered as a means of providing continuous services to the affected community, not to add more funds to a community that is already funded otherwise.

    Effect of Rulemaking

    The Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to be revised by this proposed rulemaking, would represent the exclusive legal authority on this subject. No contrary rules or procedures would be authorized. All VA guidance would be read to conform with this proposed rulemaking if possible or, if not possible, such guidance would be superseded by this rulemaking.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    Although this action contains provisions constituting collections of information at 38 CFR 62.36, under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), no new or proposed revised collections of information are associated with this proposed rule. The information collection requirements for § 62.36 are currently approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and have been assigned OMB control number 2900-0757.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). This proposed rule would only impact those entities that choose to participate in the SSVF Program. Small entity applicants will not be affected to a greater extent than large entity applicants. Small entities must elect to participate, and it is considered a benefit to those who choose to apply. To the extent this proposed rule would have any impact on small entities, it would not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rulemaking would be exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Executive Order 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, 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 set forth in this Executive Order.”

    The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this regulatory action have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. VA's impact analysis can be found as a supporting document at http://www.regulations.gov, usually within 48 hours after the rulemaking document is published. Additionally, a copy of the rulemaking and its impact analysis are available on VA's Web site at http://www.va.gov/orpm/, by following the link for “VA Regulations Published From FY 2004 Through Fiscal Year to Date.”

    Unfunded Mandates

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State, local, and tribal governments, or on the private sector.

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits, and 64.033, VA Supportive Services for Veteran Families Program.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Gina S. Farrisee, Deputy Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 19, 2016, for publication.

    List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 62

    Administrative practice and procedure, Day care, Disability benefits, Government contracts, Grant programs—health, Grant programs—housing and community development, Grant programs—veterans, Heath care, Homeless, Housing, Indians—lands, Individuals with disabilities, Low and moderate income housing, Manpower training programs, Medicaid, Medicare, Public assistance programs, Public housing, Relocation assistance, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas, Social security, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Travel and transportation expenses, Unemployment compensation.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Janet J. Coleman, Chief, Office of Regulation Policy & Management, Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 62 as follows:

    PART 62—SUPPORTIVE SERVICES FOR VETERAN FAMILIES PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501, 2044, and as noted in specific sections.

    2. Amend § 62.25 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 62.25 Selecting grantees for renewal of supportive services grants.

    (d) At its discretion, VA may award any non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee. If VA chooses to award non-renewed funds to an applicant or existing grantee, funds will be awarded as follows:

    (1) VA will first offer to award the non-renewed funds to the applicant or grantee with the highest grant score under the relevant Notice of Fund Availability that applies for, or is awarded a renewal grant in, the same community as, or a proximate community to, the affected community. Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide immediate services to the affected community. Under this section 62.25, the relevant Notice of Fund Availability is the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community, or for multi-year grant awards, the Notice of Fund Availability for which the grantee received the multi-year award.

    (2) If the first such applicant or grantee offered the non-renewed funds refuses the funds, VA will offer to award the funds to the next highest-ranked such applicant or grantee, per the criteria in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, and continue on in rank order until the non-renewed funds are awarded.

    3. Amend § 62.36 by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
    § 62.36 General operation requirements.

    (c) * * *

    (2) The grantee must provide each participant with a satisfaction survey, which the participant can submit directly to VA, within 30 days of such participant's pending exit from the grantee's program.

    4. Amend § 62.80 by revising paragraph (d)(2) to read as follows:
    § 62.80 Withholding, suspension, deobligation, termination, and recovery of funds by VA.

    (d) * * *

    (2) At its discretion, VA may re-advertise in a Notice of Fund Availability the availability of funds that have been deobligated under this section or award deobligated funds to an applicant or existing grantee. If VA chooses to award deobligated funds to an applicant or existing grantee, funds will be awarded as follows:

    (i) VA will first offer to award the deobligated funds to the applicant or grantee with the highest grant score under the relevant Notice of Fund Availability that applied for or was awarded funds in the same community as, or proximate community to, the affected community. Such applicant or grantee must have the capacity and agree to provide immediate services to the affected community. Under this section 62.80 the relevant Notice of Fund Availability is the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community, or for multi-year grant awards, the most recently published Notice of Fund Availability which covers the geographic area that includes the affected community for which the grantee received the multi-year award.

    (ii) If the first such applicant or grantee offered the deobligated funds refuses the funds, VA will offer to award funds to the next highest-ranked such applicant or grantee, per to the criteria in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, and continue on in rank order until all deobligated funds are awarded.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17624 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0403; FRL-9949-61-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to Logs and Reports for Startups, Shutdowns and Malfunctions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), on September 25, 2013. The SIP submittal includes a change to the TDEC regulation “Logs and Reports.” EPA is proposing to approve this SIP revision because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and federal regulations governing SIPs.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0403 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    D. Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be reached by telephone at (404) 562-9089 or via electronic mail at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. EPA's Action A. What action is EPA proposing today?

    On September 25, 2013, TDEC submitted a change to the Tennessee rules to EPA for approval and incorporation into the Tennessee SIP. Specifically, the submittal includes a change to remove the existing text of subparagraph (2) from Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) Rule 1200-3-20-.04, “Logs and Reports,” and replace it with the word “Reserved.” Existing subparagraph (2) provides that all sources located in or having a significant impact on a nonattainment area submit a quarterly report to the Technical Secretary of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board that (1) identifies periods of startups, shutdowns, and/or malfunctions (SSM events) that result in an exceedance of an emission limitation, (2) estimates the excess emissions released during such SSM events, and (3) provides total source emissions where such emissions are not otherwise required to be reported under Tennessee Air Pollution Control Regulations (TAPCR) Chapters 1200-3-10-.02 or 1200-3-16. EPA is proposing to approve Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision because the proposed revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and federal regulations governing SIPs.

    B. EPA's Analysis of the September 25, 2013, Submittal

    Section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Act requires SIP provisions such as emission limitations to be enforceable, and sections 110(a)(2)(F)(i) and (F)(ii) require plans to contain certain types of provisions related to emissions monitoring and reporting, as prescribed by the Administrator. Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart K, “Source Surveillance,” requires a SIP to provide for monitoring the status of compliance with the regulations in it, including “legally enforceable procedures” for recordkeeping and reporting. See 40 CFR 51.211. Such recordkeeping and reporting must include “[i]nformation on the nature and amount of emissions from the stationary sources” and “[o]ther information as may be necessary to enable the state to determine whether the sources are in compliance with the applicable portions of the control strategy.” Id. Furthermore, 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions, states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs must contain: “(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels;” and “(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.”

    In support of its proposed SIP revision, TDEC explains in its September 25, 2013, submittal that it considers the existing quarterly reporting requirement to be outdated in light of more recently enacted federal regulations requiring less frequent reporting. TDEC specifically points to EPA's 1999 rulemaking that reduced the required reporting frequency under the General Provisions for 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and 63 from quarterly to semi-annually. See “Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden Reduction,” 64 FR 7458 (February 12, 1999). In addition, TDEC notes that major sources are now subject to title V operating permit program reporting requirements, which TDEC contends makes TDEC's quarterly reporting requirement unnecessary for title V sources. In particular, TDEC explains that the title V program requires sources to submit a report identifying all deviations from permit requirements every six months, and to submit an annual compliance certification. TDEC explains that the current quarterly reporting requirement in Tennessee's SIP prevents Tennessee sources from availing themselves of the less burdensome reporting requirements under more recently enacted federal regulations. Furthermore, TDEC contends that eliminating the quarterly reporting requirement will have no impact on the emissions of any air pollutant.

    1. Impact of the Proposed SIP Revision on Reporting Obligations for Major Sources

    Even if EPA approves Tennessee's request to remove the reporting requirements at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.04(2) from Tennessee's SIP, major sources will continue to be subject to the title V reporting requirements, as well as other emissions reporting requirements in Tennessee's SIP. Regarding title V reporting requirements, Tennessee has an EPA-approved title V operating permits program and TDEC is the permitting authority. See “Clean Air Act Final Full Approval of Operating Permit Programs; Tennessee and Memphis-Shelby County,” 66 FR 56996 (November 14, 2001). As TDEC notes, title V requires sources to submit reports of any required monitoring at least every six months. See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). All instances of deviations from permit requirements, including excess emissions during SSM events, must be clearly identified in such reports. Id. TDEC adopted this requirement into its federally approved title V operating permits program at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)I. In addition, emissions during SSM events that exceed applicable emission limits must be taken into account in the annual compliance certification required by the title V program. See 40 CFR 70.6(c)(5) and TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)3(v).

    The title V operating permits program also requires “[p]rompt reporting of deviations from permit requirements, including those attributable to upset conditions as defined in the permit, the probable cause of such deviations, and any corrective actions or preventative measures taken.” See 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). The permitting authority is to define “prompt” in relation to the degree and type of deviation likely to occur and the applicable requirements. Id. Since individual permitting authorities are responsible for having programs to attain and/or maintain air quality within their geographical boundaries, they are obligated under the title V operating permits program to determine, among other things, what constitutes a prompt notification of a deviation from permit requirements. TDEC incorporates this prompt reporting requirement into its major source operating program at TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)II, which defines “prompt reporting” by reference to TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.03 (generally requiring reporting “within 24 hours”).

    In addition to the title V reporting requirements, Tennessee's SIP authorizes the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board's Technical Secretary to require enhanced reporting as needed to verify that a “major stationary source” is operating in compliance with applicable requirements. See TAPCR Chapter 1200-3-10-.04(2) (“The Technical Secretary is authorized to require by permit condition any periodic or enhanced monitoring, recording and reporting that he deems necessary for the verification of the source's compliance with the applicable requirements as defined in 1200-3-9-.02(11).”). Likewise, Tennessee's SIP at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-10-.02, “Monitoring of Source Emissions, Recording, Reporting of the Same are Required,” at paragraph (1)(a) states: “The Technical Secretary may require the owner or operator of any air contaminant source discharging air contaminants . . . to . . . make periodic emission reports as required in paragraph (2).” Paragraph (2)(a) clarifies that “[r]ecords and reports as the Technical Secretary shall prescribe,” must be collected and submitted. Finally, TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.08, “Special Reports Required,” states that the Technical Secretary “may require any air contaminant source to submit a report within thirty (30) days after the end of each calendar quarter” containing dates and details of any SSM events and resultant emissions in excess of applicable limitations. Thus, the SIP contains provisions that allow TDEC to collect more frequent quarterly reports similar to those in TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2) when deemed necessary to determine a source's compliance with applicable requirements. It is also important to note that TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(1) remains in effect, requiring sources to collect and maintain records regarding SSM events and resultant excess emissions.

    With respect to TDEC's request to remove the requirement in TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.04(2) that sources located in or impacting nonattainment areas report total emissions (if such reports are not otherwise required), EPA notes that other federal reporting requirements would ensure that similar emissions information is reported on a regular basis. Specifically, EPA's Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR), set forth at Subpart A to 40 CFR part 51, specify that the state must submit triennial reports of annual (12-month) emissions for all sources and every-year reports of annual emissions of criteria air pollutants and their precursors for all major sources as well as annual emissions reporting from certain larger sources, as outlined in Appendix A to Subpart A. While the reporting requirement that TDEC proposes to remove from its SIP applies only to sources located in or impacting nonattainment areas, the AERR applies to all major sources located in all areas, regardless of attainment status. Specifically, under the AERR, if a source is considered a major source under 40 CFR part 70 for one criteria air pollutant or precursor pollutant, then the state must report all emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors for that source. TDEC implements the AERR by collecting reports of annual emissions from sources in June of each year, depending on whether the triennial or annual report applies, and then compiling and submitting the information to EPA's emissions inventory system. On its Web site, TDEC outlines the thresholds, timeframes, and structure of these emissions reports, citing the AERR and a statute at Tennessee Code Annotated Section 68-201-105(b)(2), which gives the Division of Air Pollution Control the authority to “[r]equire that any person furnish the department information required by it in discharge of its duties under this part, if the department has reason to believe such person is, or may be about to, causing or contributing to air pollution.” See https://tn.gov/environment/article/apc-emissions-inventory-reporting-requirements. TDEC also informs sources at this web address that failure to submit the reports by the applicable deadline may result in enforcement pursuant to this statute. See also SIP Rule TAPCR 1200-3-10-.02(1)(a) (authorizing the Technical Secretary to require submittal of periodic emissions reports).

    2. Impact of the Proposed SIP Revision on Reporting Obligations for Minor Sources

    There are two types of minor sources of air pollution: “true minors” and “synthetic minors.” “Synthetic minors” are sources that restrain their “potential to emit” to a level that is below the major source applicability threshold through the use of emissions control, restriction on hours of operation, or other means. See SIP Rule TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a) (authorizing a source to opt out of major source requirements by taking an enforceable limit on its potential to emit). See also SIP Rule TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(b)(5) (defining “potential to emit”). “True minors” are sources for which potential emissions are below the major source thresholds, even assuming no emission controls and unlimited hours of operation. See SIP Rule TAPCR 1200-3-9-.01(b)(5). If EPA finalizes approval of the proposed SIP revision, the effects will be different for these different types of minor sources.

    Synthetic minor sources, in accordance with TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a), are subject to an enforceable limit restricting potential to emit and must implement “detailed monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping requirements that prove the source is abiding by its more restrictive emission and/or production limits.” EPA approved Tennessee's request to incorporate TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a) into the Tennessee SIP on February 13, 1997. 62 FR 6724. Accordingly, Tennessee's synthetic minor emission limits are federally enforceable. Id. In practice 1 , TDEC's synthetic minor permits require (1) prompt reporting of any non-compliance with permit conditions designed to restrict “potential to emit” below the major source level (the “synthetic minor limit”), (2) submission of an annual compliance certification supported by records documenting the facility's compliance with its synthetic minor limit, and (3) reporting of excess emissions due to malfunctions in accordance with TAPCR Chapter 1200-3-20-.03. Thus, synthetic minor sources would remain subject to reporting requirements even if EPA approves TDEC's request to remove the reporting requirements in TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.04 from Tennessee's SIP.

    1 Tennessee's “synthetic minor” permits are classified as “conditional major” permits, and can be found along with compliance reports and notices of violation in the public database at the following Web site: https://tdec.tn.gov/tdec_online/Home.aspx. TAPCR 1200-3-9-.02(11)(a) also requires that these types of permits are made available for public comment and hearing.

    Due to their relatively small amount of emissions, true minor sources are subject to significantly fewer emissions-related reporting obligations than major or synthetic minor sources. There is no general federal requirement for true minor sources to directly report their emissions to the state or to EPA. However, the CAA and federal regulations do require source-specific emissions reporting for true minor sources under certain circumstances. Specifically, for areas designated as marginal-or-above nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS, any source emitting 25 tons per year or more of nitrogen oxides (NOX) or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (both precursors to ozone formation) must report total emissions annually in accordance with the emissions statement requirement of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA approved Tennessee's regulation at TAPCR 1200-3-18-.02(8) into the SIP to satisfy the emissions statement reporting requirement for the 2008 ozone NAAQS on March 5, 2015. See 80 FR 11887.

    Emissions from true minor sources also are captured to some extent by the AERR. Specifically, under the AERR, Tennessee must compile minor source emissions data and periodically submit that data to EPA for inclusion in the EPA's National Emissions Inventory. The rule requires triennial reports of VOC emissions in “serious,” “severe,” and “extreme” ozone nonattainment areas for sources that emit greater than or equal to 50 tons per year, 25 tons per year and 10 tons per year, respectively. See Appendix A to 40 CFR 51, Subpart A. The AERR also provides for reporting of emissions of particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10) that are greater than or equal to 70 tons per year in any area designated as “serious” nonattainment for PM10. Id. In addition, the AERR provides for reporting of lead emissions greater than or equal to 0.5 tons per year, regardless of an area's attainment status with respect to the lead NAAQS. Id. Other than under these specific circumstances, the AERR instructs states to treat minor sources as “nonpoint sources” in the triennial emissions inventories (see 40 CFR 51.20), meaning that the emissions inventories “collectively represent individual sources that have not been inventoried as specific point or mobile sources,” 40 CFR 51.50. The AERR goes on to explain: “These individual sources treated collectively as nonpoint sources are typically too small, numerous, or difficult to inventory using the methods for the other classes of sources.” Id. Accordingly, these nonpoint sources are generally estimated and aggregated within source classification codes on a county-level resolution rather than individual source emissions, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.20(d).

    Subsequent to the September 25, 2013, submittal, TDEC submitted a memorandum that addressed true minor sources. In that memorandum, Tennessee highlighted the Technical Secretary's authority under 1200-3-10-.02(1)(a) to collect reports from “any air contaminant source.” TDEC notes that if there were a reason to think a true minor source was impacting air quality standards, the Division of Air Pollution Control could collect these reports of emissions. This memorandum is included in the Docket for today's proposed action.

    3. EPA's Evaluation the Effect of the Requested SIP Revision on TDEC's Ability To Determine Whether Sources are Operating in Compliance With the SIP

    In light of the combination of federal reporting requirements, reporting requirements under Tennessee's SIP, and Tennessee's authority to request additional information on source emissions when necessary, EPA proposes to find that Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision would not impair Tennessee's ability to determine the nature and amount of emissions from both major and minor sources and whether such sources are operating in compliance with Tennessee's SIP. Accordingly, EPA's proposed approval of Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with the minimum SIP requirements pertaining to enforceability and emissions reporting, including the “Source Surveillance” requirements specified at 40 CFR 51.211.

    C. Section 110(l) and Section 193 Relaxation Considerations

    As discussed above, before the removal of this paragraph, sources were required to report excess emissions during SSM events, as well as total emissions, each calendar quarter. If this provision is removed from the SIP, the requisite reporting from major sources and synthetic minor sources generally will be less frequent, and emissions from true minor sources generally will be accounted for only in aggregate for periodic AERR reporting from the state (unless TDEC exercises its authority to request submittal of additional emissions information). The effect of less frequent, or less overall required reporting constitutes a potential SIP relaxation. Section 110(l) of the Act provides that “the Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable requirement of this Act.” Accordingly, if provisions are removed from the federally approved SIP, states must provide a noninterference demonstration pursuant to section 110(l) of the Act.

    Additionally, section 193 of the Act, the general savings clause, states: “No control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an order, settlement agreement, or plan in effect before the date of the enactment of the [CAA] Amendments of 1990 in any area which is a nonattainment area for any air pollutant may be modified . . . unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.” Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision would revise a regulation that was approved into Tennessee's SIP in 1980 and that impacts requirements applicable to sources located in or having a significant impact on air quality in a nonattainment area. See 45 FR 8004 (February 6, 1980). Therefore, section 193 must be addressed to insure that no controls in a nonattainment area are removed or modified from the SIP without equivalent or greater emission reductions.

    Tennessee originally provided a brief section 110(l) and section 193 analysis in the response to public comments section of the final September 25, 2013, submittal to account for the relaxation of emissions reporting requirements. Subsequently, on July 16, 2015, Tennessee provided EPA with a clarifying memorandum that expanded the State's explanation for the rule change and why the revision would not impact air quality. This memorandum is available in the Docket for today's proposed action. In the final September 25, 2013, submittal and in the July 16, 2015, memorandum, Tennessee declares that the proposed SIP revision will have no effect on any applicable requirement concerning attainment, and reasonable further progress toward attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, thereby addressing section 110(l) of the Act. Tennessee further contends that the proposed SIP revision is consistent with section 193 of the Act because it does not address any emissions reduction or emissions control requirement and will have no effect on the emissions of any air pollutant.

    EPA preliminarily concludes that removal of the quarterly reporting requirement at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.04 from Tennessee's SIP will not result in an increase in emissions of any air pollutant and therefore will not impact attainment, reasonable further progress toward attainment, or maintenance of the NAAQS. While the proposed SIP revision reduces emissions reporting obligations, SIP emission limits remain unchanged. Furthermore, as discussed above, the array of reporting requirements that will remain in effect, including title V reporting requirements, SIP reporting requirements, emissions reporting required by the State pursuant to the AERR, and additional reporting as the State deems necessary, will provide Tennessee with sufficient information to ensure that sources operate in compliance with applicable emission limits. Therefore, EPA is proposing to find that Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision is consistent with the requirements of both sections 110(l) and 193 of the Act.

    D. SSM SIP Call Considerations

    In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove revisions to any existing emission limitations that apply during SSM events. EPA notes that on June 12, 2015, the Agency published a formal finding that a number of states have SIPs with SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance. See 80 FR 33840. Accordingly, EPA issued a formal “SIP call” requiring the affected states to make a SIP submission to correct the deficient SSM regulations. Id. In that final action, EPA determined that TAPCR Chapter 1200-3-20 has provisions that are contrary to the CAA, specifically paragraph (1) of Rule 1200-3-20-.07, “Report Required upon the Issuance of Notice of Violation.” As today's proposed action only deals with the deletion of a separate reporting requirement which is reasonably covered by other requirements, and does not impact the provision of the Tennessee Rule implicated in the SSM SIP call, this proposed action does not contradict the finding of inadequacy regarding Tennessee's Rule 1200-3-20-.07(1).

    II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference the TDEC Rule 1200-3-20-.04, entitled “Logs and Reports,” effective June 19, 2013, which removed a quarterly reporting requirement for total emissions and for excess emissions during SSM. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the Region 4 office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

    III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the September 25, 2013, Tennessee SIP revision consisting of removing and reserving paragraph (2) of Rule 1200-3-20-.04, “Logs and Reports” because it is consistent with the CAA and federal regulations governing SIPs.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17715 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0389; FRL-9949-66-Region 2] Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; NJ; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide, 2011 Carbon Monoxide, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS: Interstate Transport Provisions AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove elements of New Jersey's State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), 2011 Carbon Monoxide (CO), 2006 Particulate Matter of ten microns or less (PM10), and 2012 Particulate Matter of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that the structural components of each state's air quality management program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements relating to interstate transport provisions concerning the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) regulations, and visibility protection.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2016-0389 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kenneth Fradkin, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3702, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background II. EPA's Review III. What action is EPA taking? IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background

    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific requirements that states must meet in these SIP submissions, as applicable. The EPA refers to this type of SIP submission as the “infrastructure” SIP because the SIP ensures that states can implement, maintain and enforce the air standards. Within these requirements, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains requirements to address interstate transport of NAAQS pollutants. A SIP revision submitted for this sub-section is referred to as an “interstate transport SIP.” Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains two subsections: (D)(i)(I) and (D)(i)(II). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from the state that will contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other state (commonly referred to as prong 1), or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (prong 2). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that infrastructure SIPs include provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality (prong 3) and to protect visibility (prong 4) in another state.

    On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008)), EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm.

    On October 15, 2008 (73 FR 66964 (Nov. 12, 2008)), EPA promulgated a new NAAQS, rolling 3-month average NAAQS for lead. The 2008 lead NAAQS is 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter of air (µg/m3) maximum (not-to-be-exceeded). On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010)), EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010)), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for SO2 at a level of 75 ppb, based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations. On December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013)), EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for PM2.5 for the annual standard. The revised standard was set at the level of 12µg/m3 calculated as an annual average, which is averaged over a three year period.

    On September 21, 2006 (71 FR 61144 (Oct. 17, 2006)), EPA retained the primary and secondary 24-hour PM10 standard of 150 µg/m3, not to be exceeded more than once per year on average over a 3-year period. The standard was initially promulgated on June 2, 1987 (52 FR 24634 (July 1, 2006)). The PM10 standard was also retained on December 14, 2012 (78 FR 3086 (Jan. 15, 2013)). On August 31, 2011, EPA retained the existing primary and secondary standards for CO of 9 ppm as an 8-hour average, and 35 ppm as a 1-hour standard average, neither to be exceeded more than once per year. The standards were initially established on April 30, 1971 (36 FR 8186).

    On October 17, 2014 the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) submitted a revision to its SIP to address requirements under section 110(a)(2) of the CAA (the infrastructure requirements) related to the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Although not specifically required by 110(a)(1) since neither NAAQS was new or revised1 , the SIP revision also included infrastructure requirements for the 2006 PM10 and 2011 CO NAAQS.

    1 EPA notes that, when promulgated, the 2006 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and the 2011 primary CO NAAQS were neither “new” nor “revised” NAAQS—they merely retained, without revision, prior NAAQS for those pollutants. Accordingly, promulgation of these NAAQS did not trigger a new obligation for New Jersey to make infrastructure SIP submissions.

    The submittal addressed all four prongs of the interstate transport requirements. On March 30, 2016, New Jersey withdrew the portion of their submittal addressing 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS. EPA subsequently issued a Finding of Failure to Submit to New Jersey.2

    2 81 FR 38963 (June 15, 2016).

    This proposed action pertains only to the portion of the SIP submittal addressing section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)(prongs 3 and 4). EPA will address the other portions of the October 17, 2014 infrastructure SIP submittal in a separate action.

    II. EPA's Review

    Under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) SIPs are required to have provisions prohibiting emissions that would interfere with measures required to be in another state's SIP under part C of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality.

    New Jersey's SIP is not approved with respect to the PSD permit program required by Part C of the CAA. As a result, EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 have been incorporated into New Jersey's applicable state plan. New Jersey has been delegated authority by EPA to implement 40 CFR 52.21. Although New Jersey has been successfully implementing the program, a state's infrastructure SIP submittal cannot be considered for approvability with respect to prong 3 until EPA has issued final approval of that state's PSD SIP, or, alternatively, has issued final approval of a SIP that EPA has otherwise found adequate to prohibit interference with other state's measures to prevent significant deterioration of air quality. Therefore, we are proposing to disapprove New Jersey's 110(a) submissions for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS for prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because New Jersey is currently subject to a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) and does not have a PSD SIP. This disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or additional FIP obligation, since the FIP is already in place. This action will have no discernible effect on the current implementation of the PSD program in New Jersey, as the State is already implementing a well-established PSD program through EPA delegation.

    In this action, EPA is proposing that, for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, New Jersey satisfies the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (prong 4). New Jersey addresses visibility protection requirements for the 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS through its Regional Haze SIP. EPA approved New Jersey's Regional Haze SIP submittal (77 FR 19 (Jan. 3, 2012)) as part of New Jersey's SIP. The regional haze rule requires that a state participating in a regional planning process include all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.

    In EPA's approval of New Jersey's Regional Haze Plan, EPA has determined that the plan contains emission reductions needed to achieve New Jersey's share of emission reductions that were determined to be reasonable through the regional planning process. Further, New Jersey's Regional Haze Plan ensures that emissions from the State will not interfere with the Reasonable Progress Goals for neighboring States' Class I areas.

    Thus, New Jersey's approved Regional Haze SIP ensures that emissions from sources within the State are not interfering with measures to protect visibility in other states.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove the portion of the October 17, 2014 New Jersey SIP submittal for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS pertaining to prong 3 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) regarding interstate transport of air pollution to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality in other states due to the State's lack of a state adopted PSD program. However, the disapproval will not trigger any sanctions or an additional FIP obligation since a PSD FIP is already in place.

    EPA is proposing approval of the portion of the October 17, 2014 New Jersey SIP submittal for 2008 Lead, 2008 Ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 2011 CO, 2006 PM10, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS pertaining to the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirement for visibility (or prong 4).

    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal. These comments will be considered before EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by following the directions in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    • Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 (Public Law 104-4);

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

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

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

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

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

    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175, because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17710 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 144 Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Notices COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), that a briefing meeting of the Montana Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 1 p.m. (MDT) on Monday, August 29, 2016, at the Al Bedoo Shrine Auditorium, 1125 Broadwater Avenue, Billings, MT 59102. The purpose of the briefing meeting is to gather information from federal and tribal government officials and others regarding bordertown discrimination in Montana. Briefing topics will include discrimination that impacts Native Americans in the areas of education, employment, services, public accommodations, law enforcement, and the legal.

    Persons who plan to attend the meeting and require other accommodations, please contact Evelyn Bohor at [email protected] at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

    Time will be set aside at the end of the briefing so that members of the public may address the Committee after the formal presentations have been completed. Persons interested in the issue are also invited to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office by Thursday, September 29, 2016. Written comments may be mailed to the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1961 Stout Street, Suite 13-201, Denver, CO 80294, faxed to (303) 866-1050, or emailed to Evelyn Bohor at [email protected]. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at (303) 866-1040.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=259 and clicking on the “Meeting Details” and “Documents” links. Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Rocky Mountain Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this advisory committee are advised to go to the Commission's Web site, www.usccr.gov, or to contact the Rocky Mountain Regional Office at the above phone number, email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions
    Norma Bixby, Chair, Montana Advisory Committee Malee V. Craft, Regional Director, RMRO-USCCR, Denver, CO Briefing Montana Advisory Committee Government and Tribal Officials, Advocates, Experts DATES:

    Monday, August 29, 2016 (MDT).

    ADDRESSES:

    Al Bedoo Shrine Auditorium, 1125 Broadwater Avenue, Billings, MT 59102.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Malee Craft at [email protected], or 303-866-1040.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17749 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Indiana Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Indiana Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Thursday, August 25, 2016, from 11 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT. The Committee will discuss findings and recommendations regarding school discipline policies and practices which may facilitate disparities in juvenile justice involvement and youth incarceration rates on the basis of race, color, disability, or sex, in what has become known as the “School to Prison Pipeline,” in preparation to issue a report to the Commission on the topic.

    This meeting is open to the public vial the following toll free call in number 888-397-5354 conference ID 2312476. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are invited to make statements during the designated open comment period. In addition, members of the public may submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Regional Programs Unit, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (312) 353-8311.

    Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing prior to and following the meeting at https://database.faca.gov/committee/meetings.aspx?cid=247 and following the links for “Meeting Details” and then “Documents.” Records generated from this meeting may also be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Unit at the above email or street address.

    Agenda
    1. Welcome and Roll Call 2. Findings and Recommendations: “Civil Rights and the School to Prison Pipeline in Indiana” 3. Open Comment 4. Adjournment Public Call Information Dial: 888-397-5354 Conference ID: 2312476 DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday August 25, 2016, from 11 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at 312-353-8311 or [email protected].

    Dated: July 21, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17684 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS Notice of Public Meeting of the Michigan Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act that the Michigan Advisory Committee (Committee) will hold a meeting on Wednesday, August 10, 2016, at 10 a.m. EDT for the purpose of discussing civil rights topics emerging from testimony regarding civil asset forfeiture practices in the state.

    Members of the public can listen to the discussion. This meeting is available to the public through the following toll-free call-in number: 888-428-9496, conference ID: 5429444. Any interested member of the public may call this number and listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. The conference call operator will ask callers to identify themselves, the organization they are affiliated with (if any), and an email address prior to placing callers into the conference room. Callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Persons with hearing impairments may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-977-8339 and providing the Service with the conference call number and conference ID number.

    Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be mailed to the Midwestern Regional Office, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 55 W. Monroe St., Suite 410, Chicago, IL 60615. They may also be faxed to the Commission at (312) 353-8324, or emailed to Carolyn Allen at [email protected] Persons who desire additional information may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at (312) 353-8311.

    Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Midwestern Regional Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via www.facadatabase.gov under the Commission on Civil Rights, Michigan Advisory Committee link. Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's Web site, http://www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Midwestern Regional Office at the above email or street address.

    Agenda Welcome and Introductions Discussion of civil asset forfeiture testimony in Michigan Public Comment Future Plans and Actions Adjournment Public Call Information Dial: 888-428-9496 Conference ID: 5429444
    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2016, at 10 a.m. EDT.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Carolyn Allen at [email protected] or 312-353-8311.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. David Mussatt, Chief, Regional Programs Unit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17685 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Telecommunications and Information Administration Community Broadband Summit AGENCY:

    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of open meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), through the BroadbandUSA program, will hold a regional broadband summit, “Big Sky Broadband Workshop,” to share information to help communities build their broadband capacity and utilization. The summit will present best practices and lessons learned from broadband network infrastructure build-outs and digital inclusion programs from Montana and surrounding states, including projects that NTIA awarded through its Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) and State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant programs and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.1 The summit will also explore effective business and partnership models and will include access to regional policymakers, federal funders, and industry providers.

    1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law 11-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).

    DATES:

    The Big Sky Broadband Workshop will be held on August 31, 2016, from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., and September 1, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in Montana at the Hilton Garden Inn, 3720 N. Reserve St., Missoula, MT 59808.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barbara Brown, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Room 4628, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 280-8260; email: [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NTIA's Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482-7002; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NTIA's BroadbandUSA program provides expert advice and field-proven tools for assessing broadband adoption, planning new infrastructure, and engaging a wide range of partners in broadband projects. BroadbandUSA convenes workshops on a regular basis to bring stakeholders together to discuss ways to improve broadband policies, share best practices, and connect communities to other federal agencies and funding sources for the purpose of expanding broadband infrastructure and adoption throughout America's communities.

    The Big Sky Broadband Workshop features subject matter experts from NTIA's BroadbandUSA initiative and will include NTIA presentations that discuss lessons learned through the implementation of the BTOP and SBI grants. A panel will explore key elements required for successful broadband projects using a mix of regional examples. Topics will include marketing and demand aggregation, outreach, coordinating with government agencies, partnership strategies, construction, and oversight. A second panel will explore why broadband matters in comprehensive community planning and will provide real-world examples about how broadband applications help communities improve economic development, workforce development and education opportunities. A third panel will examine business model options, including private networks, public/private partnerships, co-ops, and municipal systems. Panelists will provide tips to communities on how to research funding options, make a compelling case to funders, and leverage multiple federal and state and non-profit funding streams.

    The summit will be open to the public and press. Pre-registration is requested, and space is limited. Portions of the meeting will be webcast. Information on how to pre-register for the meeting and how to access the free, live webcast will be available on NTIA's Web site: https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/bigskybroadbandworkshop. NTIA will ask registrants to provide their first and last names and email addresses for both registration purposes and to receive any updates on the summit. If capacity for the meeting is reached, NTIA will maintain a waiting list and will inform those on the waiting list if space becomes available. Meeting updates, changes in the agenda, if any, and relevant documents will be also available on NTIA's Web site at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/other-publication/2016/bigskybroadbandworkshop.

    The public meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Individuals requiring accommodations, such as language interpretation or other ancillary aids, are asked to notify Barbara Brown at the contact information listed above at least five (5) business days before the meeting.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Kathy D. Smith, Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17734 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-60-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a service to the Procurement List that will be provided by the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patricia Briscoe, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additions

    On 4/8/2016 (81 FR 20624-20625), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will provide the service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to provide the service to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following service is added to the Procurement List:

    Service Service Type: Administrative and Contact Center Service Mandatory for: US Air Force, Total Force Service Center-San Antonio (TFSC-SA), Air Force Personnel Center, Joint Base San Antonio (JBSA) Randolph, JBSA Randolph, TX Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries of San Antonio Contract Services, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA3002 338 SCONS CC, Randolph AFB, TX
    Patricia Briscoe, Deputy Director, Business Operations (Pricing and Information Management).
    [FR Doc. 2016-17792 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0080] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-130, notice is hereby given that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) proposes to alter a system of records, DMDC 02 DoD, entitled “Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS)” last published at 80 FR 68304, November 4, 2015.

    The system of records exists to: Record the issuance of Department of Defense (DoD) badges and identification cards; authenticate and identify DoD affiliated personnel; grant physical and logical access to DoD facilities; determine eligibility for DoD entitlements and privileges; support DoD health care management programs; assess manpower, support personnel and readiness functions; and provide appropriate contact information of DoD personnel and beneficiaries for the purpose of conducting surveys authorized by the DoD.

    This alteration adds a routine use enabling information from the system of records to be disclosed to national consumer reporting agencies to ensure eligible Service members are afforded protections under the Military Lending Act (MLA) in accordance with 32 CFR 232, Limitations on Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Service Members and Dependents. In addition, the following Department of Defense (DoD) blanket routine have been applied to this system: Law Enforcement, Disclosure When Requesting Information, Congressional Inquiries Disclosure, Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management, Disclosure of information to the National Archives and Records Administration, and Data Breach Remediation Purposes. This alteration also reflects administrative changes to the categories of individuals, authorities, and storage sections of the systems of the system of records notice.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before August 26, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the day following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed system report, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, was submitted on July 6, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DMDC 02 DoD System name:

    Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting Systems (DEERS) (November 4, 2015, 80 FR 68304).

    Changes: Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Members, former members, retirees, civilian employees (includes non-appropriated fund) and contractor employees of the DoD and all of the Uniformed Services; Presidential appointees of all Federal Government agencies; Medal of Honor recipients; U.S. Military Academy students; DoD and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) beneficiaries (e.g. dependent family members, legal guardians and other protectors, prior military eligible for DVA benefits, beneficiaries of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI)/Family SGLI (FSGLI)) non-Federal agency civilian associates and other individuals granted DoD privileges, benefits, or physical or logical access to military installations (e.g., American Red Cross paid employees, United Service Organization (USO), Intergovernmental Personnel Act Employees (IPA), Boy and Girl Scout Professionals, non-DoD contract employees); members of the public treated for a medical emergency in a DoD or joint DoD/DVA medical facility; and individuals requiring a Common Access Card to access DoD IT applications (i.e., Department of Homeland Security employees, state National Guard Employees, and Affiliated Volunteers).”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “5 U.S.C. App. 3, Inspector General Act of 1978; 5 U.S.C. Chapter 90, Long-Term Care Insurance; 10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Miscellaneous Rights and Benefits; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 54, Commissary and Exchange Benefits; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 58, Benefits and Services for Members being Separated or Recently Separated; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 75, Deceased Personnel; 10 U.S.C. 2358, Research and Development Projects; 10 U.S.C. Chapter 49 Section 987, Terms of Consumer Credit Extended to Members and Dependents: Limitations; 20 U.S.C. 1070a (f)(4), Higher Education Opportunity Act; 31 U.S.C. 3512(c), Executive Agency Accounting and Other Financial Management Reports and Plans; 42 U.S.C. 18001 note, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Pub. L. 111-148); 52 U.S.C. 20301, Federal Responsibilities; 50 U.S.C. Chapter 23, Internal Security; 50 U.S.C. 501, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act; 38 CFR part 9.20, Traumatic injury protection; 38 U.S.C. Chapter 19, Subchapter III, Service members' Group Life Insurance; DoD Directive 1000.04, Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP); DoD Directive 1000.25, DoD Personnel Identity Protection (PIP) Program; DoD Instruction 1015.09, Professional U.S. Scouting Organization Operations at U.S. Military Installations Overseas; DoD Instruction 1100.13, DoD Surveys; DoD Instruction 1241.03, TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) Program; DoD Instruction 1241.04, TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) Program; DoD Instruction 1336.05, Automated Extract of Active Duty Military Personnel Records; DoD Instruction 1341.2, Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) Procedures; DoD Instruction 3001.02, Personnel Accountability in Conjunction with Natural or Manmade Disasters; Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors; DoD Instruction 7730.54, Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System (RCCPDS); and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    1. To Federal agencies and/or their contractors, the Transportation Security Administration and other federal transportation agencies, for purposes of authenticating the identity of individuals who, incident to the conduct of official business, present the Common Access Card or other valid identification as proof of identity to gain physical or logical access to government and contractor facilities, locations, networks, systems, or programs.

    2. To Federal and State agencies to validate demographic data (e.g., SSN, citizenship status, date and place of birth, etc.) for individuals in DMDC personnel and pay files so that accurate information is available in support of DoD requirements.

    3. To the Social Security Administration for the purpose of verifying an individual's identity.

    4. To the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA):

    a. To provide uniformed service personnel (pay, wounded, ill, and injured) identification data for present and former uniformed service personnel for the purpose of evaluating use of veterans' benefits, validating benefit eligibility and maintaining the health and well-being of veterans and their family members.

    b. To provide identifying uniformed service personnel data to the DVA and its insurance program contractor for the purpose of conducting outreach and administration of benefits to qualified Servicemembers, Veterans and their dependents (38 U.S.C. 1977), notifying separating eligible Reservists of their right to apply for Veteran's Group Life Insurance coverage under the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 1996 (38 U.S.C. 1968) and for DVA to administer the Traumatic Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) (Traumatic Injury Protection Rider to Servicemember's Group Life Insurance (TSGLI), 38 CFR part 9.20).

    c. To register eligible veterans and their dependents for DVA programs.

    d. To provide former uniformed service personnel and survivor's financial benefit data to DVA for the purpose of identifying retired pay and survivor benefit payments for use in the administration of the DVA's Compensation and Pension Program (38 U.S.C. 5106). The information is to be used to process all DVA award actions more efficiently, reduce subsequent overpayment collection actions, and minimize erroneous payments.

    e. To provide identifying uniformed service personnel data to the DVA for the purpose of notifying such personnel of information relating to educational assistance as required by the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998 (38 U.S.C. 3011 and 3034).

    f. Providing to the Veterans Benefits Administration, DVA uniformed service personnel and financial data for the purpose of determining initial eligibility and any changes in eligibility status to insure proper payment of benefits for GI Bill education and training benefits by the DVA under the Montgomery GI Bill (10 U.S.C. Chapter 1606—Selected Reserve and 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30—Active Duty), the REAP educational benefit (Title 10 U.S.C. Chapter 1607), and the National Call to Service enlistment educational benefit (10 Chapter 510), the Post 9/11 GI Bill (38 U.S.C. Chapter 33) and The Transferability of Education Assistance to Family Members. The administrative responsibilities designated to both agencies by the law require that data be exchanged in administering the programs.

    5. To consumer reporting agencies:

    a. To obtain identity confirmation and current addresses of separated uniformed services personnel to notify them of potential benefits eligibility.

    b. To the national consumer reporting agencies for the purpose of ensuring eligible Service members receive Military Lending Act (MLA) protections in accordance with 32 CFR 232.

    7. To Federal Agencies, to include OPM, United States Postal Service, Executive Office of the President and Administrative Office of the Courts; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Education; Department of Veterans Affairs to conduct computer matching programs regulated by the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. 552a), for the purpose of:

    a. Providing all members of the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces to be matched against the Federal agencies for identifying those Reserve Component Service members that are also Federal civil service employees with eligibility for the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) program. This disclosure by the Federal agencies will provide the DoD with the FEHB program eligibility and Federal employment information necessary to determine initial and continuing eligibility for the TRICARE Reserve Select (TRS) program and the TRICARE Retired Reserve (TRR) program (collectively referred to as purchased TRICARE programs). Reserve Component members who are not eligible for FEHB program are eligible for TRS (section 1076d of title 10) or TRR (section 1076e of title 10).

    b. Providing all members of the Reserve Component of the Armed Forces to be matched against the Federal agencies for the purpose of identifying the Ready Reserve Component Service members who are also employed by the Federal Government in a civilian position, so that reserve status can be terminated if necessary. To accomplish an emergency mobilization, individuals occupying critical civilian positions cannot be mobilized as Reservists.

    c. Providing to the Department of Education for the purpose of identifying dependent children of those Armed Forces members killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom (OIF/OEF), Iraq and Afghanistan Only, for possible benefits.

    d. Providing to the Veterans Benefits Administration, DVA uniformed service data for the purpose of determining eligibility and any changes in eligibility status to insure proper administration of benefits for GI Bill education and training benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (10 U.S.C. Chapter 1606—Selected Reserve and 38 U.S.C. Chapter 30—Active Duty), the Post 9/11 GI Bill (38 U.S.C. Chapter 33).

    e. Providing to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Department of Health and Human Service, for the purpose of identifying DoD eligible beneficiaries both over and under the age of 65 who are Medicare eligible. Current law requires Defense Health Agency to discontinue military health care benefits to Military Heath Services beneficiaries who are Medicare eligible unless they are enrolled in Medicare Part B.

    f. Providing to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Department of Health and Human Services, for the purpose of verifying individual's healthcare eligibility status, in accordance with the Affordable Care Act. Data provided to CMS will be used to make eligibility determinations for insurance affordability programs, administered by Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), the Basic Health Program (BHP) and the American Health Benefit Exchange.

    8. To Federal agencies for the purpose of notifying Servicemember and dependent individuals of payments or other benefits for which they are eligible under actions of the Federal agencies.

    9. To State agencies for the purpose of supporting State Veteran Affairs activities.

    10. To the Department of Labor for unemployment compensation calculations.

    11. To other Federal agencies and state, local and territorial governments to identify fraud and abuse of the Federal agency's programs and to identify debtors and collect debts and overpayment in the DoD health care programs.

    12. To each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia for the purpose of determining the extent to which state Medicaid beneficiaries may be eligible for Uniformed Services health care benefits, including CHAMPUS, TRICARE, and to recover Medicaid monies from the CHAMPUS program.

    13. To State and local child support enforcement agencies for purposes of providing information, consistent with the requirements of 29 U.S.C. 1169(a), 42 U.S.C. 666(a)(19), and E.O. 12953 and in response to a National Medical Support Notice (NMSN) (or equivalent notice if based upon the statutory authority for the NMSN), regarding the military status of identified individuals and whether, and for what period of time, the children of such individuals are or were eligible for DoD health care coverage. NOTE: Information requested by the States is not disclosed when it would contravene U.S. national policy or security interests (42 U.S.C. 653(e)).

    14. To the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

    a. For purposes of providing information, consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 653 and in response to an HHS request, regarding the military status of identified individuals and whether the children of such individuals are or were eligible for DoD healthcare coverage and for what period of time they were eligible. NOTE: Information requested by HHS is not disclosed when it would contravene U.S. national policy or security interests (42 U.S.C. 653(e)).

    b. For purposes of providing information so that specified Medicare determinations, specifically late enrollment and waiver of penalty, can be made for eligible (1) DoD military retirees and (2) spouses (or former spouses) and/or dependents of either military retirees or active duty military personnel, pursuant to section 625 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2002 (as codified at 42 U.S.C. 1395p and 1395r).

    c. To the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Federal Parent Locator Service, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 653 and 653a; to assist in locating individuals for the purpose of establishing parentage; establishing, setting the amount of, modifying, or enforcing child support obligations; or enforcing child custody or visitation orders; the relationship to a child receiving benefits provided by a third party and the name and SSN of those third party providers who have a legal responsibility. Identifying delinquent obligors will allow state child support enforcement agencies to commence wage withholding or other enforcement actions against the obligors.

    d. For purposes of providing information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to account for the impact of DoD healthcare on local reimbursement rates for the Medicare Advantage program as required in 42 CFR 422.306.

    15. To Coast Guard and Public Health Service to complete Individual Mandate Reporting and Employer Mandate reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as required by Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-148) and Sections 6055 and 6056 of the IRS Code.

    16. To Federal and contractor medical personnel at joint DoD/DVA health care clinics, for purposes of authenticating the identity of individuals who are registered as patients at the clinic and maintaining, through the correlation of DoD ID number and Integration Control Number (ICN), a shared population of DoD and DVA beneficiaries who are users of the clinic.

    17. To the American Red Cross for purposes of providing emergency notification and assistance to members of the Armed Forces, retirees, family members or survivors.

    18. To the Office of Disability and Insurance Security Programs, for the purpose of expediting disability processing of wounded military service members and veterans.

    19. To Federally Funded Research Centers and grantees for the purpose of performing research on manpower problems for statistical analyses.

    20. To Defense contractors to monitor the employment of former DoD employees and uniformed service personnel subject to the provisions of 41 U.S.C. 423.

    21. Disclosure of Requested Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to a federal agency, in response to its request, in connection with the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the reporting of an investigation of an employee, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit by the requesting agency, to the extent that the information is relevant and necessary to the requesting agency's decision on the matter.

    22. To Federal and quasi Federal agencies, territorial, state and local governments, and contractors and grantees for the purpose of supporting research studies concerned with the health and well-being of active duty, reserve, and retired uniformed service personnel or veterans, to include family members. DMDC will disclose information from this system of records for research purposes when DMDC:

    a. Has determined that the use or disclosure does not violate legal or policy limitations under which the record was provided, collected, or obtained;

    b. has determined that the research purpose (1) cannot be reasonably accomplished unless the record is provided in individually identifiable form, and (2) warrants the risk to the privacy of the individual that additional exposure of the record might bring;

    c. has required the recipient to (1) establish reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards to prevent unauthorized use or disclosure of the record, and (2) remove or destroy the information that identifies the individual at the earliest time at which removal or destruction can be accomplished consistent with the purpose of the research project, unless the recipient has presented adequate justification of a research or health nature for retaining such information, and (3) make no further use or disclosure of the record except (A) in emergency circumstances affecting the health or safety of any individual, (B) for use in another research project, under these same conditions, and with written authorization of the Department, (C) for disclosure to a properly identified person for the purpose of an audit related to the research project, if information that would enable research subjects to be identified is removed or destroyed at the earliest opportunity consistent with the purpose of the audit, or (D) when required by law;

    d. has secured a written statement attesting to the recipients' understanding of, and willingness to abide by these provisions.

    23. To the Department of Homeland Security for the conduct of studies related to the health and well-being of Coast Guard members and to authenticate and identify Coast Guard personnel.

    24. To Federal and State agencies for purposes of obtaining socioeconomic information on uniformed service personnel so that analytical studies can be conducted with a view to assessing the present needs and future requirements of such personnel.

    25. To the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, for purposes of facilitating the verification of individuals who may be eligible for expedited naturalization (Pub. L. 108-136, Section 1701, and E.O. 13269, Expedited Naturalization).

    26. To Coast Guard recruiters in the performance of their assigned duties.

    27. Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    28. Disclosure When Requesting Information Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to a federal, state, or local agency maintaining civil, criminal, or other relevant enforcement information or other pertinent information, such as current licenses, if necessary to obtain information relevant to a DoD Component decision concerning the hiring or retention of an employee, the issuance of a security clearance, the letting of a contract, or the issuance of a license, grant, or other benefit.

    29. Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    30. Disclosure to the Office of Personnel Management Routine Use: A record from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act and maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning information on pay and leave, benefits, retirement deduction, and any other information necessary for the OPM to carry out its legally authorized government-wide personnel management functions and studies.

    31. Disclosure of information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    32. Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use. A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found Online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx”.

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media.”

    [FR Doc. 2016-17796 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Charter Amendment of Department of Defense Federal Advisory Committees AGENCY:

    Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Amend Federal Advisory Committee charter.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) is publishing this notice to announce it is amending the charter for the Air University Board of Visitors.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This committee's charter is being amended in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.50(d). The amended charter and contact information for the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) can be obtained at http://www.facadatabase.gov/. The DoD is amending the charter for the Air University Board of Visitors (“the Board”) previously announced on page 22066 of the Federal Register, Volume 81, Number 72, dated April 14, 2016. The Board's charter is being amended to include a second permanent subcommittee and associated increases in the Board's estimated annual costs. The new subcommittee, the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) Subcommittee, will provide independent assessments of operations at the CCAF and the impact and effectiveness of policies and procedures. The CCAF Subcommittee shall be composed of no more than 15 members who are experts in air power, defense, management, leadership, and academia. All other aspects of the Board's charter, as previously announced, will apply to the Board.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17777 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This is the final notice that the Department of Defense (DoD), is establishing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This action is pursuant to the authority granted to the DoD by section 591.104 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Cheryl Opere, 571-372-1682.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The DoD is implementing a higher initial maximum uniform allowance to procure and issue uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel. This is being established in accordance with 5 CFR 591.104, which states that an agency may establish one or more initial maximum uniform allowance rates greater than the Governmentwide maximum uniform allowance rate established under 5 CFR 591.103. The current $800.00 limit has become inadequate to maintain the uniform standards and professional image expected of Federal uniformed security guards. The uniform items for uniformed security guard personnel include the following items or similar items such as: Winter gloves; battle dress uniform pants and blouses; cold weather and light weight duty jackets; duty sweaters; dress duty trousers; short sleeve summer and long sleeve winter duty dress shirts; jacket and pants rain gear; felt hats; duty caps; high gloss duty shoes; leather duty boots; duty ties; heavy duty battle dress uniform duty coats; cloth uniform insignia patches and cloth uniform badges. The average total uniform cost for the listed items is $1,800.00. Based on these current costs, the DoD is increasing the initial maximum uniform allowance for uniformed security guards to $1,800.00. The number of DoD uniformed security guard personnel affected by this change would be approximately 3,400 employees.

    On Thursday, April 7, 2016 (81 FR 20375), the DoD published a notice titled “Higher Initial Maximum Uniform Allowance Rate.” The 30-day public comment period ended on May 9, 2016. At the close of the public comment period, no public comments were received. Since no comments were received by the due date, the DoD is proceeding with the establishment of the higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate for uniformed security guard personnel. The effective date of this higher initial maximum uniform allowance rate is July 31, 2016.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17791 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2012-OS-0065] 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 26, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Fred Licari, 571-372-0493.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Confirmation of Request for Reasonable Accommodation; SD Form 827; OMB Control Number 0704-0498.

    Type of Request: Revision.

    Number of Respondents: 20.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 20.

    Average Burden per Response: 15 minutes.

    Annual Burden Hours: 5.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to obtain and record requests for reasonable accommodation, with the intent to measure and ensure Agency compliance with Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112; Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public Law 102-569; Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-325.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.

    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 22, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17780 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Navy Notice of Intent To Grant Partially Exclusive License; 5D Analytics, LLC AGENCY:

    DoD Department of the Navy, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The invention listed below is assigned to the United States Government as represented by the Secretary of the Navy. The Department of the Navy hereby gives notice of its intent to grant to 5D Analytics, LLC, a revocable, nonassignable, partially exclusive license to practice in the United States, for the Full Life Cycle Status Information System (FLCSIS) (Navy Case No. 200,386) government-owned software for resource allocation planning and management. FLCSIS is designed around the Oracle Relational Database System and provides management information regarding acquired assets, their current configurations, projected configuration changes, and asset initialization information.

    DATES:

    Anyone wishing to object to the grant of this license has fifteen (15) days from the date of this notice to file written objections along with supporting evidence, if any.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written objections are to be filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Christopher Monsey, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Div, Code OOL, Bldg 2, 300 Highway 361, Crane, IN 47522-5001, telephone 812-854-4100.

    Authority:

    35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR part 404.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. N.A. Hagerty-Ford, Commander, Judge Advocate General's Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17742 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0052] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2018) Recruitment and Field Test AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0052. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Program for International Student Assessment (PISA 2018) Recruitment and Field Test.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0755.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 14,392.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,775.

    Abstract: The Program for International Student Assessments (PISA) is an international assessment of 15-year-olds which focuses on assessing students' reading, mathematics, and science literacy. PISA was first administered in 2000 and is conducted every three years. The United States has participated in all of the previous cycles, and will participate in 2018 in order to track trends and to compare the performance of U.S. students with that of students in other education systems. PISA 2018 is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, PISA is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education. In each administration of PISA, one of the subject areas (reading, mathematics, or science literacy) is the major domain and has the broadest content coverage, while the other two subjects are the minor domains. PISA emphasizes functional skills that students have acquired as they near the end of mandatory schooling (aged 15 years), and students' knowledge and skills gained both in and out of school environments. PISA 2018 will focus on reading literacy as the major domain. Mathematics and science literacy will also be assessed as minor domains, with additional assessments of global competence and financial literacy. In addition to the cognitive assessments described above, PISA 2018 will include questionnaires administered to assessed students, school principals, and teachers. To prepare for the main study in 2018, NCES will conduct a PISA field test from April-May 2017 to evaluate newly developed assessment and questionnaire items, to test the assessment operations, and to test school recruitment, data collection, and data management procedures. The PISA main study will be conducted in the U.S. from September-November 2018. This submission requests approval for: Recruitment and pre-assessment activities for the 2017 field test sample; administration of the field test; and recruitment of schools for the 2018 main study sample.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17661 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0061] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test AGENCY:

    National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use http://www.regulations.gov by searching the Docket ID number ED-2016-ICCD-0061. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-343, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact NCES Information Collections at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: 2018 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS 2018) Main Study Recruitment and Field Test.

    OMB Control Number: 1850-0888.

    Type of Review: A reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,228.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 1,949.

    Abstract: The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) is an international survey of teachers and principals that focuses on the working conditions of teachers and the teaching and learning practices in schools. TALIS was first administered in 2008 and is conducted every five years. Having participated in 2013 but not in 2008, the United States will administer TALIS for the second time in 2018. TALIS is sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In the United States, TALIS is conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), of the Institute of Education Sciences within the U.S. Department of Education. TALIS 2018 will address teacher training and professional development, teachers' appraisal, school climate, school leadership, teachers' instructional approaches, and teachers' pedagogical practices. In February 2017, TALIS 2018 field test will be conducted to evaluate newly developed teacher and school questionnaire items and test the survey operations. This request is for recruitment and pre-survey activities for the 2017 field test sample, administration of the field test, and recruitment of schools for the 2018 main study sample.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17771 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827; NHTSA-2016-0068; FRL-9949-54-OAR] RIN 2060-AS97; RIN 2127-AL76 Notice of Availability of Midterm Evaluation Draft Technical Assessment Report for Model Year 2022-2025 Light Duty Vehicle GHG Emissions and CAFE Standards AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have established a coordinated National Program for Federal standards for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for light-duty vehicles. As part of that National Program, EPA and NHTSA, along with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have jointly prepared and are requesting comment on a Draft Technical Assessment Report. In the Draft Technical Assessment Report, the agencies examine a wide range of issues relevant to GHG emissions and CAFE standards for model years (MY) 2022-2025, and share with the public their initial technical analyses of those issues. EPA is required to prepare the Draft Technical Assessment Report by its rules which establish the Midterm Evaluation. The draft TAR is the first formal step in the Midterm Evaluation process. NHTSA is participating in the Midterm Evaluation process as part of its de novo rulemaking to establish final CAFE standards for MY 2022-2025. CARB, in its support of the National Program in lieu of a separate California program, committed to participating in the Midterm Evaluation process. The agencies will fully consider public comments received on the Draft Technical Assessment Report as they proceed with the Midterm Evaluation.

    DATES:

    Comments: In order for comments to be most helpful to this ongoing Midterm Evaluation process, the agencies encourage parties wishing to comment on the Draft Technical Assessment Report to submit their comments by September 26, 2016. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more information about the Midterm Evaluation process and the Draft Technical Assessment Report.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827 and/or Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0068, 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 and NHTSA 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 and NHTSA will not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the submission to the official dockets (i.e., located elsewhere on the web, cloud, or in another 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.

    NHTSA also allows comments to be submitted by the following methods:

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

    Hand Delivery: West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Since CARB is a joint author on the Draft Technical Assessment Report, the agencies are requesting that commenters, in addition to submitting comments to the EPA and/or NHTSA docket, also submit their comments directly to CARB at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/comm2/bcsubform.php?listname=drafttar2016-ws.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: EPA: Christopher Lieske, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105; telephone number: 734-214-4584; fax number: 734-214-4816; email address: [email protected] NHTSA: Rebecca Yoon, Office of Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone: (202) 366-2992, email: [email protected]
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Public Participation

    NHTSA and EPA request comment on all aspects of the Draft Technical Assessment Report discussed below. This section describes how you can participate in this process.

    How do I prepare and submit comments?

    For the convenience of all parties, comments submitted to the EPA docket will be considered comments submitted to the NHTSA docket, and vice versa. Therefore, commenters only need to submit comments to either one of the two agency dockets, although they may choose to submit comments to both. Comments that are submitted for consideration by one agency should be identified as such, and comments that are submitted for consideration by both agencies should be identified as such. Absent such identification, each agency will exercise its best judgment to determine whether a comment is directed at its individual work.

    Further instructions for submitting comments to either the EPA or NHTSA docket are described below.

    EPA: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0827. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.1 Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    1 This statement constitutes notice to commenters pursuant to 40 CFR 2.209(c) that EPA will share confidential information received with NHTSA unless commenters specify that they wish to submit their CBI only to EPA and not to both agencies.

    NHTSA: Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket number NHTSA-2016-0068 in your comments. Your comments must not be more than 15 pages long. NHTSA established this limit to encourage you to write your primary comments in a concise fashion. However, you may attach necessary additional documents to your comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments. If you are submitting comments electronically as a PDF (Adobe) file, we ask that the documents submitted be scanned using the Optical Character Recognition (OCR) process, thus allowing the agencies to search and copy certain portions of your submissions. Please note that pursuant to the Data Quality Act, in order for the substantive data to be relied upon and used by the agencies, it must meet the information quality standards set forth in the OMB and Department of Transportation (DOT) Data Quality Act guidelines. Accordingly, we encourage you to consult the guidelines in preparing your comments. OMB's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/reproducible.html. DOT's guidelines may be accessed at http://www.dot.gov/dataquality.htm.

    Tips for Preparing Your Comments

    When submitting comments, remember to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified in the DATES section above.

    How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    NHTSA: If you submit your comments by mail and wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket Management will return the postcard by mail.

    How do I submit confidential business information?

    Any confidential business information (CBI) submitted to one of the agencies will also be available to the other agency. However, as with all public comments, any CBI information only needs to be submitted to either one of the agencies' dockets and it will be available to the other. Following are specific instructions for submitting CBI to either agency.

    EPA: Do not submit CBI to 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 in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

    NHTSA: If you wish to submit any information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, at the address given below under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. When you send a comment containing confidential business information, you should include a cover letter setting forth the information specified in our confidential business information regulation.2

    2 See 49 CFR part 512.

    In addition, you should submit a copy from which you have deleted the claimed confidential business information to the Docket by one of the methods set forth above.

    How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document (e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also read the materials at the EPA Docket Center (details provided at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/epa-docket-center-reading-room) or NHTSA Docket Management Facility by going to the street addresses given above under ADDRESSES.

    B. Overview of the Midterm Evaluation and the Draft Technical Assessment Report

    The EPA and NHTSA have conducted two joint rulemakings to establish a coordinated National Program for stringent Federal CAFE and GHG emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. The agencies finalized the first set of National Program standards covering MYs 2012-2016 in May 2010 3 and the second set of standards, covering MYs 2017-2025 for EPA and final standards for 2017-2021 and augural standards for 2022 to 2025 for NHTSA, in October 2012.4 The National Program establishes standards that increase in stringency year-over-year from MY 2012 through the final years of the program. Through the coordination of the National Program with the California standards, automakers can build one single fleet of vehicles across the U.S. that satisfies all applicable requirements, and consumers can continue to have a full range of vehicle choices that meet their needs. In the 2012 final rule, the agencies projected that the National Program would reach a level by 2025 that nearly doubles fuel economy and cuts GHG emissions in half as compared to MY 2008, and would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution by 6 billion metric tons and oil consumption by 12 billion barrels over the lifetime of MY 2012-2025 vehicles. In addition, the standards are projected to provide significant savings for consumers due to reduced fuel use, and thus reduced expenditures on fuel.

    3 75 FR 25324, May 7, 2010.

    4 77 FR 62624, October 15, 2012.

    The rulemaking establishing the National Program for MY 2017-2025 light-duty vehicles included a regulatory requirement for EPA to conduct a Midterm Evaluation (MTE) of the GHG standards established for MYs 2022-2025.5 The 2012 final rule preamble also states that “[t]he mid-term evaluation reflects the rules' long time frame, and, for NHTSA, the agency's statutory obligation to conduct a de novo rulemaking in order to establish final standards for MYs 2022-2025.” NHTSA will consider information gathered as part of the MTE record, including information submitted through public comments, in the comprehensive de novo rulemaking it must undertake to set CAFE standards for MYs 2022-2025. Through the MTE, EPA will determine no later than April 1, 2018 whether the GHG standards for MYs 2022-2025, established in 2012, are still appropriate, within the meaning of section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, in light of the record then before the Administrator, given the latest available data and information. See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h). EPA's decision could go one of three ways: The standards remain appropriate, the standards should be less stringent, or the standards should be more stringent. In addition, “[i]n order to align the agencies' proceedings for MYs 2022-2025 and to maintain a joint national program, EPA and NHTSA will finalize their actions related to MYs 2022-2025 standard concurrently. If the EPA determination is that the standards may change, the agencies will issue a joint NPRM and joint final rules.” See 77 FR 62628 (October 15, 2012).

    5 See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h).

    The MTE is a collaborative, data-driven, and transparent process that will be a holistic assessment of all of factors considered in standards setting, and the expected impact of those factors on manufacturers' ability to comply, without placing decisive weight on any particular factor or projection. See 77 FR 62784 (October 15, 2012). The MTE analysis is to be as robust and comprehensive as that in the original 2012 final rule. Id. EPA and NHTSA also are closely coordinating with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in conducting the MTE to better ensure the continuation of the National Program. Id. The agencies fully expect to conduct the MTE in close coordination with CARB.

    The Draft TAR is the first formal step in the MTE process and is being issued jointly by EPA, NHTSA, and CARB for public comment. EPA is required to prepare and seek public comment on the Draft TAR.6 The Draft TAR is a technical report, not a decision document. The Draft TAR is an opportunity for all three agencies to share with the public the initial technical analyses of a wide range of issues relevant to the MY 2022-2025 standards. The Draft TAR is a first step in the process that will ultimately inform, for EPA, whether the MY 2022-2025 GHG standards adopted by EPA in 2012 should remain in place or should change, and, for NHTSA, what MY 2022-2025 CAFE standards will be maximum feasible under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007 (49 U.S.C. 32902). The preamble to the 2012 final rule states that “[t]he TAR will examine the same issues and underlying analyses and projections considered in the original rulemaking including technical and other analyses related to each agency's authority to set standards as well as any relevant new issues that may present themselves.” 77 FR 62784 (October 15, 2012).

    6 See 40 CFR 86.1818-12(h)(2)(i).

    The agencies have conducted extensive research and analyses to support the MTE, as discussed throughout the Draft TAR. As part of gathering robust data and information to inform the MTE, the agencies also have conducted extensive outreach with a wide range of stakeholders—including auto manufacturers, automotive suppliers, non-governmental organizations, consumer groups, labor unions, state and local governments, the academic and research communities, and others. Among other things, the Draft TAR presents analyses reflecting this research and information obtained during the agencies' outreach, presents updated assessments of available technologies' effectiveness and costs since the 2012 final rule, and offers an opportunity for public comment on the agencies' analyses thus far. The agencies will fully consider public comments on the Draft TAR as they continue the MTE process.

    The Draft TAR and related materials are available in the public dockets for this action (see ADDRESSES above) and at https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/mte.htm and http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/CAFE+-+Fuel+Economy/ld-cafe-midterm-evaluation-2022-25.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Anthony R. Foxx, Secretary, Department of Transportation. Dated: July 15, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17649 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-ORD-2016-0467; FRL-9949-80-ORD] Board of Scientific Counselors Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee; Notification of Public Meeting and Public Comment AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notification of public meeting and public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC) Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Subcommittee (SSWR) will host a public meeting at the Hyatt Regency in Cincinnati, Ohio, convening on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, August 25, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The focus of the meeting will be on discussing the Safe and Sustainable Water Resources Strategic Research Action Plan's water systems research. There will be a public comment period from 10:45 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. Eastern Time on August 25, 2016.

    For information on registering to attend the meeting or to provide public comment, please see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Pre-registration is required. The deadline to sign up to speak during the public comment period closes August 19, 2016. The deadline to submit written public comment is August 22, 2016.

    DATES:

    The BOSC SSWR meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 24, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and Thursday, August 25, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. All times noted are Eastern Time and are approximate.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions or correspondence concerning the meeting should be directed to Tom Tracy, Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, by mail at 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, by telephone at 202-564-6518; fax at 202-565-2911; or via email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Charter of the BOSC states that the advisory committee shall provide independent advice to the Administrator on technical and management aspects of the ORD's research program. Additional information about the BOSC is available at: http://www2.epa.gov/bosc.

    Registration: In order to attend the meeting you must register at the following site: http://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-bosc-safe-and-sustainable-water-resources-subcommittee-tickets-26329523313. Once you have completed the online registration, you will be contacted and provided with the meeting information and ticket.

    Oral Statements: Members of the public who wish to provide oral comment during the meeting must preregister. Individuals or groups making remarks during the public comment period will be limited to five (5) minutes. To accommodate the number of people who want to address the BOSC SSWR Subcommittee, only one representative of a particular community, organization, or group will be allowed to speak.

    Written Statements: Written comments for the public meeting must be received by Monday, August 22, 2016, and will be included in the materials distributed to the BOSC SSWR Subcommittee prior to the meeting. Written comments should be sent to Tom Tracy, Environmental Protection Agency, via email at [email protected] or by mail to 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., (MC 8104 R), Washington, DC 20460, or submitted through regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2015-0467. Members of the public should be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any written comments, may be posted online at regulations.gov.

    Information about Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information about access or services for individuals with disabilities, please contact Tom Tracy, at 202-564-6518 or via email at [email protected] To request special accommodations, please contact Tom Tracy no later than August 19, 2016, to give the Environmental Protection Agency sufficient time to process your request. All requests should be sent to the address, email, or phone number listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section above.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Fred S. Hauchman, Director, Office of Science Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17788 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-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 St. Louis (David L. Hubbard, Senior Manager) P.O. Box 442, St. Louis, Missouri 63166-2034. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. OakStar Bancshares, Inc., Springfield, Missouri; to acquire 100 percent of Bancshares of Urbana, Inc., Urbana Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire The Bank of Urbana, Urbana, Missouri.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 22, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17769 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than August 11, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:

    1. Betty J. Miller Trust #1, Lake in the Hills, Illinois and Wayne M. Miller as Successor Trustee, the Wayne M. Miller Trust #1, Lake in the Hills, Illinois and Wayne M. Miller as Trustee, and Vernon L. Miller, Princeville, Illinois, to retain shares of Waterman Bancshares, Inc., Waterman, Illinois, and thereby indirectly retain shares of Waterman State Bank, both in Waterman, Illinois.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, July 22, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17770 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [30Day-16-16ZX] Agency Forms Undergoing Paperwork Reduction Act Review

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The notice for the proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies.

    Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address any of the following: (a) 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; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses; and (e) Assess information collection costs.

    To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570 or send an email to [email protected] Direct written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice to the Attention: CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 or by fax to (202) 395-5806. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

    Proposed Project

    Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network)—Existing Collection in use without an OMB Control Number—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    In September, 2000, the Pew Environmental Health Commission issued a report entitled “America's Environmental Health Gap: Why the Country Needs a Nationwide Health Tracking Network.” In this report, the Commission documented that the existing environmental health systems were inadequate and fragmented and recommended a “Nationwide Health Tracking Network for disease and exposures.” In response to the report, Congress appropriated funds in the fiscal year 2002's budget for the CDC to establish the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (Tracking Network).

    Continuously since 2008, and at the national level, the program collects data from (1) other CDC programs such as the National Center for Health Statistics, (2) other federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, (3) publically accessible systems such as the Census Bureau, and (4) funded and unfunded state and local health departments (SLHD). These data are integrated into and disseminated from the Tracking Network and used for analyses which can inform national programs, interventions, or policies; guide further development and activities within the Tracking Program; or advance the practice and science of environmental public health tracking. The Tracking Program also collects information from funded SLHD to monitor their progress related to their funding and for program evaluation. This information collection request (ICR) is focused on data and information gathered by the Tracking Program from SLHD.

    Due to voluntary program efforts to continuously improve compliance, the CDC recently determined that the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) should apply to the Tracking Network collections. Thus, the CDC requests a three-year PRA clearance to collect these data.

    One part of the collection involves health, exposure, and hazard data from SLHD. The Tracking Network provides the United States with accurate and timely standardized data from existing health, exposure, and hazard surveillance systems and supports ongoing efforts within the public health and environmental sectors. The goal of the Tracking Network is to improve health tracking, exposure and hazard monitoring, and response capacity. When such data are available, the Tracking Program obtains data from national or public sources in order to reduce the burden on SLHD. When data are not available nationally or publically, the Tracking Program relies on funded SLHD to obtain and submit these data to the Tracking Network. Data from unfunded SLHD are accepted but not requested or solicited.

    Data submitted annually by SLHD to the Tracking Program include: (1) Birth defects prevalence, (2) childhood lead blood levels, if a SLHD does not already report such data to CDC, (3) community drinking water monitoring, (4) emergency department visits, (5) hospitalizations, and (6) radon testing. The Tracking Program receives childhood lead blood levels data from CDC's Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (under the Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Surveillance System [HHLPSS—OMB Control No. 0920-0931, expiration date 5/31/2018]). A metadata record, a file describing the original source and collection procedures for the data being submitted, is also submitted with each dataset (1 per dataset for a total of 6 metadata records per year) using the Tracking Program's metadata creation tool.

    Standardized extraction, formatting, and submission processes are developed in collaboration between CDC and SLHD for each dataset. Additions or modifications to these standardized datasets will also be developed collaboratively in order to improve the accuracy, completeness, efficiency, or utility of data submitted to CDC. Such changes will occur at most once a year. Examples of changes to data processes may include: (1) Addition of new variables or outcomes, (2) updates to case definitions, (3) modifications to temporal or spatial aggregation, and (4) changes in formatting for submission. As required, the Tracking Network will submit future additions and modifications as nonsubstantive change requests or revision ICRs.

    The other part of the collection involves program monitoring information from funded SLHD. In addition to standard reporting required by CDC's Procurement and Grants Office, the Tracking Program also collects information from funded SLHD for the purposes of program evaluation and monitoring. This information includes performance measures collected quarterly, a communications plan collected annually, an earned values management report collected quarterly, an evaluation plan collected annually, and Web site analytics collected quarterly as documents emailed to the Tracking Program.

    There are no costs for the respondents other than their time. The total estimated time burden is 25,320 hours. This estimate includes the time it takes to extract the data from the original data source(s), standardize and format the data to match the corresponding Tracking Network data form, and submit the data to the Tracking Network. In some cases, the data at the source are centralized and easily extracted. In other cases, like for radon data, the data are not. In those cases, the number of hours for extracting and standardizing the data is much greater. Four respondents have been added to the 26 SLHDs the program currently funds to account for the data voluntarily received from unfunded SLHDs and to allow for potential program growth over the next three years.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondent Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • State and local health department Birth defects prevalence 22 1 80 Childhood lead blood levels 18 1 80 Community drinking water monitoring 30 1 120 Emergency department visits 26 1 80 Hospitalizations 30 1 80 Radon testing 16 1 120 Metadata records 30 6 20 Program Management Tool (new awardees) 26 4 20 Public Health Action Report (existing awardees) 4 4 20 Communications plan 30 1 20 Earned value management report 30 4 40 Evaluation and performance measurement strategy report 30 1 20 Website analytics 30 4 1
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Health Scientist, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17716 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority: Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration; Office of the Assistant Secretary AGENCY:

    Administration for Children and Families, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Statement of Organizations, Functions, and Delegations of Authority. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has reorganized the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (ODASA). This reorganization moves the Office of Information Services from ODASA and establishes it as the new Office of the Chief Information Officer, which reports directly to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lila Lee, Office of Administration, Chief of Staff, 330 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20201, (202) 401-5329.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Part K of the Statement of Organization, Functions, and Delegations of Authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is being amended at Chapter K, Administration for Children and Families, as last amended at 81 FR 7346-7351, February 11, 2016, Chapter KP, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (ODASA), as last amended at 75 FR 42760-42762, July 22, 2010 and most recently at 77 FR 67653-67655, November 13, 2012, as follows:

    I. Under Chapter K, Administration for Children and Families, delete Section K.10, in in its entirety and replace with the following:

    K.10 Organization. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is a principal operating division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Administration is headed by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, who reports directly to the Secretary. The Assistant Secretary also serves as the Director of Child Support Enforcement. In addition to the Assistant Secretary, the Administration consists of the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, the Chief of Staff, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood Development, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for External Affairs, and Staff and Program Offices. ACF is organized as follows:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families (KA) Administration on Children, Youth and Families (KB) Administration for Native Americans (KE) Office of Child Support Enforcement (KF) Office of Community Services (KG) Office of Family Assistance (KH) Office of Regional Operations (KJ) Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (KM) Office of Communications (KN) Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (KP) Office of the Chief Information Officer (KQ) Office of Refugee Resettlement (KR) Office of Legislative Affairs and Budget (KT) Office of Head Start (KU) Office of Child Care (KV) Office of Human Services Emergency Preparedness and Response (KW)

    II. Under Chapter KQ, Create the Office of the Chief Information Officer:

    KQ.00 MISSION. The mission of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is to obtain, procure, or develop cost effective and efficient information technology (IT) solutions that enable ACF's staff and grantees to successfully fulfill programmatic missions that result in the realization of the ACF vision. The OCIO implements IT strategies, policies, and governance frameworks to improve the efficiency and performance of ACF's IT systems that support ACF business processes in a manner that balances risk and cost with required outcomes, while ensuring compliance with all federal statutes and regulations. OCIO has ACF-wide responsibility for the direction and development of ACF's IT acquisition strategy, planning analysis and approval, management of IT investments both pre- and post-award, and leadership of key technology initiatives. The OCIO provides oversight and guidance on the use of business process reengineering, performance measurement, and continuous process improvement in the development, operation, and application of information systems and infrastructure. The OCIO manages cross-organizational stakeholder relations to maintain a flexible and adaptive IT posture that supports a resilient risk management approach to IT security and privacy. The OCIO creates policies to provide improved management of information resources and technology to more efficiently and effectively service ACF's internal and external clients and ACF employees. The OCIO will identify the appropriate continuing education for staff in the domain of records management, IT security and privacy, and incident response protocols.

    KQ.10 ORGANIZATION. The OCIO is headed by the ACF Chief Information Officer (CIO) who also serves as ACF's Principal Information Resource Management Official, and consists of:

    Office of the Director (KQ) Division of IT Acquisition and Vendor Management (KQ1) Division of Strategy, Policy, and Governance (KQ2) Division of Security, Privacy, and Risk Management (KQ3) Division of Infrastructure, Data and Web Services (KQ4)

    KQ.20 FUNCTIONS. The Office of the Director supports the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in providing centralized IT policy, procedures, standards, and guidelines. OCIO's responsibilities include strategy, policy, and IT governance, including performance measurement and innovation; security, privacy, and risk management, including business continuity, standardization and oversight of business processes, external compliance, and security strategy and management; financial and vendor management and IT acquisition oversight, including acquisition strategies, technological approaches, performance measurement, vendor selection, cost estimating and optimization; service planning and architecture, including quality management and enterprise architecture; program and project management; portfolio management, applications management, development, and maintenance; IT infrastructure and operations; and data services, big data analytics, and business intelligence.

    A. The Division of IT Acquisition and Vendor Management provides financial and vendor management and IT acquisition oversight, including acquisition strategies, technological approaches, performance measurement, vendor selection, cost estimating and optimization; and provides procurement support and post-award oversight.

    B. The Division of Strategy, Policy, and Governance responsibilities include strategy, policy, and IT governance, including performance measurement and innovation. Provides governance and oversight of centralized enterprise-wide IT functions, including enterprise architecture, creation and maintenance of the technology roadmap.

    C. The Division of Security, Privacy, and Risk Management provides security, privacy, and risk management, including business continuity, standardization and oversight of business processes, external compliance, and security strategy and management. The OCIO will identify the appropriate continuing education for staff in the domain of records management, IT security and privacy, and incident response protocols.

    D. The Division of Infrastructure, Data and Web Services provides service planning and architecture, program and project management, portfolio management, applications management, development and maintenance, and IT infrastructure and operations, including data services, big data analytics, and business intelligence.

    III. Under KP, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, delete KP.00 Mission in its entirety and replace with:

    KP.00 MISSION. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration serves as principal advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families on all aspects of personnel administration and management; financial management activities; grants policy and overseeing the issuance of grants; acquisition advisory services; the ethics program; staff development and training activities; organizational development and organizational analysis; administrative services; and facilities management. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration oversees the Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity program and all administrative special initiative activities for ACF.

    IV. Under Chapter KP, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, delete KP.10 Organization in its entirety and replace with:

    KP.10 ORGANIZATION. The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration is headed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary who reports to the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. The Office is organized as follows:

    Immediate Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration (KPA) Office of Financial Services (KPC) Office of Workforce Planning and Development (KPD) Office of Grants Management (KPG) Grants Management Regional Units (KPGDI-X) Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity (KPH)

    V. Under Chapter KP, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, Delete KP.20 Functions, Paragraph B, Office of Information Systems, in its entirety.

    VI. Under Chapter KN, Office of Communications, delete KN.20, Functions, Paragraph C, in its entirety and replace with the following:

    Division of Digital Information is responsible for the content of ACF's public-facing digital presence. It also coordinates printing services for ACF. The division conducts preparation and clearance of ACF communications associated with web content, audiovisual products, digital publications and graphic designs, but does not include planning, budgeting, and oversight of the Web site maintenance and support contract. It provides guidance and support to program offices related to web content, social media, print publications, audio-visual materials, and digital information and communication activities.

    VII. Delegation of Authority. Pending further redelegation, directives, or orders made by the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families or Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration, all delegations and redelegations of authority made to officials and employees of affected organizational components will continue in them or their successors pending further redelegations, provided they are consistent with this reorganization.

    VIII. Funds, Personnel, and Equipment. Transfer of organizations and functions affected by this reorganization shall be accompanied in each instance by direct and support funds, positions, personnel, records, equipment, supplies, and other resources.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Mark H. Greenberg, Acting Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17737 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001] Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public to attend in person at the FDA White Oak campus in Silver Spring, MD. Members will participate via teleconference.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on October 13, 2016, from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. For those unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Webcast and will be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/vrbpac101316/.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sujata Vijh or Rosanna Harvey, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, at 240-402-7107, [email protected] and 240-402-8072, [email protected], or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138 (301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area). A notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda: On October 13, 2016, the committee will meet in open session to discuss and make recommendations on the selection of strains to be included in an influenza virus vaccine for the 2017 southern hemisphere influenza season.

    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the background material will be made publicly available at the location of the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting link.

    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee. Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before October 3, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between approximately 2:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Those individuals interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation on or before September 23, 2016. Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by September 26, 2016.

    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.

    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please contact Sujata Vijh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.

    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Janice M. Soreth, Acting Associate Commissioner, Special Medical Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17729 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0007] Generic Drug User Fee—Abbreviated New Drug Application, Prior Approval Supplement, Drug Master File, Final Dosage Form Facility, and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Facility Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2017 AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the rates for abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), prior approval supplements to an approved ANDA (PASs), drug master files (DMFs), generic drug active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) facilities, and finished dosage form (FDF) facilities user fees related to the Generic Drug User Fee Program for fiscal year (FY) 2017. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA), authorizes FDA to assess and collect user fees for certain applications and supplements for human generic drug products, on applications in the backlog as of October 1, 2012 (only applicable to FY 2013), on FDF and API facilities, and on type II active pharmaceutical ingredient DMFs to be made available for reference. This document establishes the fee rates for FY 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David Haas, Office of Financial Management, Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14202I, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-9845.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    Sections 744A and 744B of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-41 and 379j-42) establish fees associated with human generic drug products. Fees are assessed on: (1) Certain applications in the backlog as of October 1, 2012 (only applicable to FY 2013); (2) certain types of applications and supplements for human generic drug products; (3) certain facilities where APIs and FDFs are produced; and (4) certain DMFs associated with human generic drug products (see section 744B(a)(1)-(4) of the FD&C Act).

    For FY 2017, the generic drug fee rates are: ANDA ($70,480), PAS ($35,240), DMF ($51,140), domestic API facility ($44,234), foreign API facility ($59,234), domestic FDF facility ($258,646), and foreign FDF facility ($273,646). These fees are effective on October 1, 2016, and will remain in effect through September 30, 2017.

    Fees for ANDA and PAS will decrease in FY 2017 compared to the FY 2016 fees due to an increase in the number of submissions estimated to be submitted in FY 2017 compared to the estimated number of submissions to be submitted in FY 2016. Fees for DMFs will increase in FY 2017 compared to the FY 2016 fee due to a decrease in the number of submissions estimated to be submitted in FY 2017 compared to the estimated number of submissions to be submitted in 2016. The fees for all types of facilities will increase in FY 2017 compared to the FY 2016 fees in due to a decrease in the number of facilities that self-identified for FY 2017.

    II. Fee Revenue Amount for FY 2017

    The base revenue amount for FY 2017 is $299 million, as set in the statute prior to the inflation and final year adjustments (see section 744B(c)(2) of the FD&C Act). GDUFA directs FDA to use the yearly revenue amount as a starting point to set the fee rates for each fee type. For more information about GDUFA, please refer to the FDA Web site (http://www.fda.gov/gdufa). The ANDA, PAS, DMF, API facility, and FDF facility fee calculations for FY 2017 are described in this document.

    A. Inflation Adjustment

    GDUFA specifies that the $299 million is to be adjusted for inflation increases for FY 2017 using two separate adjustments—one for personnel compensation and benefits (PC&B) and one for non-PC&B costs (see section 744B(c)(1) of the FD&C Act).

    The component of the inflation adjustment for PC&B costs shall be one plus the average annual percent change in the cost of all PC&B paid per full-time equivalent position (FTE) at FDA for the first three of the four preceding fiscal years, multiplied by the proportion of PC&B costs to total FDA costs of human generic drug activities for the first three of the preceding four fiscal years (see section 744B(c)(1)(A)-(B) of the FD&C Act).

    Table 1 summarizes the actual cost and total FTE for the specified fiscal years, and provides the percent change from the previous fiscal year and the average percent change over the first three of the four fiscal years preceding FY 2017. The 3-year average is 1.8759 percent.

    Table 1—FDA Personnel Compensation and Benefits (PC&B) Each Year and Percent Change Fiscal year 2013 2014 2015 3-Year average Total PC&B $1,927,703,000 $2,054,937,000 $2,232,304,000 Total FTE 13,974 14,555 15,484 PC&B per FTE $137,949 $141,184 $144,168 % Change from Previous Year 1.1690% 2.3451% 2.1136% 1.8759%

    The statute specifies that this 1.8759 percent should be multiplied by the proportion of PC&B expended for human generic drug activities for the first three of the preceding four fiscal years. Table 2 shows the amount of PC&B and the total amount obligated for human generic drug activities from FY 2013 through FY 2015.

    Table 2—PC&B as a Percent of Fee Revenues Spent on the Process of Human Generic Drug Applications Over the Last 3 Years Fiscal year 2013 2014 2015 3-Year average PC&B $117,576,760 $171,612,147 $201,116,305 Non-PC&B $149,307,336 $215,469,132 $251,589,013 Total Costs $266,884,096 $387,081,279 $452,705,318 PC&B percent 44.0554% 44.3349% 44.4254% 44.2719% Non-PC&B percent 55.9446% 55.6651% 55.5746% 55.7281%

    The payroll adjustment is 1.8759 percent multiplied by 44.2719 percent (or 0.8305 percent).

    The statute specifies that the portion of the inflation adjustment for non-PC&B costs for FY 2017 is the average annual percent change that occurred in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban consumers (Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV; not seasonally adjusted; all items; annual index) for the first three of the preceding four years of available data multiplied by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B costs to total costs of human generic drug activities (see section 744B(c)(1)(C) of the FD&C Act). Table 3 provides the summary data for the percent change in the specified CPI for the Baltimore-Washington area. The data are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and can be found on their Web site at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?cu by checking the box marked “Washington-Baltimore All Items, November 1996=100—CUURA311SA0” and then clicking on the “Retrieve Data” button.

    Table 3—Annual and 3-Year Average Percent Change in CPI for Baltimore-Washington Area Year 2013 2014 2015 3-Year average Annual CPI 152.500 154.847 155.353 Annual Percent Change 1.5232% 1.5390% 0.3268% 1.1297%

    To calculate the inflation adjustment for non-pay costs, we multiply the 3-year average percent change in the CPI (1.1297 percent) by the proportion of all costs other than PC&B to total costs of human generic drug activities obligated. Since 44.2719 percent was obligated for PC&B as shown in Table 2, 55.7281 percent is the portion of costs other than PC&B. The non-pay adjustment is 1.1297 percent times 55.7281 percent, or 0.6296 percent.

    To complete the inflation adjustment for FY 2017, we add the PC&B component (0.8305 percent) to the non-PC&B component (0.6296 percent) for a total inflation adjustment of 1.4601 percent (rounded) for FY 2017.

    GDUFA provides for this inflation adjustment to be compounded after FY 2013 (see section 744B(c)(1) of the FD& C Act). This factor for FY 2017 (1.4601 percent) is compounded by adding one to it, and then multiplying it by the compounded inflation adjustment factor for FY 2016 (1.064759), as published in the Federal Register of August 3, 2015 (80 FR 46015). The result of this multiplication of the inflation factors for the four years since FY 2013 (1.014601 times 1.064759 percent) becomes the inflation adjustment for FY 2017. For FY 2017, the inflation adjustment is 8.0306 percent (rounded). We then add one, making 1.080306. Finally, we multiply the FY 2017 base revenue amount ($299 million) by 1.080306, yielding inflation-adjusted target revenue of $323,011,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).

    B. Final Year Adjustment

    For FY 2017, the Secretary may, in addition to the inflation adjustment, further increase the fee revenues and fees established if such an adjustment is necessary to provide for not more than 3 months of operating reserves of carryover user fees for human generic drug activities for the first 3 months of FY 2018. Such fees may only be used in FY 2018. If such an adjustment is necessary, the rationale for the amount of the increase shall be contained in the annual notice establishing fee revenues and fees for FY 2017. If the Secretary has carryover balances for such activities in excess of 3 months of such operating reserves, the adjustment shall not be made (see section 744B(c)(2) of the FD&C Act).

    After running analyses on the status of GDUFA's operating reserves and its estimated balance as of the beginning of FY 2018, FDA estimates that the GDUFA program will have carryover balances for such activities in excess of 3 months of such operating reserves, thus FDA will not be performing a final year adjustment.

    III. ANDA and PAS Fees

    Under GDUFA, the FY 2017 ANDA and PAS fees are owed by each applicant that submits an ANDA or a PAS, on or after October 1, 2016. These fees are due on the receipt date of the ANDA or PAS. Section 744B(b)(2)(B) specifies that the ANDA and PAS fees will make up 24 percent of the $323,011,000, which is $77,523,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars), and further specifies that the PAS fee is equal to half the ANDA fee.

    In order to calculate the ANDA fee, FDA estimated the number of full application equivalents (FAEs) that will be submitted in FY 2017. This is done by assuming ANDAs count as one FAE and PASs (supplements) count as one-half an FAE since the fee for a PAS is one half of the fee for an ANDA. GDUFA also requires, however, that 75 percent of the fee paid for an ANDA or PAS filing fee be refunded if the ANDA or PAS is refused due to issues other than failure to pay fees (section 744B(a)(3)(D) of the FD&C Act). Therefore, an ANDA or PAS that is considered not to have been received by the Secretary due to reasons other than failure to pay fees counts as one-fourth of an FAE if the applicant initially paid a full application fee, or one-eighth of an FAE if the applicant paid the supplement fee (one half of the full application fee amount).

    FDA utilized data from ANDAs and PASs submitted from October 1, 2013, to May 31, 2016, to estimate the number of new original ANDAs and PASs that will incur filing fees in FY 2017. For FY 2017, the Agency estimates that approximately 891 new original ANDAs and 439 PASs will be submitted and incur filing fees. Not all of the new original ANDAs and PASs will be received by the Agency, and some of those not received will be resubmitted in the same fiscal year. Therefore, the Agency expects that the FAE count for ANDAs and PASs will be 1,100 for FY 2017.

    The FY 2017 application fee is estimated by dividing the number of FAEs that will pay the fee in FY 2017 (1,100) into the fee revenue amount to be derived from application fees in FY 2017 ($77,523,000). The result, rounded to the nearest $10, is a fee of $70,480 per ANDA. The PAS fee is one-half that amount, or $35,240, rounded to the nearest $10.

    The statute provides that those ANDAs that include information about the production of active pharmaceutical ingredients other than by reference to a DMF will pay an additional fee that is based on the number of such active pharmaceutical ingredients and the number of facilities proposed to produce those ingredients (see section 744B(a)(3)(F) of the FD&C Act). FDA considers that this additional fee is unlikely to be assessed often; therefore, FDA has not included projections concerning the amount of this fee in calculating the fees for ANDAs and PASs.

    IV. DMF Fee

    Under GDUFA, the DMF fee is owed by each person that owns a type II active pharmaceutical ingredient DMF that is referenced, on or after October 1, 2012, in a generic drug submission by an initial letter of authorization. This is a one-time fee for each individual DMF. This fee is due no later than the date on which the first generic drug submission is submitted that references the associated DMF. Under section 744B(a)(2)(D)(iii) of the FD&C Act, if a DMF has successfully undergone an initial completeness assessment and the fee is paid, the DMF will be placed on a publicly available list documenting DMFs available for reference. Thus, some DMF holders may choose to pay the fee prior to the date that it would otherwise be due in order to have the DMF placed on that list.

    In order to calculate the DMF fee, FDA assessed the volume of DMF submissions over time. The statistical forecasting methodology of power regression analysis was selected because this model showed a very good fit to the distribution of DMF submissions over time. Based on data representing the total paid DMFs from October 2013 to May 2016 and projecting a 5-year timeline (October 2013 to September 2018), FDA is estimating 379 fee-paying DMFs for FY 2017.

    The FY 2017 DMF fee is determined by dividing the DMF target revenue by the estimated number of fee-paying DMFs in FY 2017. Section 744B(b)(2)(A) specifies that the DMF fees will make up six percent of the $323,011,000, which is $19,381,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars). Dividing the DMF revenue amount ($19,381,000) by the estimated fee-paying DMFs (379), and rounding to the nearest $10, yields a DMF fee of $51,140 for FY 2017.

    V. Foreign Facility Fee Differential

    Under GDUFA, the fee for a facility located outside the United States and its territories and possessions shall be not less than $15,000 and not more than $30,000 higher than the amount of the fee for a facility located in the United States and its territories and possessions, as determined by the Secretary. The basis for this differential is the extra cost incurred by conducting an inspection outside the United States and its territories and possessions. For FY 2017, FDA has determined that the differential for foreign facilities will be $15,000.

    VI. FDF Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA, the annual FDF facility fee is owed by each person that owns a facility which is identified, or intended to be identified, in at least one generic drug submission that is pending or approved to produce one or more finished dosage forms of a human generic drug. These fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act specifies that the FDF facility fee revenue will make up 56 percent of $323,011,000, which is $180,886,000 (rounded to the nearest thousand dollars).

    In order to calculate the FDF fee, FDA used data submitted by generic drug facilities through the self-identification process mandated in the GDUFA statute and specified in a Notice of Requirement published on October 2, 2012 (77 FR 60125). The total number of FDF facilities identified through self-identification was 675. Of the total facilities identified as FDF, there were 255 domestic facilities and 420 foreign facilities. The foreign facility fee differential is $15,000. In order to calculate the fee for domestic facilities, we must first subtract the fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility fee differential. We take the foreign facility differential ($15,000) and multiply it by the number of foreign facilities (420) to determine the total fees that will result from the foreign facility differential. As a result of that calculation the foreign fee differential will make up $6,300,000 of the total FDF fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign facility differential fee revenue ($6,300,000), from the total FDF facility target revenue ($180,886,000) results in a remaining fee revenue balance of $174,586,000. To determine the domestic FDF facility fee, we divide the $174,586,000 by the total number of facilities (675) which results in a domestic FDF facility fee of $258,646. The foreign FDF facility fee is $15,000 more than the domestic FDF facility fee, or $273,646.

    VII. API Facility Fee

    Under GDUFA, the annual API facility fee is owed by each person that owns a facility which produces, or which is pending review to produce, one or more active pharmaceutical ingredients identified, or intended to be identified, in at least one generic drug submission that is pending or approved or in a Type II active pharmaceutical ingredient drug master file referenced in such generic drug submission. These fees are due no later than the first business day on or after October 1 of each such year. Section 744B(b)(2)(D) of the FD&C Act specifies that the API facility fee will make up 14 percent of $323,011,000 in fee revenue, which is $45,221,000 (rounded down to the nearest thousand dollars).

    In order to calculate the API fee, FDA used data submitted by generic drug facilities through the self-identification process mandated in the GDUFA statute and specified in a Notice of Requirement published on October 2, 2012. The total number of API facilities identified through self-identification was 789. Of the total facilities identified as API facilities, there were 101 domestic facilities and 688 foreign facilities. The foreign facility differential is $15,000. In order to calculate the fee for domestic facilities, we must first subtract the fee revenue that will result from the foreign facility fee differential. We take the foreign facility differential ($15,000) and multiply it by the number of foreign facilities (688) to determine the total fees that will result from the foreign facility differential. As a result of that calculation, the foreign fee differential will make up $10,320,000 of the total API fee revenue. Subtracting the foreign facility differential fee revenue ($10,320,000) from the total API facility target revenue ($45,221,000) results in a remaining balance of $34,901,000. To determine the domestic API facility fee, we divide the $34,901,000 by the total number of facilities (789) which gives us a domestic API facility fee of $44,234. The foreign API facility fee is $15,000 more than the domestic API facility fee, or $59,234.

    VIII. Fee Schedule for FY 2017

    The fee rates for FY 2017 are set out in Table 4.

    Table 4—Fee Schedule for FY 2017 Fee category Fee rates for FY 2017 Applications: Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) $70,480 Prior Approval Supplement (PAS) to an ANDA 35,240 Drug Master File (DMF) 51,140 Facilities: Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)—Domestic 44,234 API—Foreign 59,234 Finished Dosage Form (FDF)—Domestic 258,646 FDF—Foreign 273,646 IX. Fee Payment Options and Procedures

    The new fee rates are effective October 1, 2016. To pay the ANDA, PAS, DMF, API facility, and FDF facility fee, you must complete a Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet, available at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa, and generate a user fee identification (ID) number. Payment must be made in U.S. currency drawn on a U.S. bank by electronic check, check, bank draft, U.S. postal money order, or wire transfer. The preferred payment method is online using electronic check (Automated Clearing House (ACH) also known as eCheck) or credit card (Discover, VISA, MasterCard, American Express). Secure electronic payments can be submitted using the User Fees Payment Portal at https://userfees.fda.gov/pay. Once you search for your invoice, click “Pay Now” to be redirected to Pay.gov. Note that electronic payment options are based on the balance due. Payment by credit card is available for balances less than $25,000. If the balance exceeds this amount, only the ACH option is available. Payments must be drawn on U.S. bank accounts as well as U.S. credit cards.

    FDA has partnered with the U.S. Department of the Treasury to utilize Pay.gov, a Web-based payment application, for online electronic payment. The Pay.gov feature is available on the FDA Web site after completing the Generic Drug User Fee Cover Sheet and generating the user fee ID number.

    Please include the user fee ID number on your check, bank draft, or postal money order and make payable to the order of the Food and Drug Administration. Your payment can be mailed to: Food and Drug Administration, P.O. Box 979108, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000. If checks are to be sent by a courier that requests a street address, the courier can deliver checks to: U.S. Bank, Attention: Government Lockbox 979108, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. (Note: This U.S. Bank address is for courier delivery only. If you have any questions concerning courier delivery contact the U.S. Bank at 314-418-4013. This telephone number is only for questions about courier delivery). Please make sure that the FDA post office box number (P.O. Box 979108) is written on the check, bank draft, or postal money order.

    If paying by wire transfer, please reference your unique user fee ID number when completing your transfer. The originating financial institution may charge a wire transfer fee. Please ask your financial institution about the wire transfer fee and include it with your payment to ensure that your fee is fully paid. The account information is as follows: U.S. Department of Treasury, TREAS NYC, 33 Liberty St., New York, NY 10045, account number: 75060099, routing number: 021030004, SWIFT: FRNYUS33, Beneficiary: FDA, 8455 Colesville Rd., 14th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. The tax identification number of FDA is 53-0196965.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17801 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2153] Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices; Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices.” FDA is issuing this draft guidance to clarify how we evaluate real-world data (RWD) to determine whether it may be sufficiently relevant and reliable to generate the types of real-world evidence that can be used in regulatory decisionmaking for medical devices. This guidance also clarifies when an investigational device exemption (IDE) may be needed to prospectively collect and use RWD for purposes of determining the safety and effectiveness of a device. This draft guidance is not final nor is it in effect at this time.

    DATES:

    Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment of this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2016-D-2153 for “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the draft guidance document entitled “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Benjamin Eloff, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2254, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8528.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    To protect and promote the public health, FDA needs to understand and evaluate the available evidence related to regulated products. For medical devices, available evidence is traditionally comprised of non-clinical and in some cases, clinical studies conducted and provided to FDA by the device manufacturer or sponsor. However, FDA recognizes that a wealth of data covering medical device experience exists and is routinely collected in the course of treatment and management of patients. Under certain circumstances, these RWD may be of sufficient quality to help inform or augment FDA's understanding of the benefit-risk profile of devices at various points in their life cycle, and could potentially be used to aid FDA in regulatory decisionmaking.

    This document describes the characteristics and sources of RWD that may be sufficient for use in making various regulatory decisions. Because of its nature, the quality (i.e., relevance and reliability) of RWD can vary greatly across sources. Likewise, there are many types of regulatory decisions with varying levels of evidentiary needs. FDA's evidentiary standards for regulatory decisionmaking are not changing; FDA will evaluate whether the available RWD is of sufficient relevance and reliability to address the specific regulatory decision being considered.

    This guidance does not affect any federal, state or local laws or regulations or foreign laws or regulations that may otherwise be applicable to the use or collection of real-world evidence and that provide protections for human subjects or patient privacy. When finalized, this guidance should be used to complement, but not supersede, other device-specific and good clinical practice guidance documents.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Use of Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisionmaking for Medical Devices” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number 1500012 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E (premarket approval) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subpart H (humanitarian device exemption) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812 (investigational device exemption) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 822 (postmarket surveillance) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0449; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 50.23 (exception from general requirements for informed consent) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0586; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 54 (financial disclosure by clinical investigators) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0396; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 56.115 (IRB records) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0130; and the collections of information in 21 CFR parts 50 (informed consent) and 56 (IRBs) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0755. The collections of information in the guidance “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17750 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1439] Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; Availability AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the guidance entitled “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies.” This guidance provides sponsors and FDA staff with guidance on how to plan and implement adaptive designs for clinical studies when used in medical device development programs. An adaptive design for a medical device clinical study is defined as a clinical trial design that allows for prospectively planned modifications based on accumulating study data without undermining the trial's integrity and validity. Adaptive designs, when properly implemented, can reduce resource requirements and/or increase the chance of study success.

    DATES:

    Submit either electronic or written comments on this guidance at any time. General comments on Agency guidance documents are welcome at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments as follows:

    Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on http://www.regulations.gov.

    • If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

    Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

    • Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    • For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked, and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1439 for “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies.” Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

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

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

    An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the Internet. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for information on electronic access to the guidance. Submit written requests for a single hard copy of the guidance document entitled “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies” to the Office of the Center Director, Guidance and Policy Development, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5431, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or the Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Gerry Gray, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 2112, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6012; or the Division of Biostatistics, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5750; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring MD 20993, 240-402-7911.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    This guidance provides sponsors and FDA staff with guidance on how to plan and implement adaptive designs for clinical studies when used in medical device development programs. This document addresses adaptive designs for medical device clinical trials and is applicable to premarket medical device submissions including premarket approval applications (PMA), premarket notification (510(k)) submissions, de novo submissions (evaluation of automatic class III designation), humanitarian device exemption (HDE) applications, and investigational device exemption (IDE) submissions. This guidance can be applied throughout the clinical development program of a medical device, from feasibility studies to pivotal clinical trials. This guidance does not apply to clinical studies of combination products or codevelopment of a pharmaceutical product with an unapproved diagnostic test. The draft guidance was available from May 18, 2015, to August 17, 2015. FDA received 151 comments from seven entities and has incorporated most of them in this final guidance.

    II. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

    III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the Internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov. Persons unable to download an electronic copy of “Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies” may send an email request to [email protected] to receive an electronic copy of the document. Please use the document number GUD1500005 to identify the guidance you are requesting.

    IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 807, subpart E have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 812, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0078; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814,subpart H, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0332; and the collections of information in the guidance document “Requests for Feedback on Medical Device Submissions: The Pre-Submission Program and Meetings with Food and Drug Administration Staff” have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0756.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17651 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Administration Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, codified at 5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children.

    Dates and Times: August 25, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (Meeting time is tentative.)

    August 26, 2016, 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Meeting time is tentative.)

    Place: Webcast and In-Person, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public with attendance limited to space availability. Attendees and participants also have the option of viewing the meeting via webcast. Whether attending in-person or via webcast, all attendees and participants must register for the meeting. The registration link is https://www.blsmeetings.net/ACHDNCAugust2016. The registration deadline is Friday, August 19, 2016, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.

    Purpose: The Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (Committee), as authorized by Public Health Service Act, Title XI, § 1111, as amended by the Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2014 (Pub. L. 113-240) (42 U.S.C. 300b-10), was established to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services about the development of newborn screening activities, technologies, policies, guidelines, and programs for effectively reducing morbidity and mortality in newborns and children having, or at risk for, heritable disorders. In addition, the Committee's recommendations regarding additional conditions/heritable disorders for screening that have been adopted by the Secretary are included in the Recommended Uniform Screening Panel (RUSP) and constitute part of the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration. Pursuant to section 2713 of the Public Health Service Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. 300gg-13, non-grandfathered health plans and group and individual health insurance issuers are required to cover evidence-informed care and screenings included in the HRSA-supported comprehensive guidelines without charging a co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible for plan years (in the individual market, policy years) beginning on or after the date that is 1 year from the Secretary's adoption of the condition for screening.

    Agenda: The Committee will hear presentations and discussions on topics including an introduction on sequencing and potential impact on newborn screening and public health, screening for Lysosomal Storage Disorders, newborn screening timeliness, pilot studies for future nominated conditions, and the National Contingency Plan for Newborn Screening. The Committee will hear updates from the Laboratory Standards and Procedures workgroup, Follow-up and Treatment workgroup, and Education and Training workgroup, Timeliness workgroup, and the Cost Analysis workgroup. Agenda items are subject to changes as priorities indicate. Tentatively, the Committee is expected to review and/or vote on the recommendations regarding the information needed from pilot studies for future nominated conditions. This vote does not involve a proposed addition of a condition to the RUSP. The meeting agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the Committee's Web site: http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders.

    Public Comments: Members of the public may present oral comments and/or submit written comments. Comments are part of the official Committee record. The public comment period is tentatively scheduled for both days of the meeting. Advance registration is required to present oral comments and/or submit written comments. Registration information is at https://www.blsmeetings.net/ACHDNCAugust2016. The registration deadline for public comments is Friday, August 19, 2016, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. Written comments must be received by the deadline of Friday, August 5, 2016, 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time to be included in the August meeting briefing book. Written comments should identify the individual's name, address, email, telephone number, professional or business affiliation, type of expertise (i.e., parent, researcher, clinician, public health, etc.), and the topic/subject matter of comments. To ensure that all individuals who have registered to make oral comments can be accommodated, the allocated time may be limited. Individuals who are associated with groups or have similar interests may be requested to combine their comments and present them through a single representative. No audiovisual presentations are permitted. For additional information or questions on public comments, please contact Alaina Harris, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration; email: [email protected]

    Contact Person: Anyone interested in obtaining other relevant information should contact Alaina Harris, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 18W66, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; email: [email protected]

    More information on the Advisory Committee is available at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/mchbadvisory/heritabledisorders.

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17724 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 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 Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Special Emphasis Panel, Center for Complex Tissues (2017/01).

    Date: October 24, 2016.

    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 959, Bethesda, MD 20892, (240) 451-3398, [email protected]

    Dated: July 20, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17655 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    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 meetings.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; Member Conflict: Cardiovascular and Respiratory Sciences.

    Date: August 11-12, 2016.

    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive; Bethesda, MD 20892; (Virtual Meeting).

    Contact Person: Yuanna Cheng, MD, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4138, MSC 7814; Bethesda, MD 20892; (301) 435-1195; [email protected].

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel; PAR-16-053: High-End Instrumentation (HEI) Grant Program (S10).

    Date: August 18, 2016.

    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: Doubletree Hotel Bethesda; (Formerly Holiday Inn Select); 8120 Wisconsin Avenue; Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Contact Person: Chiayeng Wang, Ph.D.; Scientific Review Officer; Center for Scientific Review; National Institutes of Health; 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5213, MSC 7852; Bethesda, MD 20892; 301-435-2397; [email protected].

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 20, 2016. David Clary, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17656 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 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 Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.

    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 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/or 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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Advisory Council.

    Date: September 9, 2016.

    Closed: 8:30 a.m. to 9:50 a.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Open: 9:50 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

    Agenda: Staff reports on divisional, programmatic, and special activities.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Conference Room 6, 31 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Craig A. Jordan, Ph.D., Director, Division of Extramural Activities, NIDCD, NIH, Room 8345, MSC 9670, 6001 Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-9670, 301-496-8693, [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.

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page: http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/about/Pages/Advisory-Groups-and-Review-Committees.aspx, where an agenda and any additional information for the meeting will be posted when available.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.173, Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communicative Disorders, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: July 21, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17654 Filed 7-26-16; 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: SAMHSA SOAR Web-Based Data Form (OMB No. 0930-0329)—REVISION

    In 2009 the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services established a Technical Assistance Center to assist in the implementation of the SSI/SSDI Outreach Access and Recovery (SOAR) effort in all states. The primary objective of SOAR is to improve the allowance rate for Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits for people who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and who have a serious mental illness.

    During the SOAR training, the importance of keeping track of SSI/SSDI applications through the process is stressed. In response to requests from states implementing SOAR, the Technical Assistance Center, under SAMHSA's direction, developed a web-based data form that case managers can use to track the progress of submitted applications, including decisions received from SSA either on initial application or on appeal. This password-protected web-based data form is hosted on the SOAR Web site (https://soartrack.prainc.com). Use of this form is completely voluntary.

    In addition, data from the web-based form can be compiled into reports on decision results and the use of SOAR core components, such as the SSA-1696 Appointment of Representative, which allows SSA to communicate directly with the case manager assisting with the application. These reports will be reviewed by agency directors, SOAR state-level leads, and the national SOAR Technical Assistance Center to quantify the success of the effort overall and to identify areas where additional technical assistance is needed.

    The changes to this form include questions on military discharge status, VA disability compensation, applicant earnings per month, number of consultative exams ordered, and whether access to benefits facilitated housing. Additionally, we added three questions to the user registration form that include county, funding source, and SOAR training completed.

    The estimated response burden has not changed and is as follows:

    Information source Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    SOAR Data Form 700 3 2100 .25 525

    Written comments and recommendations concerning the proposed information collection should be sent by August 26, 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. 2016-17720 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4162-20-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0492] Status of Overboard Detection Technology for Cruise Vessels AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is soliciting information on the status and availability of technology for immediately detecting cruise vessel passengers who have fallen overboard.

    DATES:

    Comments must be submitted to the online docket via http://www.regulations.gov on or before October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments and supporting materials identified by docket number USCG-2016-0492 using our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document call or email LT Paul Folino, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG-1), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters; 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593; telephone 202-372-1361, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments or related material on the status of overboard detection technology for cruise vessels. Your comments will help us prepare a report that accurately reflects the status and availability of overboard detection technology for use by the cruise line industry, and also help us better deliberate on international standards development for overboard detection technology. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific section in this notice and the question number to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. At this time, we do not anticipate publishing a response to the comments received.

    We encourage you to submit comments to our online docket 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. Material submitted can be viewed by visiting http://www.regulations.gov and 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 or other documents are posted.

    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).

    II. Purpose

    On February 8, 2016, the President signed the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015 into law. Section 608 of the Act requires the Coast Guard to provide a report to Congress on the status of technology for immediately detecting passengers who have fallen overboard (man overboard (MOB) incidents) within 18 months of the signing of the Act.

    Also, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee 8 (TC8) Subcommittee 1 (SC1) is developing a standard for MOB detection systems. Input received in response to this notice could influence the Coast Guard's collaborative role in that process.

    The Coast Guard, therefore, solicits comments from the public on the status and availability of this MOB detection technology.

    III. Information Requested

    The Coast Guard requests public comment on the following questions. It would be helpful if commenters answer the questions as specifically as possible, and then provide explanations, if any, for the responses. The content of the questions is specifically directed to overboard detection technology providers and users.

    (1) If applicable, what is your position in the maritime community? (Please be as specific as possible, e.g., captain of a cruise of vessel, vessel security officer, owner/operator of a cruise vessel, past/future passenger, advocacy group, professional organization, technology provider etc.)

    If you are an MOB detection technology manufacturer or vendor, please answer questions 2 through 25 and 33 through 35. If not, please answer questions 26 through 35.

    General

    (2) What is the MOB detection technology equipment that you manufacture and what is its status? (Please provide an overall description of the system including make, model, and other pertinent information.)

    (3) Is the MOB detection technology built to any recognized standards?

    (4) Has the MOB detection technology been tested on any vessels and is it currently used on any vessels?

    Reliability/Testing

    (5) What is the testing regimen used to validate whether the MOB detection technology system is effective (including developmental lab testing and in-service testing performed on a floating platform)?

    (6) How reliable is the equipment? (In describing reliability, it is helpful to give specific, tested metrics instead of open-ended phrases such as “reliable in all sea conditions.”)

    (7) Was the MOB detection technology tested in sea states, and if so, what states, and what were the subsequent false positive and false negative rates?

    (8) In what weather conditions was the MOB detection technology tested and what were the subsequent false positive and false negative rates?

    (9) How many times was the control test, described in questions 7 and 8 conducted?

    (10) Did the expected reliability match the operational reliability?

    (11) In the case of a power outage, does the MOB detection technology system maintain operability?

    Detection

    (12) What areas of the vessel is the MOB detection technology system designed to monitor?

    (13) Can the system detect the size of an object that is falling overboard, e.g., the size of an adult vs. a child or a human vs. a large bird? If so, what size objects can the system detect?

    (14) Can the system detect anything else (e.g., heat signatures for fire detection)?

    (15) How does the system eliminate false positives of birds and other items that fall overboard?

    Maintenance

    (16) What is the suggested maintenance and inspection cycle of the MOB detection technology system to ensure its operability?

    (17) Does the system require calibration, and if so, what is the calibration interval?

    (18) What is the availability of technicians globally to install and service the MOB detection technology system?

    (19) Does the marine environment (i.e., sea salt spray) affect the reliability of the system?

    (20) What training will be required for use of the MOB detection technology system, and are there any refresher training requirements?

    Retrofitting/Integration

    (21) Can existing cameras and systems be retrofitted with this MOB detection technology system or is it stand-alone?

    (22) How does the system integrate with the ship's existing safety command center?

    (23) Is the system designed with any automation features?

    (24) Does the system work in tandem with other technologies (i.e., wearable devices)?

    (25) How does the alarm system work, where do the alarms sound, and in what way are the alarms visible?

    If you are a cruise vessel owner or operator or if you represent a cruise line group or industry organization, please answer questions 26 through 32.

    (26) How many cruise vessels use tested MOB detection technology that can detect passengers who have fallen overboard?

    (27) If you do not have vessels that use MOB detection technology, is there currently a plan to integrate this technology on cruise vessels?

    (28) Has anyone fallen overboard on a cruise vessel while the MOB detection technology was operating?

    (29) Did the system alert the crew that someone fell overboard?

    (30) How does the alarm system work, where do the alarms sound, and in what way are the alarms visible?

    (31) How many cruise vessels use image capture technology for passengers who have fallen overboard?

    (32) Did you receive any training on MOB detection technology? If so, please describe it.

    (33) What alternative source(s) for detecting persons falling overboard would you recommend? How would you rate the alternative source(s) in terms of: (a) User cost; (b) reliability; and (c) usefulness of the information?

    (34) Is there any other technology available that vessels can integrate to assist in facilitating the search and rescue of a passenger who has fallen overboard?

    (35) In Section 608 of the 2015 Coast Guard Authorization Act, Congress directs the Coast Guard to consider the cost of MOB detection technology systems when determining feasibility. Our current best available cost data regarding the installation of an MOB detection technology system on an average cruise vessel is $300,000 with annual system maintenance costs of $40,000 per year. Please provide information on the costs of MOB detection technology systems, including costs for equipment and labor for installation, integration, operation, and maintenance on a range of cruise vessel sizes.

    Comments regarding these questions and any other pertinent matters that you would like us to consider during the comment period will be taken into account in our future actions regarding the issues raised in this notice. We encourage you to provide your comments as we move forward with drafting the report to Congress.

    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 19, 2016. B. Hawkins, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Design and Engineering Standards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17775 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022] Technical Mapping Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on September 13 and 14, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The TMAC will meet via conference call on Tuesday, September 13, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and on Wednesday, September 14, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    For information on how to access to the conference call, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below as soon as possible. Members of the public who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to [email protected] (attention Kathleen Boyer) by 11 a.m. EDT on Monday, September 12, 2016.

    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the “Supplementary Information” section below. The Agenda and other associated material will be available for review at www.fema.gov/TMAC by Friday, September 9, 2016. Written comments to be considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be received by Monday, September 12, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Address the email TO: [email protected] and CC: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the email.

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Federal Emergency Management Agency” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

    A public comment period will be held on September 13, 2016, from 11:00-11:20 a.m. and September 14, 2016 from 11:00-11:20 a.m. EST. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. Each public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Monday, September 12, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-4023, and email [email protected] The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5)(a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an Annual Report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

    Agenda: On September 13 and 14, 2016, the TMAC will review and discuss potential recommendations to be included in the required 2016 TMAC Annual Report. A brief public comment period will take place before any deliberation and vote on each day of the meeting. A more detailed agenda will be posted by September 9, 2016, at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17736 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022] Technical Mapping Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Committee management; notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet in person on August 10-11, 2016 in Reston, VA. The meeting will be open to the public.

    DATES:

    The TMAC will meet on Wednesday, August 10, 2016 from 8:00 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and Thursday, August 11, 2016 from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its business.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held in the auditorium of the United States Geological Survey (USGS) headquarters building located at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must register in advance by sending an email to [email protected] (Attention: Kathleen Boyer) by 11:00 p.m. EDT on Wednesday, August 3, 2016. Members of the public must check in at the USGS Visitor's entrance security desk; photo identification is required.

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: below as soon as possible.

    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by the TMAC, as listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Associated meeting materials will be available at www.fema.gov/TMAC for review by Tuesday, August 2, 2016. Written comments to be considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be submitted and received by Wednesday, August 3, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and submitted by one of the following methods:

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

    Email: Address the email TO: [email protected] and CC: [email protected] Include the docket number in the subject line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the email.

    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words “Federal Emergency Management Agency” and the docket number for this action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

    Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.

    A public comment period will be held on Wednesday, August 10, 2016, from 4:00 to 4:30 p.m. EDT and again on Thursday, August 11, 2016, from 3:00 to 3:30 p.m. EDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. The public comment period will not exceed 30 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register as a speaker by close of business on Tuesday, August 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20024, telephone (202) 646-4023, and email [email protected] The TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.

    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1) How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and milestones required to effectively and efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b) data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3) how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5) (a) methods for improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an annual report to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.

    Agenda: The TMAC will review and discuss potential recommendations for the required 2016 TMAC Annual Report. TMAC members may receive briefings from subject matter experts. In addition, the TMAC members will identify and coordinate on the TMAC's next steps for Annual Report production. A brief public comment period will take place at the beginning of each day during the meeting and prior to any vote. The full agenda and related briefing materials will be posted for review by August 3, 2016 at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: July 9, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17735 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4273-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001] West Virginia; Amendment No. 6 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4273-DR), dated June 25, 2016, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective on July 13, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of West Virginia is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 25, 2016.

    Braxton, Gilmer, Lewis, Randolph, Upshur, and Wayne Counties for Public Assistance. Lincoln County for Public Assistance [Categories A and C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program).

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17755 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1623] Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    Comments are to be submitted on or before October 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1623, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).

    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.

    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Upper Suwannee Watershed Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Hamilton County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Town of White Springs Town Hall, 10363 Bridge Street, White Springs, FL 32096. Unincorporated Areas of Hamilton County Hamilton County Building Department, 204 Northeast 1st Street, Jasper, FL 32052. Suwannee County, Florida and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Suwannee County Suwannee County Planning and Zoning and Floodplain Management Department, 224 Pine Avenue Southwest, Live Oak, FL 32064. Mississippi Coastal Watershed Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Hancock County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas Unincorporated Areas of Hancock County Hancock County Government Annex Complex, 854 Highway 90, Suite A, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520. Harrison County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas City of Biloxi Community Development Building, 676 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard, Biloxi, MS 39530. City of Gulfport William K. Hardy Building, 1410 24th Avenue, Gulfport, MS 39501. Unincorporated Areas of Harrison County Harrison County Code Administration, 15309 Community Road, Gulfport, MS 39503. Jackson County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas City of Gautier City Hall, 3330 Highway 90, Gautier, MS 39553. Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County Jackson County Planning Department, 2915 Canty Street, Suite Q, Pascagoula, MS 39567. Pearl River County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas City of Poplarville City Hall, 200 Highway 26 East, Poplarville, MS 39470. Unincorporated Areas of Pearl River County Pearl River County Building Permits and E-911 Office, 402 South Main Street, Poplarville, MS 39470.

    II. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Jefferson Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 12-06-0629S Preliminary Date: February 15, 2016 City of Gretna City Hall, 740 2nd Street, Gretna, LA 70053. City of Harahan City Hall, 6437 Jefferson Highway, Harahan, LA 70123. City of Kenner City Hall, 1801 Williams Boulevard, Kenner, LA 70062. City of Westwego City Hall, 419 Avenue A, Westwego, LA 70094. Unincorporated Areas of Jefferson Parish Joseph S. Yenni Building, 1221 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Jefferson, LA 70123. Bowie County, Texas and Incorporated Areas Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata Project: 16-06-0058S Preliminary Date: March 24, 2016 City of Nash City Hall, 119 Elm Street, Nash, TX 75569. City of Texarkana Public Works Department, 919 Elm Street, Texarkana, TX 75504. City of Wake Village City Hall, 624 Burma Road, Wake Village, TX 75501. Unincorporated Areas of Bowie County Bowie County Courthouse, 710 James Bowie Drive, New Boston, TX 75570.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17740 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1633] Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title 44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR part 65). The LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.

    DATES:

    These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.

    From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.

    ADDRESSES:

    The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.

    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.

    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and with 44 CFR part 65.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.

    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Idaho: Ada Unincorporated Areas of Ada County (15-10-1460P) Commissioner Dave Case, Chairman, Board of Commissioners, Ada County, 200 West Front Street, 3rd Floor, Boise, ID 83702 Ada County Courthouse, 200 West Front Street, Boise, ID 83702 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Mar. 9, 2016 160001 Illinois: Douglas City of Tuscola (16-05-0749P) The Honorable Daniel J. Kleiss, Mayor, City of Tuscola, 214 North Main Street, Tuscola, IL 61953 City Hall, 214 North Main Street, Tuscola, IL 61953 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 25, 2016 170195 Douglas Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County (16-05-0749P) The Honorable Don Munson, Chairman, Douglas County Board, Douglas County Courthouse, P.O. Box 467, Tuscola, IL 61953 County Courthouse, 401 South Center Street, Tuscola, IL 61953 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 25, 2016 170194 Peoria City of Peoria (15-05-6957P) The Honorable Jim Ardis, Mayor, City of Peoria, 419 Fulton Street, Suite 401, Peoria, IL 61602 Public Works Department, 3505 North Dries Lane, Peoria, IL 61604 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sept. 16, 2016 170536 Iowa: Franklin City of Sheffield (16-07-1093X) The Honorable Nick Wilson, Mayor, City of Sheffield, City Hall, 110 South 3rd Street, P.O. Box 252, Sheffield, IA 50475 City Hall, 110 South 3rd Street, Sheffield, IA 50475 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 26, 2016 190132 Polk City of Grimes (15-07-2236P) The Honorable Thomas Armstrong, Mayor, City of Grimes, City Hall, 101 Northeast Harvey Street, Grimes, IA 50111 City Hall, 101 North East Harvey Street, Grimes, IA 50111 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 16, 2016 190228 Polk Unincorporated Areas of Polk County (15-07-2236P) Mr. Tom Hockensmith, Board of Supervisors, Polk County, Polk County Administration Building, 111 Court Avenue, Suite 300, Des Moines, IA 50309 Polk County Public Works, 5885 North East 14th Street, Des Moines, IA 50313 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 16, 2016 190901 Missouri: St. Louis City of Chesterfield (16-07-0481P) The Honorable Bob Nation, Mayor, City of Chesterfield, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017 City Hall, 690 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 19, 2016 290896 St. Louis City of Wildwood (16-07-0481P) The Honorable Timothy Woerther, Mayor, City of Wildwood, City Hall, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, MO 63040 City Hall, 16860 Main Street, Wildwood, MO 63040 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 19, 2016 290922 New Jersey: Passaic Borough of Bloomingdale (16-02-0098P) The Honorable Jonathan Dunleavy, Mayor, Borough of Bloomingdale, 101 Hamburg Turnpike, Bloomingdale, NJ 07403 Bloomingdale Borough Hall, 101 Hamburg Turnpike, Bloomingdale, NJ 07403 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 23, 2016 345284 Ohio: Lucas City of Oregon (16-05-1552P) The Honorable Michael J. Seferian, Mayor, City of Oregon, 5330 Seaman Road, Oregon, OH 43616 City Hall, 5330 Seaman Road, Oregon, OH 43616 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 13, 2016 390361 Tuscarawas Village of Zoar (16-05-2633P) The Honorable Scott Gordon, Mayor, Village of Zoar, 250 North Main Street, P.O. Box 544, Zoar, OH 44697 County Administrative Offices, 125 East High Avenue, New Philadelphia, OH 44663 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 9, 2016 390752 Warren Unincorporated Areas of Warren County (15-05-6683P) The Honorable Pat South, Chairperson, Warren County Board of County Commissioners, 406 Justice Drive, 1st Floor, Lebanon, OH 45036 Warren County Administration Building, 406 Justice Drive, Room 167, Lebanon, OH 45036 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 29, 2016 390757 Oregon: Jackson City of Central Point (16-10-0502P) The Honorable Hank Williams, Mayor, City of Central Point, 140 South 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 City of Central Point, 140 South 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2016 410092 Jackson Unincorporated Areas of Jackson County (16-10-0502P) Mr. Don Skundrick, Jackson County Commissioner, 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Room 100, Medford, OR 97501 Jackson County Roads, Parks and Planning Services, 10 South Oakdale Avenue, Medford, OR 97501 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2016 415589 Texas: Dallas City of Grand Prairie (16-06-1079P) The Honorable Ron Jensen, Mayor, City of Grand Prairie, 317 West College Street, P.O. Box 534045, Grand Prairie, TX 75053 City Development Center, 206 West Church Street, Grand Prairie, TX 75050 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 12, 2016 485472 Dallas City of Irving (16-06-1079P) The Honorable Beth Van Duyne, Mayor, City of Irving, 825 West Irving Boulevard, Irving, TX 75060 Public Works Department, 825 West Irving Boulevard, Irving, TX 75060 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 12, 2016 480180 Washington: Spokane Unincorporated Areas of Spokane County (16-10-0312P) The Honorable Nancy McLaughlin, County Commissioner, Spokane County, Spokane County Courthouse, 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 Public Works Building, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Aug. 26, 2016 530174 Wisconsin: Dane City of Madison (16-05-1781P) The Honorable Paul R. Soglin, Mayor, City of Madison, Mayor's Office, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Room 403, Madison, WI 53703 City Hall, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Room 403, Madison, WI 53703 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2016 550083 Dane Unincorporated Areas of Dane County (16-05-1781P) The Honorable Joe Parisi, Dane County Executive, City-County Building, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Room 421, Madison, WI 53703 City-County Building, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Room 116, Madison, WI 53703 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 14, 2016 550077 Milwaukee City of Milwaukee (16-05-0269P) The Honorable Tom Barrett, Mayor, City of Milwaukee, 200 East Wells Street, Room 201, Milwaukee, WI 53202 City Hall, 200 East Wells Street, Milwaukee, WI 53202 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 23, 2016 550278 Milwaukee City of Oak Creek (16-05-0269P) The Honorable Stephen Scaffidi, Mayor, City of Oak Creek, 8040 South 6th Street, Oak Creek, WI 53154 City Hall, 8640 South Howell Avenue, Oak Creek, WI 53154 http://www.msc.fema.gov/lomc Sep. 23, 2016 550279
    [FR Doc. 2016-17730 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4272-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2016-0001] Texas; Amendment No. 4 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas (FEMA-4272-DR), dated June 11, 2016, and related determinations.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: July 8, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Texas is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of June 11, 2016.

    Bandera, Brown, Caldwell, Houston, Jasper, and Polk Counties for Public Assistance.

    Bastrop, Eastland, Fayette, and Kleberg Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance.)

    Fort Bend, Grimes, Hood, San Jacinto, and Washington Counties for Public Assistance [Categories A and C-G] (already designated for Individual Assistance and emergency protective measures [Category B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance program.)

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

    W. Craig Fugate, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17758 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The effective date of November 4, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

    Community Community map repository address Humboldt County, California and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1511 City of Arcata City of Arcata, 525 9th Street, Arcata, CA 95521. City of Blue Lake City of Blue Lake, 111 Greenwood Avenue, Blue Lake, CA 95525. City of Eureka Public Works Department, City Hall, 531 K Street, Eureka, CA 95501. City of Ferndale Public Works Department, 834 Main Street, Ferndale, CA 95536. City of Fortuna Fortuna City Hall, 621 11th Street, Fortuna, CA 95540. Unincorporated Areas of Humboldt County Clark Complex, 3015 H Street, Eureka, CA 95501. Clinton County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1532 City of Clinton City Hall, 611 South 3rd Street, Clinton, IA 52732. Muscatine County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1529 City of Muscatine City Hall, Community Development Department, 215 Sycamore Street, Muscatine, IA 52761. Unincorporated Areas of Muscatine Muscatine County Zoning Office, 3610 Park Avenue West, Muscatine, IA 52761. Hennepin County, Minnesota and Incorporated Areas Docket No.: FEMA-B-1284 City of Bloomington Engineering Department, 1700 West 98th Street, Bloomington, MN 55431. City of Brooklyn Center City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. City of Brooklyn Park City Hall, 5200 85th Avenue North, Brooklyn Park, MN 55443. City of Champlin City Hall, Building Department, 11955 Champlin Drive, Champlin, MN 55316. City of Dayton City Hall, 12260 South Diamond Lake Road, Dayton, MN 55327. City of Eden Prairie City Hall, 8080 Mitchell Road, Eden Prairie, MN 55344. City of Edina City Hall, 4801 West 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424. City of Greenfield City Hall, 7738 Commerce Circle, Greenfield, MN 55373. City of Hanover City Hall, 11250 Northeast 5th Street, Hanover, MN 55341. City of Hopkins City Hall, Planning and Zoning Office, 1010 1st Street South, Hopkins, MN 55343. City of Independence City Hall, 1920 County Road 90, Independence, MN 55359. City of Long Lake City Hall, 450 Virginia Avenue, Long Lake, MN 55356. City of Minneapolis City Hall, Public Works Office, 350 South 5th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415. City of Minnetonka City Hall, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345. City of Minnetrista City Hall, 7701 County Road 110 West, Minnetrista, MN 55364. City of Orono City Hall, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356. City of Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, MN 55447. City of Richfield City Hall, 6700 Portland Avenue, Richfield, MN 55423. City of Rockford City Hall, 6031 Main Street, Rockford, MN 55373. City of Rogers City Hall, 22350 South Diamond Lake Road, Rogers, MN 55374. City of St. Bonifacius City Hall, 8535 Kennedy Memorial Drive, St. Bonifacius, MN 55375. City of St. Louis Park City Hall, Community Development, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. City of Wayzata City Hall, 600 Rice Street East, Wayzata, MN 55391. Somerset County, New Jersey (All Jurisdictions) Docket No.: FEMA-B-1532 Borough of Manville Municipal Complex, 325 North Main Street, Manville, NJ 08835. Borough of Millstone Millstone Borough Hall, 1353 Main Street, Hillsborough, NJ 08844. Borough of Rocky Hill Municipal Building, 15 Montgomery Avenue, Rocky Hill, NJ 08553. Township of Franklin Township of Franklin Engineering Department, 475 Demott Lane, Somerset, NJ 08873. Township of Hillsborough Municipal Complex, Engineering Department, 379 South Branch Road, Hillsborough, NJ 08844. Township of Montgomery Township of Montgomery Municipal Offices, 2261 Route 206, Belle Mead, NJ 08502.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17739 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency [Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002] Final Flood Hazard Determinations AGENCY:

    Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Final notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below.

    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS report are used by insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for buildings and the contents of those buildings.

    DATES:

    The effective date of November 18, 2016 which has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.

    ADDRESSES:

    The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov by the effective date indicated above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.

    This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.

    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov.

    The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.

    (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, “Flood Insurance.”) Dated: June 20, 2016. Roy E. Wright, Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Community Community map repository address Ulster County, New York (All Jurisdictions) Docket No.: FEMA-B-1404 Town of Denning Denning Town Clerk's Office, 1567 Denning Road, Claryville, NY 12725. Town of Hardenburgh Hardenburgh Town Hall, 51 Rider Hollow Road, Arkville, NY 12406. Town of Hurley Town Hall, 10 Wamsley Place, Hurley, NY 12443. Town of Marbletown Marbletown Town Hall, 1915 Lucas Avenue, Cottekill, NY 12419. Town of Olive Olive Town Hall, 45 Watson Hollow Road, West Shokan, NY 12494. Town of Shandaken Town Hall, 7209 Route 28, Shandaken, NY 12480. Town of Wawarsing Wawarsing Town Assessor's Office and Building Department, 108 Canal Street, Ellenville, NY 12428. Town of Woodstock Town Clerk's Office, 45 Comeau Drive, Woodstock, NY 12498.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17727 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-12-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Secret Service 30-Day Notice and Request for Comments SUMMARY:

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has submitted the following information collection requests (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 1620-0002. This information collection was previously published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2016 at 81 FR 31652, allowing for OMB review and a 60-day public comment period. No comments were received. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice should be directed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for United States Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security, and sent via electronic mail to [email protected]; or faxed to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the form(s) and instructions should be directed to: United States Secret Service, Security Management Division, Attn: ATSAIC Jonathan Bryant, Communications Center (SMD), 345 Murray Lane SW., Building T5, Washington, DC 20223. Telephone number: 202-406-6658.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires each Federal agency to provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The notice for this proposed information collection contains the following: (1) The name of the component of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; (2) Type of review requested, e.g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (3) OMB Control Number, if applicable; (4) Title; (5) Summary of the collection; (6) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (7) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (8) Reporting and/or recordkeeping burden.

    The Department of Homeland Security invites public comment.

    The Department of Homeland Security is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Is the estimate of burden for this information collection accurate; (3) How might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) How might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record. In this document the U.S. Secret Service is soliciting comments concerning the following information collection:

    Title: U.S. Secret Service Facility Access Request.

    OMB Number: 1620-0002.

    Form Number: SSF 3237.

    Abstract: Respondents are primarily Secret Service contractor personnel or non-Secret Service Government employees on official business that require access to Secret Service controlled facilities in performance of official duties. These individuals, if approved for access, will require escorted, unescorted, and staff-like access to Secret Service-controlled facilities. Responses to questions on the SSF 3237 yield information necessary for the adjudication of eligibility for facility access.

    Agency: Department of Homeland Security, United States Secret Service.

    Frequency: Occasionally.

    Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households/Business.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 5000.

    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1250 hours.

    Estimated Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): None.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintaining): None.

    Authority:

    This process is conduced in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Nancy House, Acting Deputy Chief—Policy, Management and Organization Division, U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17748 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-42-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5927-N-02] Mortgage and Loan Insurance Programs Under the National Housing Act—Debenture Interest Rates AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces changes in the interest rates to be paid on debentures issued with respect to a loan or mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration under the provisions of the National Housing Act (the Act). The interest rate for debentures issued under section 221(g)(4) of the Act during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2016, is 1 3/4 percent. The interest rate for debentures issued under any other provision of the Act is the rate in effect on the date that the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date that the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. The interest rate for debentures issued under these other provisions with respect to a loan or mortgage committed or endorsed during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2016, is 2 1/2 percent. However, as a result of an amendment to section 224 of the Act, if an insurance claim relating to a mortgage insured under sections 203 or 234 of the Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, is paid in cash, the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating a claim shall be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yong Sun, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 5148, Washington, DC 20410-8000; telephone (202) 402-4778 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals with speech or hearing impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 224 of the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1715o) provides that debentures issued under the Act with respect to an insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) of the Act) will bear interest at the rate in effect on the date the commitment to insure the loan or mortgage was issued, or the date the loan or mortgage was endorsed (or initially endorsed if there are two or more endorsements) for insurance, whichever rate is higher. This provision is implemented in HUD's regulations at 24 CFR 203.405, 203.479, 207.259(e)(6), and 220.830. These regulatory provisions state that the applicable rates of interest will be published twice each year as a notice in the Federal Register.

    Section 224 further provides that the interest rate on these debentures will be set from time to time by the Secretary of HUD, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, in an amount not in excess of the annual interest rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield of all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of maturities of 15 or more years.

    The Secretary of the Treasury (1) has determined, in accordance with the provisions of section 224, that the statutory maximum interest rate for the period beginning July 1, 2016, is 21/2percent; and (2) has approved the establishment of the debenture interest rate by the Secretary of HUD at 21/2percent for the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2016. This interest rate will be the rate borne by debentures issued with respect to any insured loan or mortgage (except for debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4)) with insurance commitment or endorsement date (as applicable) within the latter 6 months of 2016.

    For convenience of reference, HUD is publishing the following chart of debenture interest rates applicable to mortgages committed or endorsed since January 1, 1980:

    Effective
  • interest rate
  • On or after Prior to
    91/2 Jan. 1, 1980 July 1, 1980. 97/8 July 1, 1980 Jan. 1, 1981. 113/4 Jan. 1, 1981 July 1, 1981. 127/8 July 1, 1981 Jan. 1, 1982. 123/4 Jan. 1, 1982 Jan. 1, 1983. 101/4 Jan. 1, 1983 July 1, 1983. 103/8 July 1, 1983 Jan. 1, 1984. 111/2 Jan. 1, 1984 July 1, 1984. 133/8 July 1, 1984 Jan. 1, 1985. 115/8 Jan. 1, 1985 July 1, 1985. 111/8 July 1, 1985 Jan. 1, 1986. 10 1/4 Jan. 1, 1986 July 1, 1986. 8 1/4 July 1, 1986 Jan. 1. 1987. 8 Jan. 1, 1987 July 1, 1987. 9 July 1, 1987 Jan. 1, 1988. 91/8 Jan. 1, 1988 July 1, 1988. 93/8 July 1, 1988 Jan. 1, 1989. 91/4 Jan. 1, 1989 July 1, 1989. 9 July 1, 1989 Jan. 1, 1990. 81/8 Jan. 1, 1990 July 1, 1990. 9 July 1, 1990 Jan. 1, 1991. 83/4 Jan. 1, 1991 July 1, 1991. 81/2 July 1, 1991 Jan. 1, 1992. 8 Jan. 1, 1992 July 1, 1992. 8 July 1, 1992 Jan. 1, 1993. 73/4 Jan. 1, 1993 July 1, 1993. 7 July 1, 1993 Jan. 1, 1994. 65/8 Jan. 1, 1994 July 1, 1994. 73/4 July 1, 1994 Jan. 1, 1995. 83/8 Jan. 1, 1995 July 1, 1995. 71/4 July 1, 1995 Jan. 1, 1996. 61/2 Jan. 1, 1996 July 1, 1996. 71/4 July 1, 1996 Jan. 1, 1997. 63/4 Jan. 1, 1997 July 1, 1997. 71/8 July 1, 1997 Jan. 1, 1998. 63/8 Jan. 1, 1998 July 1, 1998. 61/8 July 1, 1998 Jan. 1, 1999. 51/2 Jan. 1, 1999 July 1, 1999. 61/8 July 1, 1999 Jan. 1, 2000. 61/2 Jan. 1, 2000 July 1, 2000. 61/2 July 1, 2000 Jan. 1, 2001. 6 Jan. 1, 2001 July 1, 2001. 57/8 July 1, 2001 Jan. 1, 2002. 51/4 Jan. 1, 2002 July 1, 2002. 53/4 July 1, 2002 Jan. 1, 2003. 5 Jan. 1, 2003 July 1, 2003. 41/2 July 1, 2003 Jan. 1, 2004. 51/8 Jan. 1, 2004 July 1, 2004. 51/2 July 1, 2004 Jan. 1, 2005. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2005 July 1, 2005. 41/2 July 1, 2005 Jan. 1, 2006. 47/8 Jan. 1, 2006 July 1, 2006. 53/8 July 1, 2006 Jan. 1, 2007. 43/4 Jan. 1, 2007 July 1, 2007. 5 July 1, 2007 Jan. 1, 2008. 41/2 Jan. 1, 2008 July 1, 2008. 45/8 July 1, 2008 Jan. 1, 2009. 41/8 Jan. 1, 2009 July 1, 2009. 41/8 July 1, 2009 Jan. 1, 2010. 41/4 Jan. 1, 2010 July 1, 2010. 41/8 July 1, 2010 Jan. 1, 2011. 37/8 Jan. 1, 2011 July 1, 2011. 41/8 July 1, 2011 Jan. 1, 2012. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2012 July 1, 2012. 23/4 July 1, 2012 Jan. 1, 2013. 21/2 Jan. 1, 2013 July 1, 2013. 27/8 July 1, 2013 Jan. 1, 2014. 35/8 Jan. 1, 2014 July 1, 2014. 31/4 July 1, 2014 Jan. 1, 2015. 3 Jan. 1, 2015 July 1, 2015. 27/8 July 1, 2015 Jan. 1, 2016. 27/8 Jan. 1, 2016 July 1, 2016. 21/2 July 1, 2016 Jan. 1, 2017.

    Section 215 of Division G, Title II of Public Law 108-199, enacted January 23, 2004 (HUD's 2004 Appropriations Act) amended section 224 of the Act, to change the debenture interest rate for purposes of calculating certain insurance claim payments made in cash. Therefore, for all claims paid in cash on mortgages insured under section 203 or 234 of the National Housing Act and endorsed for insurance after January 23, 2004, the debenture interest rate will be the monthly average yield, for the month in which the default on the mortgage occurred, on United States Treasury Securities adjusted to a constant maturity of 10 years, as found in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H-15. The Federal Housing Administration has codified this provision in HUD regulations at 24 CFR 203.405(b) and 24 CFR 203.479(b).

    Section 221(g)(4) of the Act provides that debentures issued pursuant to that paragraph (with respect to the assignment of an insured mortgage to the Secretary) will bear interest at the “going Federal rate” in effect at the time the debentures are issued. The term “going Federal rate” is defined to mean the interest rate that the Secretary of the Treasury determines, pursuant to a statutory formula based on the average yield on all outstanding marketable Treasury obligations of 8- to 12-year maturities, for the 6-month periods of January through June and July through December of each year. Section 221(g)(4) is implemented in the HUD regulations at 24 CFR 221.255 and 24 CFR 221.790.

    The Secretary of the Treasury has determined that the interest rate to be borne by debentures issued pursuant to section 221(g)(4) during the 6-month period beginning July 1, 2016, is 1 3/4 percent.

    The subject matter of this notice falls within the categorical exemption from HUD's environmental clearance procedures set forth in 24 CFR 50.19(c)(6). For that reason, no environmental finding has been prepared for this notice.

    Authority:

    Sections 211, 221, 224, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1715b, 1715l, 1715o; Section 7(d), Department of HUD Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Edward L. Golding, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17783 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5915-C-05] 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for License for the Use of Personally Identifiable Information Protected Under the Privacy Act of 1974 AGENCY:

    Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Correction; notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice replaces the document HUD published on July 11, 2016 at 81 FR 44891. The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5535 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Anna Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-5535. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department will submit the proposed information collection to OMB for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended). 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 if the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of 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 or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    This notice also lists the following information:

    Title of Proposal: License for the Use of Personally Identifiable Information Protected Under the Privacy Act of 1974.

    Description of the need for information and proposed use: The United States Department of Housing and Urban Department (HUD) has collected and maintains personally identifiable information, the confidentiality of which is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 522A). HUD wishes to make the data available for statistical, research, or evaluation purposes for qualified organizations capable of research and analysis consistent with the statistical, research, or evaluation purposes for which the data were provided or are maintained, but only if the data are used and protected in accordance with the terms and conditions stated in this license (License). Upon receipt of such assurance of qualification and capability, it is hereby agreed between HUD and (Name of the organization to be licensed) that the license be granted.

    Estimation of the total number of hours needed to prepare the information collection including number of respondents, frequency of response, and hours of response:

    Instrument Number of
  • respondents
  • Total annual responses Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
    Applicants 12 12 1 12 Quarterly Reports 0 0 0 0 Annual Reports 40 40 1 40 Final Reports 6 6 .25 1.5 Recordkeeping 12 36 0.5 18 Total 12 94 2.75 71.5

    Status of the proposed information collection: Pending OMB approval.

    Authority:

    Title 12, U.S.C., section 1701z-1 et seq.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Katherine M. O'Regan, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17778 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service [Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0169; 4500030113] Methodology for Prioritizing Status Reviews and Accompanying 12-Month Findings on Petitions for Listing Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a final methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on petitions for listing species under the Endangered Species Act. This methodology is intended to allow us to address outstanding workload strategically as our resources allow and to provide transparency to our partners and other stakeholders as to how we establish priorities within our upcoming workload.

    DATES:

    The Service plans to put this methodology in place immediately in order to prioritize upcoming status reviews and develop our National Listing Workplan.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may review the reference materials and public input used in the creation of this final methodology at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2015-0169. Some of these materials are also available for public inspection at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803, during normal business hours.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Douglas Krofta, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation and Classification, MS: ES, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803; telephone 703/358-2171; facsimile 703/358-1735. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), the public can petition the Service to list, delist, or reclassify a species as an endangered species or a threatened species. The Act sets forth specific timeframes in which to complete initial findings on petitions: The Service has, to the maximum extent practicable, 90 days from receiving a petition to make a finding on whether the petition presents substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted; and subsequently 12 months from receiving a petition for which the Service has made a positive initial finding to make a finding on whether the petitioned action is warranted, not warranted, or warranted but precluded. However, these statutory deadlines have often proven not to be achievable given the workload in the listing program and the available resources.

    As a result of petitions to list a large number of species under the Act received between 2007 and 2012, our workload requires us to complete more than 500 status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on those petitions. At the same time, our resources to complete these findings are limited. Beginning in 2010, we took steps to streamline our listing program, and we continue to find efficiencies in our procedures for evaluating petitions and conducting listing actions. However, these efforts are not sufficient to keep up with the demands of our workload. This methodology is intended to allow us to address the outstanding workload of status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings strategically as our resources allow and to provide transparency to our partners and other stakeholders as to how we establish priorities within our workload into the future.

    To balance and manage this existing and anticipated future status review and accompanying 12-month finding workload in the most efficient manner, we have developed this methodology to help us fulfill our mission and to use our resources in a consistent and predictable manner. We intend to achieve this goal by working on the highest-priority status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings (actions) first. The methodology consists of five prioritization categories. For each action, we will determine where (into which category) each action belongs, and we will use that information to establish the order in which we plan to complete status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on petitions to list species under the Act. This prioritization of status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings will inform a multi-year National Listing Workplan for completing all types of actions in the listing program workload—including not only status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings, but also status reviews initiated by the Service, proposed and final listing determinations, and proposed and final critical habitat designations. We will share the National Listing Workplan with other Federal agencies, State fish and wildlife agencies, Native American Tribes, and other stakeholders and the public at large through our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered/) and periodically update it as circumstances warrant. This methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings to list species does not apply to actions to uplist a species from a threatened species to an endangered species, to downlist a species from an endangered species to a threatened species, or to delist a species. Further, this methodology does not replace our 1983 Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority Guidelines (September 21, 1983; 48 FR 43098), which apply to species that have already been determined to warrant a listing proposal; rather, it complements it and can be used in conjunction with it. As with the 1983 guidelines, this methodology must be viewed as a guide and should not be looked upon as an inflexible framework for determining resource allocations (see 48 FR 43098). It is not intended to be binding. The methodology identified in this document that is to be used in prioritizing actions incorporates numerous objectives—including acting on the species that are most in need of, and that would most benefit from, listing under the Act first, and increasing the efficiency of the listing program.

    We plan to evaluate unresolved status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for upcoming listing actions and prioritize them using the prioritization categories identified in this methodology to assign each action to one of five priority categories, or “bins,” as described below. In prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings, we will consider information from the 90-day finding, any petitions, and any other information in our files. We recognize that we may not always have in our files the information necessary to assign an action to the correct bin, so we plan to work also with State fish and wildlife agencies and Native American Tribes who have management responsibility for these species or relevant scientific data, as well as with any other appropriate conservation partners who have relevant scientific data, to obtain the information necessary to allow us to accurately categorize specific actions.

    Summary of Changes From the Draft Notice

    Below is a summary of changes from the draft methodology as a result of public review and comment.

    1. We added to the description of Bin 1 to clarify our intent to include species for which there is an urgent need for protection under the Act.

    2. A clarification of “reasonable timeframe” was added to the description of Bin 3.

    3. The word “Opportunities” in the title of Bin 4 was changed to “Efforts” to more closely align with language in our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE).

    4. We changed “completed in time” to “reasonable timeframe” in the description of Bin 4, clarified the phrase, and added language clarifying our consideration of conservation efforts.

    5. We have split the section of the draft methodology titled Additional Considerations into two sections for the final methodology—“Sub-Ranking Considerations” and “Exceptions to Priority Order.” We clarified that the sub-ranking considerations are only to be used to move actions for species within bins, not between bins. We also explained the circumstances in which the exceptions to priority order may be used.

    6. We made several other minor edits to increase clarity and readability of the methodology.

    Priority Bins

    Below we describe the categories we have identified for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings and the information that we will consider when placing specific actions into the appropriate priority bin. An action need not meet every facet of a particular bin in order to be placed in that bin. If an action meets the conditions for more than one bin, the Service will seek to prioritize that action by considering any case-specific information relevant to determining what prioritization would, overall, best advance the objectives of this methodology—including protecting the species that are most in need of, and that would benefit most from, listing under the Act first, and increasing the efficiency of the listing program. If an action meets the definition for Bin 1 (see descriptions of bins, below) and one or more of the other bins, we will place the action in Bin 1 to address the urgency and degree of imperilment associated with that bin.

    The sub-ranking considerations that follow the descriptions of the bins will be used to determine the relative timing of actions within bins, not to move actions between bins. Additionally, we identify two exceptions to the binning methodology that may, in certain circumstances, result in actions being completed out of priority order.

    (1) Highest Priority—Critically Imperiled

    Highest priority will be given to a species experiencing severe threat levels across a majority of its range, resulting in severe population-level impacts. Species that are critically imperiled, meaning they appear to be in danger of extinction now, and need immediate listing action in order to prevent extinction, will be given highest priority. Actions placed in this bin include actions for which we have strong information indicating an urgent need for protection of species under the Act as well as emergency listings. In section 4(b)(7) of the Act, the Secretary is granted discretion to issue a regulation that takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Such an emergency regulation is in effect for a period of 240 days, during which time the Service follows routine rulemaking procedures to list a species as an endangered or threatened species. Given this statutory background, information indicating imminence of threats is a key factor for placement in this bin.

    (2) Strong Data Already Available on Status

    Actions for which we currently have strong information concerning the species' status will receive next highest priority. We acknowledge that the Act requires that we base our decisions on the best available information at the time we make a determination, and we will continue to adhere to that requirement. Our experience implementing the Act has shown us that high-quality scientific information leads to stronger, more defensible decisions that have increased longevity. Therefore, we will generally place actions for which we have particularly strong scientific data supporting a clear decision on a species' status—either a decision that the species likely warrants listing or likely does not warrant listing—at a higher priority than actions placed in Bins 3, 4, and 5, discussed below.

    (3) New Science Underway To Inform Key Uncertainties

    As stated previously, higher-quality scientific information leads to better decision-making, which focuses our resources on providing the protections of the Act to species most in need. Scientific uncertainty regarding information that could affect a species' status is often encountered in listing decisions. With the new, emerging information, a more-informed decision could be made (e.g., a species' status could be determined fairly readily through surveys or other research). For circumstances when that uncertainty can be resolved within a reasonable timeframe because emerging science (e.g., taxonomy, genetics, threats) is underway to answer key questions that may influence the listing determination, those actions will be prioritized for completion next after those with existing strong information bases. The new information should be made available to us within a timeframe that is reasonable, considering what information is already known about threats, status, and trends for the species and how pivotal the new study would be to inform our status determination.

    This bin is appropriate when the emerging science or study is already underway, or a report is expected soon, or the data exist, but they need to be compiled and analyzed. Placing an action in this bin does not put off working on the listing action; it just prioritizes work on actions in Bins 1 and 2 for completion first. An action for which ongoing research is not expected to produce results in the near future would not be placed in this bin. We intend to move forward with decision-making after the research results become available.

    (4) Conservation Efforts in Development or Underway

    Where efforts to conserve species are organized, underway, and likely to address the threats to the species, we will consider these actions as our fourth highest priority. Conservation efforts should be at a scale that is relevant to the conservation of the species and likely to be able to influence the outcome of a listing determination. Placing an action in this bin allows the Service to focus its resources on other species whose status is unlikely to change, while conservation efforts for this species get underway, and obtain enrollment or commitments from landowners or other entities, as needed, so that those efforts can have an impact on the status of the species in time to be considered in the status review. If conservation efforts, although laudable, would not be able to address the major threats to a species, the action would not be appropriate for placement in Bin 4. Consistent with our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) (68 FR 15100; March 28, 2003), we consider conservation efforts to be specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species. In order for actions to be appropriately placed in this bin, conservation efforts should be in place now or within a reasonable timeframe, considering what information is already known about threats, status, and trends for the species and how pivotal the conservation efforts would be to inform our status determination. When conducting the status review and accompanying 12-month finding, we will consider conservation efforts not yet implemented or not yet shown to be effective according to PECE, as appropriate. Conservation efforts should aim to be either implemented or effective by the time of the listing determination or meet the PECE standard (i.e., demonstrate a high certainty of implementation and effectiveness). Placing an action in this bin does not put off working on the listing action; it just prioritizes work on actions in Bins 1, 2, and 3 for completion first.

    (5) Limited Data Currently Available

    Actions for a species where limited information is available regarding its threats or status will be given fifth highest priority. If we do not have much information about a species without conducting research or further analysis, the action would be suitably placed in this bin. Placing an action in this bin does not put off working on the listing action; it just prioritizes work on actions in Bins 1, 2, 3, and 4 for completion first.

    According to the standard under the Act, we need to make listing decisions based on the best available scientific and commercial data. Because the best available data for species in this bin may be very limited even if the Service conducts further research, we will prioritize work on species for which we have more and better data already available.

    Sub-Ranking Considerations

    The three considerations set forth below will only be used to determine the relative timing of species within their respective bins (i.e., as tie-breakers within a bin), and will not be used to move species between bins.

    a. The level of complexity surrounding the status review and accompanying 12-month finding, such as the degree of controversy, biological complexity, or whether the status review and accompanying 12-month finding covers multiple species or spans multiple geographic regions of the Service.

    b. The extent to which the protections of the Act would be able to improve conditions for that species and its habitat or to provide benefits to many other species. For example, a species primarily under threat due to sea-level rise from the effects of climate change is unlikely to have its condition much improved by the protections of the Act. By contrast, a species primarily under threat due to habitat destruction or fragmentation from a specific human activity would more directly benefit from the protections of the Act. Although this consideration may be used to determine the relative timing of making determinations for different species within a particular bin, the Service does not consider this information in making status determinations of whether or not species warrant listing.

    c. Whether the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance workload across geographic areas.

    Exceptions to Priority Order

    In some specific instances, we may complete work on actions outside of priority order (e.g., we may work on a Bin 3 action ahead of a Bin 2 action). Where appropriate, the following exceptions may be used in scheduling the timing of actions.

    a. Where there are opportunities to maximize efficiency by batching multiple species for the purpose of status reviews, petition findings, or listing determinations. For example, actions could be batched by taxon, by species with like threats, by similar geographic location, or other similar circumstances. Batching may result in lower-priority actions that are tied to higher-priority actions being completed earlier than they would otherwise.

    b. Where there are any special circumstances whereby an action should be bumped up (or down) in scheduling. One limitation that might result in divergence from priority order is when the current highest priorities are clustered in a geographic area, such that our scientific expertise at the field office level is fully occupied with their existing workload. We recognize that the geographic distribution of our scientific expertise will in some cases require us to balance workload across geographic areas.

    Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    On January 15, 2016, we published a document in the Federal Register (81 FR 2229) that requested written comments and information from the public on the draft methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings on petitions for listing under the Act. The comment period was open for 30 days, ending February 16, 2016. Comments we received are grouped into general categories below specifically relating to the draft methodology.

    Comments Regarding National Listing Workplan

    Comment (1): We received many comments on the National Listing Workplan asking for details regarding the frequency of updates, methodology for development, public or stakeholder input, types of actions to be included, consistency with prior Service policies, and the practical implementation of such a plan.

    Our Response: Comments on the National Listing Workplan are outside the scope of this methodology and the open public comment period. This methodology is one tool that will be used to develop and maintain the National Listing Workplan. Other factors that will be considered in development of the National Listing Workplan include annual available funding, staffing resources, non-discretionary requirements such as court orders and settlement-agreement requirements, and the listing priority numbers of existing candidate species. This final methodology does not set forth the particulars of implementation or periodic revision of the National Listing Workplan; those details will be made available when the workplan is shared publicly later this summer through posting on our Web site and public outreach.

    Comments Regarding Bin 1

    Comment (2): Several commenters requested clarifications or definitions of words or phrases in Bin 1, specifically the phrases “critically imperiled,” “severe threat,” “majority of its range,” and “severe population-level impacts.” Commenters suggested adding the phrase “based on the best available science” to the definition of Bin 1. Another commenter suggested adding examples of how the Service would determine that a species is experiencing severe threat levels across a majority of its range, resulting in severe population-level impacts.

    Our Response: We have provided more clarity regarding the meaning of “critically imperiled” in the description of Bin 1. We consider that phrase to mean that a species appears to be in danger of extinction now (the species is currently on the brink of extinction in the wild), such that immediate action to list the species under the Act is necessary to prevent extinction. See Service 2008 for additional discussion of how the Service views categories of endangered species. In section 4(b)(7) of the Act, the Secretary is granted discretion to issue a regulation that takes effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. This emergency regulation is in effect for a period of 240 days, during which time the Service follows routine rulemaking procedures to list a species as endangered or threatened. Given this statutory background, information indicating imminence of threats is a key factor for placement in this bin. We have not added the phrase “based on the best available science” to the definition of Bin 1, because the requirement to base decisions on the best available science applies to the status determination, not to the binning or prioritization process. While we readily acknowledge that, at the time of bin placement, there will not yet be a determination of status, we will consider information from our files, the 90-day finding, any petitions, and from our partners (see Background section, above) indicating that a particular species may be experiencing severe, rangewide, and imminent threats in order to place a species in Bin 1.

    However, we decline to define the other phrases highlighted by the commenters because the particular facts of what constitutes a “severe threat,” what the “majority of its range” represents, and what “severe population-level impacts” means are highly specific to the circumstances of individual species.

    Comment (3): One commenter noted that Bin 1 appears to suppose strong data are available to define “critically imperiled” and “severe threats,” meaning there is significant overlap between Bins 1 and 2. The commenter stated that the final methodology needs to make clear the distinction between placing species in Bin 1 or Bin 2.

    Our Response: We have added language to the final methodology to further distinguish between Bin 1 and Bin 2. Our intent is that an action will be categorized into only one bin based on the information available at the time of binning. Our intent is to prioritize for early action the species that meet the definition of Bin 1, regardless of whether they meet the definition of other bins.

    Comments Regarding Bin 2

    Comment (4): One commenter requested that the Service clarify that assessing the strength of data solely relates to the availability of information, and will not prejudice the evaluation of whether listing is warranted or not warranted, which is based on the best available scientific and commercial information.

    Our Response: This methodology does not dispose of the Service's obligation to use the best available scientific and commercial data when assessing whether listing a species under the Act is warranted or not warranted. The intent of Bin 2 is not to evaluate how much available information there is about a particular species, but rather how strongly the data point in a direction relative to whether listing may or may not be warranted. In this final methodology, we clarify the description for Bin 2 as the following:

    . . . we will generally place an action for which we have particularly strong scientific data supporting a clear decision on status—either a decision that the species likely warrants listing or likely does not warrant listing—at a higher priority than species in Bins 3, 4, and 5 . . .

    Combined with the intent of this methodology for prioritizing status reviews and accompanying 12-month petition findings, we view this language as clear.

    Comment (5): Several commenters questioned why the Service would prioritize work on 12-month findings that have strong information indicating listing is likely not warranted ahead of those where listing is likely warranted. In this same theme, another commenter stated that species that are imperiled should be prioritized over those that are relatively secure.

    Our Response: To the extent possible, the Service will equally prioritize actions for species for which we have strong information indicating listing is likely warranted or likely not warranted. Both of these outcomes take advantage of the high quality of the current body of scientific knowledge on the species. In the case where we have strong information for a species indicating that listing is likely warranted, we want to provide the protections of the Act in a timely fashion. In the cases where we have strong information for a species indicating that listing is likely not warranted, we want to provide that regulatory certainty to our conservation partners so that they can focus their conservation resources on species in need. Additionally, by placing species in Bin 2 for which we have strong information indicating listing is likely not warranted, we anticipate being able to quickly and efficiently reduce our overall workload.

    Comment (6): One commenter stated that because Bin 2 suggests adequate information is available to make a decision, candidate species in this bin should be either listed or determined to not warrant listing.

    Our Response: This prioritization methodology has been developed strictly to prioritize work for species awaiting status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings after completed 90-day findings indicated that the species may warrant listing. Candidate species have already had a 12-month finding completed and have been determined to warrant listing; therefore, they would not be subject to binning using this methodology. Candidate species receive a listing priority number (LPN), which is a prioritization method for candidate species that have been found to warrant listing but are precluded by other actions of higher priority.

    Comment (7): One commenter requested clarification of how the Service would categorize actions for species that potentially meet the criteria for more than one bin. In particular, the commenter questioned how the Service would prioritize between an action for a species with strong data available (Bin 2) and an action for a species with significant conservation efforts underway (Bin 4).

    Our Response: This final prioritization methodology is designed to place an action into only one bin. In general, if an action meets the conditions for more than one bin, the Service will prioritize that action by considering any case-specific information relevant to determining what prioritization would, overall, best advance the objectives of this methodology—including protecting first the species that are most in need of, and that would benefit most from, listing under the Act, and increasing the efficiency of the listing program. If an action meets the definition for Bin 1 and one or more of the other bins, we will place the action in Bin 1 to address the urgency and degree of imperilment associated with species in that bin. The Service will evaluate on a case-by-case basis other instances in which an action meets the criteria for more than one bin. In the particular instance highlighted by the commenter, where there is strong data indicating that listing a particular species is likely warranted and conservation measures likely to address the threats to the species are underway, the Service could choose to add the species to Bin 4. In this example, placement in Bin 4 would allow the Service to concentrate its resources on status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings for higher-priority species for which the conservation status is unlikely to change in the immediate future. Meanwhile, the conservation efforts for the species at issue might ameliorate threats such that listing would not be warranted by the time the Service completed higher-priority actions. This approach would also appropriately prioritize for earlier action species for which no conservation efforts are underway.

    Comments Regarding Bin 3

    Comment (8): One commenter requested additional clarity regarding the types of data, uncertainties, or ongoing studies that are needed to appropriately place an action in Bin 3. The commenter suggested that actions only be placed in Bin 3 if the uncertainty relates to whether the species is imperiled or not and the new information may shift the outcome of the 12-month finding.

    Our Response: Scientific uncertainty regarding information that could affect a species' status is often encountered in listing decisions. If the research underway would have no bearing on a status determination, we would not place the species in Bin 3. However, many types of information, in addition to degree of imperilment, inform the outcome of a status determination. For example, ongoing investigations into questions regarding taxonomy and genetics inform whether the entity being evaluated qualifies as a listable entity or not. Therefore, a variety of types of research efforts underway may qualify an action for placement in Bin 3.

    Comment (9): Several commenters asked for the Service to define “reasonable timeframe” and also noted that the Act does not allow for an exception to the 12-month timeframe to complete a status review and 12-month finding. One commenter encouraged the Service to make timely decisions.

    Our Response: In our draft methodology (81 FR 2229; January 15, 2016), and in this final methodology, we readily acknowledge the requirements of the Act to make a status review and accompanying 12-month petition finding within 12 months of receiving a petition. However, it is not possible, given our budget limitations established by Congress and the immense backlog of 12-month findings, to meet our statutory obligations under the Act for 12-month findings. Regarding the request to define “reasonable timeframe,” we cannot specify a particular value of months or years. Rather, we have added language to the Bin 3 description to provide clarification that we intend “reasonable timeframe” to mean that the new information should be made available to us within a timeframe that is reasonable, considering what information is already known about threats, status, and trends for the species and how pivotal the new study would be to inform our status determination. This will allow for the necessary flexibility to assess case-specific facts and implement this prioritization methodology and thereby inform the National Listing Workplan. In this way, we envision being able to make decisions in a timely manner while providing predictability for our conservation partners.

    Comments Regarding Bin 4

    Comment (10): Several commenters requested the Service clarify that the types of conservation measures (permanent versus temporary; enforceable versus unenforceable) matter when considering binning species.

    Our Response: Bin 4 would include species for which conservation efforts are organized, underway, and likely to address the threats to the species. These efforts could include a variety of different types of conservation efforts, and it is difficult to anticipate all the fact patterns that could arise. By using the phrase “likely to address the threats to the species,” we mean that they are at a scale that is relevant to the conservation of the species and that they are likely to be able to influence the outcome of a listing determination. If conservation efforts, although laudable, would not be able to address the major threats to a species, the species would not be appropriate for placement in Bin 4. Likewise, conservation efforts should aim to be implemented and effective by the time of the listing determination or to meet the PECE standard if either or both of those criteria have not been achieved (i.e., demonstrate a high certainty of implementation and/or effectiveness).

    Comment (11): Several commenters suggested the consideration of conservation measures (Bin 4) should be a higher priority than “new science underway” (Bin 3), while one other commenter suggested Bin 4 be given the lowest priority to allow time for conservation measures to become effective and obviate the need to list species.

    Our Response: The Service chooses to maintain the order of bins as described in the draft and this final methodology. We have determined that it is more logical to keep Bin 5 as the lowest priority, rather than Bin 4. Placing the current Bin 5 ahead of the current Bin 4 would mean allocating more resources to data-deficient species rather than to species with higher-quality information. The order of Bin 3 also may have the effect of allowing time for needed scientific investigations to be completed and available for consideration in any 12-month finding. Lastly, we anticipate that Bin 5 will be used less in the future with more-consistent application of the 90-day finding standard; for example, if the proposed revised petition regulations are finalized as noticed to the public on April 16, 2016 (81 FR 23448), species with little information would be dismissed at the 90-day stage rather than considered for a full status review. The current order of the bins focuses the Service's resources first on those species whose status is unlikely to change, with the effect of allowing time for conservation measures to mature and become effective, potentially obviating the need to list species.

    Comment (12): One commenter stated that Bin 4 mixes two separate considerations under the Act, listing and recovery. The commenter stated that a full determination of whether ongoing conservation efforts are sufficient to address threats can only be made if a recovery plan has been developed for a species.

    Our Response: The Service has a long history of considering whether conservation efforts effectively ameliorate threats to species when making listing determinations under the Act. In particular, section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act specifies that we consider conservation efforts being made by any State or political subdivision of a State when conducting a review of the status of a particular species. Our status assessments always consider conservation efforts that have been implemented and effective when analyzing the overall status of a species. We apply PECE when we wish to rely on conservation efforts in our status assessments that have not yet been implemented or been shown to be effective. A recent example of the application of PECE is the not-warranted finding for the least chub (79 FR 51042; August 26, 2014). A recovery plan does not need to be in place before we can accurately assess whether conservation efforts are likely to affect a listing determination.

    Comment (13): Several commenters questioned the meaning of the phrase, “completed in time for consideration in the status review” and asked for a definition of this phrase.

    Our Response: We have changed the phrase “completed in time” to “reasonable timeframe” in this final methodology. We added language to the description of Bin 4 stating that conservation efforts should be in place now or within a reasonable timeframe, considering what information is already known about threats, status, and trends for the species and how pivotal the conservation efforts would be to inform our status determination.

    Comment (14): A commenter questioned whether conservation efforts need be completed or participants only be enrolled. If the Service intends only the latter, the commenter recommends actions should be evaluated according to PECE.

    Our Response: When we refer to conservation efforts, we consider those to be specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species. We have added language to the description of Bin 4 to clarify this point. Our intention is for this methodology to be an assessment tool to quickly and strategically prioritize our workload. Before we can rely on conservation efforts that have not been implemented or shown to be effective as a basis for not listing a species that would otherwise be warranted, we first must determine that the efforts have a high certainty of effectiveness and implementation in accordance with PECE.

    Comments Regarding Bin 5

    Comment (15): One commenter suggested reevaluating species in Bin 5 on a regular basis to determine whether they can be moved to another bin.

    Our Response: If we receive additional information on a species for which we formerly had little information, we can revisit the order in which we plan to address it. We may take into consideration such factors as: Whether moving an action for a species into another bin would disrupt other actions in that bin; whether resources would be available to address the action; whether conservation partners would be able to take action on that particular species; or other relevant factors. However, because the National Listing Workplan is designed to provide predictability to our stakeholders on what actions we are taking and when, we want to avoid delaying already scheduled actions to the extent possible. Therefore, we might not be able to change the timeframe associated with that action unless we determined that it qualified for Bin 1 or we have the ability to take on additional work with our existing resources.

    Comment (16): Many commenters disagreed with the concept of Bin 5 altogether and suggested species in this bin should not be subjected to status reviews if almost no data exist regarding their status. Other commenters were concerned that species in this bin would be “parked” here indefinitely. A few commenters stressed that the relevant inquiry for a 12-month finding is not whether there is a lack of data, but rather an assessment of the best available scientific and commercial data regarding a species. Commenters reminded the Service that there is a significant distinction between not knowing enough about a species and a circumstance where the best available information does not indicate listing is warranted.

    Our Response: Under the Act, once we make a positive 90-day finding, we are required to conduct a status review of the species and issue a 12-month finding. If the best available scientific and commercial information is extremely limited, and nothing in that information points to operative threats to the species or its habitat, the Service is likely to make a not-warranted 12-month finding (or, in the future, if the Service is faced with such a petition, there is a good chance it would find at the 90-day finding stage that the petition does not present substantial information). We also agree that the basis for a not-warranted finding must be the best available scientific and commercial information; the concept of not knowing enough about a species is not a basis for a not-warranted finding. Many of the species that are currently appropriate for placement in Bin 5 are species from one or more multi-species petitions we received between 2007 and 2012. Faced with fulfilling our obligation to make 90-day findings for hundreds of species in a short period of time, we made positive 90-day findings for some species with little more than general habitat or occurrence information because we were more concerned with false negatives (Type 2 errors) rather than false positives (Type 1 errors). Those species now make up the majority of actions in Bin 5. Despite this, placing a species in Bin 5 does not put off working on the listing action, it simply prioritizes species in Bins 1, 2, 3, and 4 for completion first. We intend to make findings on species in Bin 5 as our resources allow. Once we have processed the species currently appropriate for placement in Bin 5, we anticipate that the use of this bin will be infrequent in the future as we strive for greater consistency in our application of the 90-day standard.

    Comment (17): A commenter stated specific criteria should be developed to differentiate between strong versus limited data. Another commenter suggested rephrasing “we know almost nothing about its threats or status.”

    Our Response: It has been our experience that data regarding a species' status are a relative measure and, thus, vary based on the circumstances for a particular species, so we have not further defined these terms. Furthermore, providing precise definitions may unintentionally limit our ability to bin actions appropriately.

    Regarding the request to rephrase “we know almost nothing about its threats or status,” we have rephrased the description of Bin 5 in this final methodology to “limited information is available regarding its threats or status.”

    Comments Regarding Additional Considerations

    Comment (18): Many commenters questioned how the additional considerations would be applied to move species between bins.

    Our Response: We have split the section of the draft methodology titled Additional Considerations into two sections for the final methodology. In the draft methodology, the first two bullets under Additional Considerations related to how we would consider prioritizing species within bins. In the final methodology, above, this information is now titled Sub-Ranking Considerations. We have clarified the language in this final methodology to reduce confusion and highlight that the three sub-ranking considerations will not be used to move species between bins, but rather will be used as tie-breakers to sub-rank species within a particular bin.

    The third and fourth bullets under Additional Considerations in the draft methodology do not relate to ranking within bins, but rather are important considerations regarding exceptions to the priority order in scheduling actions in the National Listing Workplan. In the final methodology, above, this information is now titled Exceptions to Priority Order.

    Comment (19): Several commenters suggested the examples used in the second bullet under the draft methodology's Additional Considerations section were biased against grazing and in suggesting that the Act cannot ameliorate threats related to climate change. Another commenter suggested that using the purported ability, or lack thereof, of the Act to improve a species' condition was a cynical and self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Our Response: In our 40 years' experience implementing the Act, we have learned that the protections provided for under the Act better address some types of threats than others. For example, species that have been threatened by excessive human-caused mortality (e.g., bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, and grizzly bear) have seen relatively quick increases once the sources of mortality were managed. The Act's provisions are less effective against other threats, such as sea-level rise or catastrophic events (e.g., tsunamis, drought). The sub-ranking considerations will be used to rank species within their particular bins. The consideration of whether the Act can improve conditions for a species' status is a useful tool to assist in the prioritization of listing species that need help first, and where, within a bin, our resources would be best spent first.

    Comment (20): Several commenters disagreed with our inclusion of the “level of complexity” and “level of controversy” as additional sub-ranking considerations, stating that the inclusion of such criteria is contrary to the obligation of the Service to make decisions based on the best available scientific and commercial data. Commenters were concerned that complexity and controversy could be used to delay decisions on “politically sensitive” species.

    Our Response: We will always use the best scientific and commercial data available when evaluating species for listing under the Act. However, we underscore that this prioritization methodology is not to be used to make decisions about whether species should be listed under the Act. Rather, this methodology is a system to manage our outstanding workload. The consideration of level of complexity and level of controversy are important points for managing our workload, in that they can inform the breadth and depth of a particular action. Knowing ahead of time the expected complexity and controversy of an action will inform our allocation of resources to address that particular action.

    Other Comments

    Comment (21): One commenter suggested using State wildlife action plans as the principle source of information for binning species.

    Our Response: We will use appropriate information sources to assign species to bins, including information from State wildlife action plans (SWAPs). We acknowledge that the information in SWAPs is a tremendous resource. However, not all information needed to accurately bin species would necessarily be contained in SWAPs. We intend to use information from our files and other available resources to bin actions appropriately.

    Comment (22): A commenter stated that questions regarding “what is a species?” must be resolved before listing and that actions for species that have questionable taxonomy or questions regarding “listability” under the Act should be placed in lower priority bins.

    Our Response: As stated in the draft and this final methodology, we will place species in Bin 3 if there is some uncertainty about taxonomy that can be addressed with new science that is underway. Species without such uncertainties and without emerging science underway to address uncertainties may be placed in any other bin deemed appropriate depending on the particular facts of the situation.

    Comment (23): Some commenters expressed support of our intentions to work with States, Tribes, and other appropriate conservation partners, while other commenters encouraged broadening the scope to include other parties such as industry and local governments.

    Our Response: We think it most appropriate to include the mention of conservation partners with management authority for species because it has been our experience that those entities have the most specific and pertinent information for the binning methodology. However, we accept and welcome information from interested parties at any time. We will consider information received from all parties while assessing the most appropriate bin for a species.

    Comment (24): One commenter stated that this methodology cannot become an excuse for not making a determination based on inadequate data.

    Our Response: This methodology is a prioritization process and is not a substitute for our independent obligations under the Act for determining whether species meet the definitions of “endangered species” or “threatened species.” It is not the Service's intent to use the methodology as an excuse for not making determinations based on inadequate data. Rather, we will continue to follow the requirements of the Act, including making determinations based on the best available scientific and commercial data at the time we make the decision.

    Comment (25): A commenter stated that the Service should be careful in using the strength-of-data criterion so that it does not become the basis for fast-tracking listing while delaying not-warranted determinations.

    Our Response: This binning methodology is intended to provide clarity for the public and stakeholders, as well as Service staff, about how we will prioritize our workload. As described in Bin 2, strength of data applies to situations where listing is likely warranted and where listing is likely not warranted. In both situations, strong data may lead to such species being prioritized ahead of those whose situations are less certain (Bins 3, 4, and 5). Therefore, we do not view the strength of data to be a fast track for listings at the expense of not-warranted determinations.

    Comment (26): Several commenters noted that this methodology appeared to endorse a departure from statutory timeframes, and those commenters do not agree with this departure.

    Our Response: Our intent for this methodology is to provide a means by which we are able to process our substantial outstanding workload with a transparent prioritization system. Our ability to comply with statutory timeframes depends directly on the funding allocated by Congress to do so. This amount has been capped at $1.5 million for the last several years. This final prioritization methodology does not modify our statutory obligations under the Act. While it is true that the Service has been unable to address the hundreds of overdue 12-month findings, resource limitations leave us with no conceivable scenario where the Service would be able to address them in their respective statutory timeframes.

    Comment (27): A commenter suggested the focus of the methodology should be a reliance on existing information to rank species rather than collecting new information.

    Our Response: Collection of new information is not needed in order to rank actions using this methodology; actions will be assigned to bins using the information available to the Service in our files, the 90-day finding, any petitions, and that we have received from our partners. The need for additional information to clarify issues related to taxonomy (Bin 3) or waiting for additional information regarding implementation of conservation efforts (Bin 4) is part of this methodology. However, we do not view these two instances as collection of new information that will inform placement in bins.

    Comment (28): One commenter recommended adding a Bin 6 for those species where strong evidence indicates listing is not warranted.

    Our Response: We believe that the commenter's concern is addressed by Bin 2, which includes those species for which we have strong information indicating that listing is likely not warranted.

    Determinations Under Other Authorities

    As mentioned above, we intend to use this methodology to prioritize work on status reviews and accompanying 12-month findings and to assist with prioritizing actions. Below we make determinations provided for under several Executive Orders and statutes that may apply where a Federal action is not a binding rule or regulation.

    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    We have analyzed this final methodology in accordance with the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Department of the Interior regulations on Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act (43 CFR 46.10-46.450), and the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 1-4 and 8).

    We have determined that this methodology is categorically excluded from NEPA documentation requirements consistent with 40 CFR 1508.4 and 43 CFR 46.210(i). This categorical exclusion applies to policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines that are “of an administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature.” This action does not trigger an extraordinary circumstance, as outlined at 43 CFR 46.215, applicable to the categorical exclusion. Therefore, this methodology does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final methodology does not contain any collections of information that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This final methodology will not impose recordkeeping or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. We may not conduct or sponsor and you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, “Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments” (59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Department of the Interior Manual at 512 DM 2, and the Department of Commerce American Indian and Alaska Native Policy (March 30, 1995), we have considered possible effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that there are no potential adverse effects of issuing this final methodology. Our intent with this final methodology is to provide transparency to Tribes and other stakeholders in the prioritization of our future workload. We will work with Tribes as we implement this final methodology and obtain the information necessary to bin specific actions accurately.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this final methodology are the staff members of the Division of Conservation and Classification, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041.

    Authority

    The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17818 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs [167 A2100DD/AAKC001030/A0A501010.999900] Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Tribal Energy Resource Agreements AGENCY:

    Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of submission to OMB.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for renewal of the collection of information for Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, authorized by OMB Control Number 1076-0167. This information collection expires July 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit your comments to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior at the Office of Management and Budget, by facsimile to (202) 395-5806 or you may send an email to: [email protected] Also please send a copy of your comments to Ms. Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, telephone: (202) 273-4680; email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Elizabeth K. Appel, (202) 273-4680; email: [email protected] You may review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of the Interior collections under review by OMB.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    To assist Indian Tribes in the development of energy resources and further the goal of Indian self-determination, the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) shall establish and implement an Indian energy resource development program to assist consenting Indian Tribes and Tribal energy resource development organizations in achieving the purpose, as authorized by 25 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq. The statute authorizes the Secretary to approve individual Tribal Energy Resource Agreements (TERAs). The intent of these agreements is to promote Tribal oversight and management of energy and mineral resource development on Tribal lands and further the goal of Indian self-determination. A TERA offers a Tribe an alternative for developing energy-related business agreements and awarding leases and granting rights-of-way for energy facilities without having to obtain further approval from the Secretary.

    This information collection conducted under TERA regulations at 25 CFR 224, will allow the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED) to determine the capacity of Tribes to manage the development of energy resources on Tribal lands. Information collection:

    • Enables IEED to engage in a consultation process with Tribes that is designed to foster optimal pre-planning of development proposals and speed-up the review and approval process for TERA agreements;

    • Provides wide public notice and opportunity for review of TERA agreements by the public, industry, and government agencies;

    • Ensures that the public has an avenue for review of the performance of Tribes in implementing a TERA;

    • Creates a process for preventing damage to sensitive resources as well as ensuring that the public has fully communicated with the Tribe in the petition process;

    • Ensures that a Tribe is fully aware of any attempt by the Department of the Interior to resume management authority over energy resources on Tribal lands; and

    • Ensures that the Tribal government fully endorses any relinquishment of a TERA.

    The data will be maintained by BIA's IEED Office. The burden hours for this continued collection of information are reflected in the Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden in this notice.

    II. Request for Comments on Collection of Information

    The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs requests your comments on this collection concerning: (a) The necessity of this information collection for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (hours and cost) of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Ways we could minimize the burden of the collection of the information on the respondents.

    Please note that an agency may not conduct or sponsor and an individual need not respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB Control Number.

    It is our policy to make all comments available to the public for review at the location listed in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    III. Request for Comments on Burden Reduction

    The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs also requests your comments on ways to revise and reduce the burden of the governing regulations for TERAs under 25 CFR 224. Currently, the total annual hour burden for this information collection is 10,752 hours with an estimated time per response from 32 to 1,080 hours. Please submit comments on the following topics to the contact listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice: (1) The aspects of this information collection you identify as having the greatest burden, (2) Whether these burdensome aspects are the likely reason for an underutilization of TERAs; (3) Whether these burdensome aspects are required under statute or regulation, and (4) Any opportunities to reduce the burden of information collection, including but not limited to opportunities to reduce burdens associated with the application process by issuing guidance or instructions for prospective applicants.

    Please also specify any language within the regulations that you believe should be adjusted in order to reduce the burden associated with this information collection. Additionally, if you believe that an adjustment to statutory language would reduce the burden associated with this information collection, please specifically identify this language.

    IV. Data

    OMB Control Number: 1076-0167.

    Title: Tribal Energy Resource Agreements, 25 CFR 224.

    Brief Description of Collection: Submission of this information is required for Federally Recognized Indian Tribes to apply for, implement, reassume, or rescind a TERA that has been entered into in accordance with 25 U.S.C. 3501 et. seq., and 25 CFR 224. This collection also requires the Tribe to notify the public of certain actions and allows a petition from the public to be submitted to the Secretary of the Interior to inform of possible noncompliance with a TERA.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved collection.

    Respondents: Federally recognized Indian Tribes and the public.

    Number of Respondents: 14.

    Number of Responses: 34.

    Frequency of Response: On occasion.

    Obligation to Respond: Responses are required to obtain or maintain a benefit.

    Estimated Time per Response: Varies from 32 hours to 1,080 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 10,752 hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour Dollar Cost: $48,200.

    Elizabeth K. Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action—Indian Affairs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17779 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4337-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLNVS00560 L58530000 EU0000 241A;14-08807; MO#4500092822; TAS: 16X] Notice of Realty Action: Competitive Sale of 16 Parcels of Public Land in Clark County, NV AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to offer 16 parcels of public land totaling 182.93 acres in the Las Vegas Valley by competitive sale, at not less than the appraised fair market values (FMV). The BLM is proposing to offer the parcels for sale pursuant to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998 (SNPLMA), as amended. The sale will be subject to the applicable provisions of section 203 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and BLM land sale regulations.

    DATES:

    Interested parties may submit written comments regarding the sale until September 12, 2016. The sale by sealed bid and oral public auction will occur on November 30, 2016, at Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89155 at 10 a.m., Pacific Time. The FMV for the parcels will be available 30 days prior to the sale. The BLM will start accepting sealed bids beginning November 16, 2016. Sealed bids must be received by the BLM, Las Vegas Field Office (LVFO) no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time on November 25, 2016.

    The BLM will open sealed bids on the day of the sale just prior to the oral bidding.

    ADDRESSES:

    Mail written comments and submit sealed bids to the BLM LVFO, Assistant Field Manager, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Luis Rodriguez by email: [email protected], or by telephone: 702-515-5069. General information on previous BLM public land sales can be found at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma/Land_Auctions.html. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The BLM proposes to offer 16 parcels of public land in the southwest and southeast areas of the Las Vegas Valley. Fourteen of the parcels are located in the southwest part of the valley, south of Beltway 215 and west of Interstate 15 and one parcel is located east of Interstate 15 and south of St. Rose near Las Vegas Boulevard and Roban Avenue. The last parcel is located northeast of Cheyenne Avenue and Hualapai Way.

    The subject public lands are legally described as:

    Mount Diablo Meridian, Nevada

    N-94534, 12.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 14, SE1/4NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, W1/2NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4, E1/2NW1/4SW1/4SW1/4.

    N-94535, 5.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 14, W1/2NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4.

    N-94536, 2.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 14, NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4SW1/4.

    N-94537, 2.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 16, NE1/4NE1/4SE1/4SE1/4.

    N-94538, 10.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 19, SW1/4NW1/4SE1/4.

    N-94539, 25.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 21, SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SW1/4NE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4, N1/2SE1/4NW1/4NE1/4, SE1/4NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SW1/4NW1/4NE1/4.

    N-94540, 2.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 22, SE1/4NE1/4SE1/4NW1/4.

    N-94541, 2.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 22, NE1/4SE1/4SE1/4NW1/4.

    N-94542, 37.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 22, NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4NE1/4, N1/2NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4NW1/4NW1/4NE1/4.

    N-94543, 15.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 22, W1/2NE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, N1/2NW1/4SE1/4SW1/4NE1/4, S1/2NW1/4SW1/4NE1/4, N1/2NE1/4SW1/4SW1/4NE1/4, NW1/4SW1/4SW1/4NE1/4.

    N-94544, 1.25 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 24, E1/2SE1/4NE1/4NW1/4NE1/4.

    N-94545, 25.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 30, NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, S1/2SE1/4NE1/4NE1/4, N1/2NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4, SW1/4NE1/4SE1/4NE1/4.

    N-94549, 2.50 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 29, SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4SW1/4.

    N-94550, 30.00 acres:

    T. 22 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 30, SE1/4SE1/4SE1/4, N1/2SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4, SW1/4NW1/4SE1/4SE1/4, SW1/4SW1/4SE1/4SE1/4, SE1/4NE1/4SW1/4SE1/4, NE1/4SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4, W1/2SE1/4SW1/4SE1/4.

    N-94551, 3.75 acres:

    T. 23 S., R. 61 E., Sec. 17, NE1/4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4, E1/2NW1/4NE1/4NW1/4SE1/4.

    N-94552, 5.43 acres:

    T. 20 S., R. 60 E., Sec. 7, lot 32.

    The areas described aggregate 182.93 acres.

    A sales matrix is available on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/snplma. The sales matrix provides information specific to each sale parcel such as legal description, physical location, encumbrances, acreage, and FMV. The FMV for each parcel will be available in the sales matrix as soon as approved by the BLM and no later than 30 days prior to the sale.

    This competitive sale is in conformance with the BLM Las Vegas Resource Management Plan and decision LD-1, approved by Record of Decision on October 5, 1998, and complies with Section 203 of FLPMA. The land is not needed for any Federal purpose, and its disposal is in the public interest. The Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary Environmental Impact Statement analyzed the sale parcels and Record of Decision on December 23, 2004. A parcel-specific Determination of National Environmental Policy Act Adequacy document numbered DOI-BLM-NV-S010-2016-0056-DNA was prepared in connection with this Notice of Realty Action.

    Submit comments on this sale notice to the address in the ADDRESSES section. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including any personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. The BLM will also publish this notice once a week for three consecutive weeks in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

    Sale procedures: Registration for oral bidding will begin at 8 a.m. Pacific Time and will end at 10 a.m. Pacific Time at the Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89155, on the day of the sale, November 30, 2016. There will be no prior registration before the sale date. To participate in the competitive sale, all registered bidders must submit a bid guarantee deposit in the amount of $10,000 by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management on the day of the sale or submit the bid guarantee deposit along with the sealed bids. The public sale auction will be through sealed and oral bids. Sealed bids will be opened and recorded on the day of the sale to determine the high bids among the qualified bids received. Sealed bids above the FMV will set the starting point for oral bidding on a parcel. Parcels that receive no qualified sealed bids will begin at the established FMV. Bidders who are participating and attending the oral auction on the day of the sale are not required to submit a sealed bid but may choose to do so.

    Sealed-bid envelopes must be clearly marked on the lower front left corner with the parcel number and name of the sale, for example: “N-XXXXX, 16-parcel SNPLMA Fall Sale 2016.” If multiple sealed bids are submitted, only the envelope that contains the bid guarantee needs to be noted with “bid guarantee.” Sealed bids must include an amount not less than 20 percent of the total bid amount and the $10,000 bid guarantee noted above by certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable to the “Department of the Interior-Bureau of Land Management.” The bid guarantee and bid deposit may be combined into one form of deposit; the bidder must specify the amounts of the bid deposit and the bid guarantee. If multiple sealed bids are submitted, the first sealed bid of the group must include the $10,000 bid guarantee with the same bidder name. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks. The sealed-bid envelope must contain the 20 percent bid deposit, bid guarantee, and a completed and signed “Certificate of Eligibility” form stating the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the entity or person submitting the bid. Certificate of Eligibility and registration forms are available at the BLM LVFO at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section and on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/nv/st/en/snplma/Land_Auctions.html. Pursuant to 43 CFR 2711.3-1(c), if two or more sealed-bid envelopes containing valid bids of the same amount are received, oral bidding will start at the sealed-bid amount. If there are no oral bids on the parcel, the authorized officer will determine the winning bidder. Bids for less than the federally approved FMV will not be qualified. The highest qualifying bid for any parcel will be declared the high bid. The apparent high bidder must submit a deposit of not less than 20 percent of the successful bid by 3 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, or cashier's check made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management.” Funds must be delivered no later than 3 p.m. Pacific Time on the day of the sale to the BLM Collection Officers at the Clark County Government Center, Clark County Commission Chambers, 500 South Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, Nevada, 89155. Funds will not be accepted at the BLM-LVFO location. The BLM will send the successful bidder(s) a high-bidder letter with detailed information for full payment.

    All funds submitted with unsuccessful bids will be returned to the bidders or their authorized representative upon presentation of acceptable photo identification at the BLM-LVFO or by certified mail. The apparent high bidder may choose to apply the bid guarantee towards the required deposit. Failure to submit the deposit following the close of the sale under 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d) will result in forfeiture of the bid guarantee. If the successful bidder offers to purchase more than one parcel and fails to submit the 20 percent bid deposit resulting in default on any single parcel following the sale, the BLM will retain the $10,000.00 bid guarantee, and may cancel the sale of all the parcels to that bidder. If a high bidder is unable to consummate the transaction for any reason, the BLM may offer the parcel to the second highest bidder. If there are no acceptable bids, a parcel may remain available for sale at a future date in accordance with competitive sale procedures without further legal notice.

    Federal law requires that bidders must be: (1) A citizen of the United States 18 years of age or older; (2) A corporation subject to the laws of any State or of the United States; (3) A State, State instrumentality, or political subdivision authorized to hold property; or (4) An entity legally capable of conveying and holding lands or interests therein under the laws of the State of Nevada.

    Evidence of United States citizenship is a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. Failure to submit the above requested documents to the BLM within 30 days from receipt of the high-bidder letter will result in cancellation of the sale and forfeiture of the bid deposit. Citizenship documents and Articles of Incorporation (as applicable) must be provided to the BLM-LVFO for each sale. The successful bidder is allowed 180 days from the date of the sale to submit the remainder of the full purchase price.

    According to SNPLMA as amended, section 4(c) of Public Law 105-263, lands identified within the Las Vegas Valley Disposal Boundary are withdrawn from location and entry under the mining laws, and from operation under the mineral leasing and geothermal leasing laws until such times as the Secretary terminates the withdrawal or the lands are patented. Any subsequent applications will not be accepted, will not be considered as filed, and will be returned to the applicant.

    Terms and Conditions: All minerals for the sale parcels will be reserved to the United States. The patents, when issued, will contain a mineral reservation to the United States for all minerals. To clarify mineral reservations as it relate to mineral materials, such as sand and gravel, we refer interested parties to the regulations at 43 CFR 3601.71(b), which provides that the owner of the surface estate of lands with reserved Federal minerals may “use a minimal amount of mineral materials for . . . personal use” within the boundaries of the surface estate without a sales contract or permit. The regulation provides that all other use, absent statutory or other express authority, requires a sales contract or permit. We also refer interested parties to the explanation of this regulatory language in the preamble to the final rule published in the Federal Register on November 23, 2001 (66 FR 58891), which stated that minimal use “would not include large-scale use of mineral materials, even within the boundaries of the surface estate.” Further explanation is contained in BLM Instruction Memorandum No. 2014-085 (April 23, 2014), available on BLM's Web site at http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national_instruction/2014/im_2014-085__unauthorized.html.

    The parcels are subject to limitations prescribed by law and regulation, and certain encumbrances in favor of third parties. Prior to patent issuance, a holder of any right-of-way (ROW) within the sale parcels will have the opportunity to amend the ROW for conversion to a new term, including perpetuity, if applicable, or conversion to an easement. The BLM will notify valid existing ROW holders of record of their ability to convert their compliant ROWs to perpetual ROWs or easement. In accordance with Federal regulations at 43 CFR 2807.15, once notified, each valid holder may apply for the conversion of their current authorization.

    The following numbered terms and conditions will appear on the conveyance documents for the sale parcels:

    1. All minerals deposits in the lands so patented, and to it, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect for, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law and regulations to be established by the Secretary of the Interior are reserved to the United States, together with all necessary access and exit rights;

    2. A right-of-way is reserved for ditches and canals constructed by authority of the United States under the Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945);

    3. The parcels are subject to valid existing rights;

    4. The parcels are subject to reservations for road, public utilities and flood control purposes, both existing and proposed, in accordance with the local governing entities' transportation plans; and

    5. An appropriate indemnification clause protecting the United States from claims arising out of the lessees/patentee's use, occupancy, or occupations on the leased/patented lands will be included in the patents issued.

    Pursuant to the requirements established by Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. 9620(h) (CERCLA), as amended, notice is hereby given that the lands have been examined and no evidence was found to indicate that any hazardous substances have been stored for 1 year or more, nor had any hazardous substances been disposed of or released on the subject property.

    No warranty of any kind, express or implied, is given by the United States as to the title, whether or to what extent the land may be developed, its physical condition, future uses, or any other circumstance or condition. The conveyance of a parcel will not be on a contingency basis. However, to the extent required by law, the parcel is subject to the requirements of section 120(h) of the CERCLA.

    Unless the BLM authorized officer approved other satisfactory arrangements in advance, conveyance of title will be through escrow. Designation of the escrow agent will be through mutual agreement between the BLM and the prospective patentee, and costs of escrow will be borne by the prospective patentee.

    The BLM-LVFO must receive the request for escrow instructions prior to 30 days before the prospective patentee has scheduled closing date. There are no exceptions.

    All name changes and supporting documentation must be received at the BLM- LVFO 30 days from the date on the high-bidder letter by 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time. There are no exceptions. To submit a name change, the apparent high bidder must submit the name change in writing on the Certificate of Eligibility form to the BLM-LVFO.

    The remainder of the full bid price for the parcel must be received no later than 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, within 180 days following the day of the sale. Payment must be submitted in the form of a certified check, postal money order, bank draft, cashier's check, or made available by electronic fund transfer made payable in U.S. dollars to the “Department of the Interior—Bureau of Land Management” to the BLM-LVFO. The BLM will not accept personal or company checks.

    Arrangements for electronic fund transfer to the BLM for payment of the balance due must be made a minimum of two weeks prior to the payment date. Failure to pay the full bid price prior to the expiration of the 180th day will disqualify the high bidder and cause the entire 20 percent bid deposit to be forfeited to the BLM. Forfeiture of the 20 percent bid deposit is in accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(d). No exceptions will be made. The BLM cannot accept the remainder of the bid price after the 180th day of the sale date.

    The BLM will not sign any documents related to 1031 Exchange transactions. The timing for completion of such an exchange is the bidder's responsibility. The BLM cannot be a party to any 1031 Exchange.

    In accordance with 43 CFR 2711.3-1(f), within 30 days the BLM may accept or reject any or all offers to purchase, or withdraw any parcel of land or interest therein from sale if the BLM authorized officer determines consummation of the sale would be inconsistent with any law, or for other reasons as may be provided by applicable law or regulations. No contractual or other rights against the United States may accrue until the BLM officially accepts the offer to purchase and the full bid price is paid.

    Upon publication of this Notice and until completion of this sale, the BLM will no longer accept land use applications affecting the parcel identified for sale. The parcel may be subject to land use applications received prior to publication of this Notice if processing the application would have no adverse effect on the marketability of title, or the FMV of the parcel. Information concerning the sale, encumbrances of record, appraisals, reservations, procedures and conditions, CERCLA, and other environmental documents that may appear in the BLM public files for the proposed sale parcels are available for review during business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pacific Time, Monday through Friday, at the BLM-LVFO, except during Federal holidays.

    In order to determine the FMV through appraisal, certain extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions may have been made concerning the attributes and limitations of the lands and potential effects of local regulations and policies on potential future land uses. Through publication of this Notice, the BLM advises that these assumptions may not be endorsed or approved by units of local government.

    It is the buyer's responsibility to be aware of all applicable Federal, State, and local government laws, regulations and policies that may affect the subject lands, including any required dedication of lands for public uses. It is also the buyer's responsibility to be aware of existing or prospective uses of nearby properties. When conveyed out of federal ownership, the lands will be subject to any applicable laws, regulations, and policies of the applicable local government for proposed future uses. It is the responsibility of the purchaser to be aware through due diligence of those laws, regulations, and policies, and to seek any required local approvals for future uses. Buyers should make themselves aware of any Federal or State law or regulation that may affect the future use of the property. Any land lacking access from a public road or highway will be conveyed as such, and future access acquisition will be the responsibility of the buyer.

    Any comments regarding the proposed sale will be reviewed by the BLM Nevada State Director or other authorized official of the Department of the Interior, who may sustain, vacate, or modify this realty action in response to such comments. In the absence of any comments, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior.

    Authority:

    43 CFR 2711.1-2.

    Frederick Marcell, Acting Assistant Field Manager, Division of Lands.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17753 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLWO320000.L19900000.PO0000] Renewal of Approved Information Collection; OMB Control No. 1004-0194 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    30-Day notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has submitted an information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue a collection of information that assists the BLM in managing operations authorized by the mining laws, in preventing unnecessary or undue degradation of public lands, and in obtaining financial guarantees for the reclamation of public lands. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) previously approved this information collection activity, and assigned it control number 1004-0194.

    DATES:

    The OMB is required to respond to this information collection request within 60 days but may respond after 30 days. For maximum consideration, written comments should be received on or before August 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit comments directly to the Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, fax 202-395-5806, or by electronic mail at [email protected]. Please provide a copy of your comments to the BLM. You may do so via mail, fax, or electronic mail.

    Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention: Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.

    Fax: To Jean Sonneman at 202-245-0050.

    Electronic mail: [email protected]

    Please indicate “Attn: 1004-0194” regardless of the form of your comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Merrill, at 202-912-7044. Persons who use a telecommunication device for the deaf may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339, to leave a message for Mr. Merrill. You may also review the information collection request online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) and OMB regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 provide that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond. In order to obtain and renew an OMB control number, Federal agencies are required to seek public comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.12(a)).

    As required at 5 CFR 1320.8(d), the BLM published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register on February 26, 2016 (81 FR 9880), and the comment period ended April 26, 2016. The BLM received no comments. The BLM now requests comments on the following subjects:

    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper functioning of the BLM, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    2. The accuracy of the BLM's estimate of the burden of collecting the information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    3. The quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    4. How to minimize the information collection burden on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.

    Please send comments as directed under ADDRESSES and DATES. Please refer to OMB control number 1004-0194 in your correspondence. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    The following information pertains to this request:

    Title: Surface Management Activities under the General Mining Law (43 CFR subpart 3809).

    Forms

    • Form 3809-1, Surface Management Surety Bond;

    • Form 3809-2, Surface Management Personal Bond;

    • Form 3809-4, Bond Rider Extending Coverage of Bond to Assume Liabilities for Operations Conducted by Parties Other Than the Principal;

    • Form 3809-4a, Surface Management Personal Bond Rider; and

    • Form 3809-5, Notification of Change of Operator and Assumption of Past Liability.

    OMB Control Number: 1004-0194.

    Abstract: This collection of information enables the BLM to determine whether operators and mining claimants are meeting their responsibility to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation while conducting exploration and mining activities on public lands under the mining laws, including the General Mining Law (30 U.S.C. 22-54). It also assists the BLM in obtaining financial guarantees for the reclamation of public lands. This collection of information is found at 43 CFR subpart 3809 and in the forms listed below.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Description of Respondents: Operators and mining claimants.

    Estimated Annual Responses: 1,495.

    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 183,808.

    Estimated Annual Non-Hour Costs: $4,780 for notarizing Forms 3809-2 and 3809-4a.

    The estimated burdens are itemized in the following table:

    Type of response and 43 CFR citation Number of
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours
  • (column B ×
  • column C)
  • A B C D Initial or Extended Plan of Operations (3809.11) 49 320 15,680 Data for EIS (3809.401(c)) 5 4,960 24,800 Data for Standard EA (3809.401(c)) 15 890 13,350 Data for Simple Exploration EA (3809.401(c)) 29 320 9,280 Modification of Plan of Operations (3809.430 and 3809.431) 107 320 34,240 Data for EIS (3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c)) 2 4,960 9,920 Data for Standard EA (3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c)) 35 890 31,150 Data for Simple Exploration EA (3809.432(a) and 3809.401(c)) 70 320 22,400 Notice of Operations (3809.21) 396 32 12,672 Modification of Notice of Operations (3809.330) 167 32 5,344 Extension of Notice of Operations (3809.333) 140 1 140 Surface Management Surety Bond (3809.500) Form 3809-1 28 8 224 Surface Management Personal Bond (3809.500) Form 3809-2 170 8 1,360 Bond Rider Extending Coverage of Bond (3809.500) Form 3809-4 25 8 200 Surface Management Personal Bond Rider (3809.500) Form 3809-4a 69 8 552 Notification of Change of Operator and Assumption of Past Liability (3809.116) Form 3809-5 52 8 416 Notice of State Demand Against Financial Guarantee (3809.573) 1 8 8 Request for BLM Acceptance of Replacement Financial Instrument (3809.581) 13 8 104 Request for Reduction in Financial Guarantee and/or BLM Approval of Adequacy of Reclamation (3809.590) 78 8 624 Response to Notice of Forfeiture of Financial Guarantee (3809.596) 13 8 104 Appeals to the State Director (3809.800) 30 40 1,200 Federal/State Agreements (3809.200) 1 40 40 Totals 1,495 183,808
    Jean Sonneman, Bureau of Land Management, Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17756 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLCON06000-L16100000-DQ0000] Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meetings for the Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area Advisory Council AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Dominguez-Escalante National Conservation Area (NCA) Advisory Council (Council) will meet as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held August 31, 2016. Any adjustments to this meeting will be advertised on the Dominguez-Escalante NCA RMP Web site: http://www.blm.gov/co/st/en/nca/denca/denca_rmp.html.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Mesa County Courthouse, 544 Rood Avenue, Grand Junction, CO 81501.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Collin Ewing, Advisory Council Designated Federal Official, 2815 H Road, Grand Junction, CO 81506. Phone: (970) 244-3049. Email: [email protected] Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 10-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with the RMP process for the Dominguez-Escalante NCA and Dominguez Canyon Wilderness.

    Topics of discussion during the meeting may include presentations from BLM staff on management actions contained in the Proposed RMP and travel management plan, particularly those actions which are part of the Proposed Plan Alternative as a result of public comments on the Draft RMP.

    These meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Time will be allocated at the middle and end of each meeting to hear public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual, oral comments may be limited at the discretion of the chair.

    Ruth Welch, BLM Colorado State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17746 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park Service [NPS-WASO-NAGPRA-21282; PPWOCRADN0-PCU00RP15.R50000] Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee: Notice of Nomination Solicitation AGENCY:

    National Park Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Request for nominations.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Park Service is seeking nominations for one member of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee (Review Committee). The Secretary of the Interior will appoint the member from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. The nominee must be a traditional Indian religious leader.

    DATES:

    Nominations must be received by September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, or via email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Review Committee was established by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA), at 25 U.S.C. 3006, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. Appendix 2.

    The Review Committee is responsible for:

    1. Monitoring the NAGPRA inventory and identification process;

    2. Reviewing and making findings related to the identity or cultural affiliation of cultural items, or the return of such items;

    3. Facilitating the resolution of disputes;

    4. Compiling an inventory of culturally unidentifiable human remains and developing a process for disposition of such remains;

    5. Consulting with Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations and museums on matters within the scope of the work of the Review Committee affecting such tribes or organizations;

    6. Consulting with the Secretary of the Interior in the development of regulations to carry out NAGPRA; and

    7. Making recommendations regarding future care of repatriated cultural items.

    The Review Committee consists of seven members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary may not appoint Federal officers or employees to the Review Committee. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and traditional Native American religious leaders. At least two of these members must be traditional Indian religious leaders. Three members are appointed from nominations submitted by national museum or scientific organizations. One member is appointed from a list of persons developed and consented to by all of the other members.

    Members serve as Special Government Employees, which requires completion of annual ethics training. Members are appointed for 4-year terms and incumbent members may be reappointed for 2-year terms. The Review Committee's work takes place during public meetings. The Review Committee normally meets in person two times per year, normally for two or three days. The Review Committee may also hold one or more public teleconferences of several hours duration.

    Review Committee members serve without pay but shall be reimbursed for each day the member participates in Review Committee meetings. Review Committee members are reimbursed for travel expenses incurred in association with Review Committee meetings (25 U.S.C. 3006(b)(4)). Additional information regarding the Review Committee, including the Review Committee's charter, meeting protocol, and dispute resolution procedures, is available on the National NAGPRA Program Web site, at https://www.nps.gov/NAGPRA/REVIEW/.

    Individuals who are federally registered lobbyists are ineligible to serve on all FACA and non-FACA boards, committees, or councils in an individual capacity. The term “individual capacity” refers to individuals who are appointed to exercise their own individual best judgment on behalf of the government, such as when they are designated Special Government Employees, rather than being appointed to represent a particular interest.

    Nominations should:

    1. Be submitted on the official letterhead of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.

    2. Affirm that the signatory is the official authorized by the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization to submit the nomination.

    3. If applicable, explain that the signatory is a traditional Native American religious leader.

    4. Include the nominee's full legal name, home address, home telephone number, and email address.

    5. Include the nominee's resume or a brief biography of the nominee, in which the nominee's NAGPRA experience and ability to work as a member of a Federal advisory committee are addressed.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Melanie O'Brien, Designated Federal Officer, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee, National NAGPRA Program (2253), National Park Service, 1849 C Street NW., Washington, DC 20240, or via email [email protected]

    Alma Ripps, Chief, Office of Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17692 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-EE-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1334-1337 (Preliminary)] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland; Institution of Antidumping Duty Investigations and Scheduling of Preliminary Phase Investigations AGENCY:

    United States International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the institution of investigations and commencement of preliminary phase antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1334-1337 (Preliminary) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of certain emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, provided for in subheading 4002.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value. Unless the Department of Commerce extends the time for initiation, the Commission must reach a preliminary determination in antidumping duty investigations in 45 days, or in this case by September 6, 2016. The Commission's views must be transmitted to Commerce within five business days thereafter, or by September 13, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective July 21, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Nathanael N. Comly ([email protected]; (202) 205-3174), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background.—These investigations are being instituted, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), in response to a petition filed on July 21, 2016, by Lion Elastomers LLC (Port Neches, Texas) and East West Copolymer, LLC (Baton Rouge, Louisiana).

    For further information concerning the conduct of these investigations and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 207).

    Participation in the investigations and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigations as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in sections 201.11 and 207.10 of the Commission's rules, not later than seven days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Industrial users and (if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level) representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to these investigations upon the expiration of the period for filing entries of appearance.

    Limited disclosure of business proprietary information (BPI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and BPI service list.—Pursuant to section 207.7(a) of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make BPI gathered in these investigations available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(9)) who are parties to the investigations under the APO issued in the investigations, provided that the application is made not later than seven days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. A separate service list will be maintained by the Secretary for those parties authorized to receive BPI under the APO.

    Conference.—The Commission's Director of Investigations has scheduled a conference in connection with these investigations for 9:30 a.m. on August 11, 2016, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. Requests to appear at the conference should be emailed to [email protected] and [email protected] (DO NOT FILE ON EDIS) on or before August 9, 2016. Parties in support of the imposition of antidumping duties in these investigations and parties in opposition to the imposition of such duties will each be collectively allocated one hour within which to make an oral presentation at the conference. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the conference.

    Written submissions.—As provided in sections 201.8 and 207.15 of the Commission's rules, any person may submit to the Commission on or before August 16, 2016, a written brief containing information and arguments pertinent to the subject matter of the investigations. Parties may file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the conference. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain BPI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6, 207.3, and 207.7 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's Web site at http://edis.usitc.gov, elaborates upon the Commission's rules with respect to electronic filing.

    In accordance with sections 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.

    Authority:

    These investigations are being conducted under authority of title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930; this notice is published pursuant to section 207.12 of the Commission's rules.

    Issued: July 21, 2016.

    By order of the Commission.

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17713 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [[Investigation No. 337-TA-1013] Certain Potassium Chloride Powder Products; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 15, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Lehigh Valley Technologies, Inc. of Allentown, Pennsylvania; Endo Global Ventures of Bermuda; Endo Ventures Limited of Ireland; and Generics Bidco I, LLC (d/b/a Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceutical) of Huntsville, Alabama. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, or the sale of certain potassium chloride powder products by reason of false advertising, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.

    The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on July 21, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, or the sale of certain potassium chloride powder products, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States;

    (2) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(1), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties and other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1), (f)(1), (g)(1);

    (3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainants are:

    Lehigh Valley Technologies, Inc., 514 North 12th Street, Allentown, PA 18102 Endo Global Ventures, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM 12, Bermuda Endo Ventures Limited, Minerva House, Simmonscourt Road Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland Generics Bidco I, LLC (d/b/a Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and Par Pharmaceutical), 130 Vintage Drive, Huntsville, AL 35811

    (b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:

    Viva Pharmaceutical Inc., 13880 Viking Place, Richmond, British Columbia, Canada V6V 1K8 Virtus Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 2649 Causeway Center Drive, Tampa, FL 33619 Virtus Pharmaceuticals OPCO II, LLC, 1321 Murfreesboro Pike, Nashville, TN 37217-2626

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 21, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17712 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-939] Certain Three-Dimensional Cinema Systems and Components Thereof Commission's Final Determination Finding a Violation of Section 337; Issuance of a Limited Exclusion Order and Cease and Desist Orders; Termination of the Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has found a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in this investigation. The Commission has issued a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain three-dimensional cinema systems, and components thereof, that infringe certain claims of the patents at issue. The Commission has also issued cease and desist orders directed to the two respondents. The remedial orders are suspended as to certain patent claims pending final resolution of a validity issue. The investigation is terminated.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lucy Grace D. Noyola, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-3438. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation are or will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its Internet server (http://www.usitc.gov). The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing-impaired persons are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commission instituted this investigation on December 12, 2014, based on a complaint filed by RealD, Inc. of Beverly Hills, California (“RealD”). 79 FR 73902-03 (Dec. 12, 2014). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain three-dimensional cinema systems, and components thereof, that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,905,602 (“the '602 patent”); 8,220,934 (“the '934 patent”); 7,857,455 (“the '455 patent”); and 7,959,296 (“the '296 patent”). Id. at 73902. The notice of investigation named as respondents MasterImage 3D, Inc. of Sherman Oaks, California, and MasterImage 3D Asia, LLC of Seoul, Republic of Korea (collectively, “MasterImage”). Id. at 73903. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations was not named as a party to the investigation. Id.

    On July 23, 2015, the Commission terminated the investigation as to various of the asserted claims and the '602 patent in its entirety. Notice (July 23, 2015) (determining not to review Order No. 6 (July 2, 2015)); Notice (Aug. 20, 2015) (determining not to review Order No. 7 (Aug. 3, 2015)).

    On September 25, 2015, the Commission determined on summary determination that RealD satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement through its significant investment in plant, significant investment in labor, and substantial investment in engineering, research, and development. Notice (Sept. 25, 2015) (determining to review in part Order No. 9 (Aug. 20, 2015)). The Commission, however, reversed the summary determination with respect to RealD's investment in equipment. Id.

    On December 16, 2015, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a final initial determination (“ID”) finding a violation of section 337 with respect to the three remaining asserted patents. The ALJ found that the asserted claims of the '455, '296, and '934 patents are infringed and not invalid or unenforceable. The ALJ found that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement was satisfied for the '455, '296, and '934 patents. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding (“RD”), recommending that a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders should issue and that a bond of 100 percent should be imposed during the period of Presidential review.

    On December 29, 2015, MasterImage filed a petition for review challenging various findings in the final ID. On January 6, 2016, RealD filed a response to MasterImage's petition. On January 15, 2016, and January 19, 2016, MasterImage and RealD respectively filed post-RD statements on the public interest under Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). The Commission did not receive any post-RD public interest comments from the public in response to the Commission notice issued on December 22, 2015. 80 FR 80795 (Dec. 28, 2015).

    On February 16, 2016, the Commission determined to review the final ID in part and requested additional briefing from the parties on certain issues. 81 FR at 8744-45. Specifically, the Commission determined to review (1) the ID's construction of the “uniformly modulate” limitation recited in claims 1 and 17 of the '455 patent; (2) the ID's infringement findings with respect to the asserted claims of the '455 patent; (3) the ID's findings on validity of the asserted claims of the '455 patent; (4) the ID's finding of proper inventorship of the '296 patent; (5) the ID's findings on validity of the asserted claims of the '934 patent; and (6) the ID's finding regarding the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to the '455 patent. Id. at 8745. The Commission also solicited briefing from the parties and the public on the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. Id.

    On March 1, 2016, the parties filed initial written submissions addressing the Commission's questions and the issues of remedy, the public interest, and bonding. On March 11, 2016, the parties filed response briefs. No comments were received from the public. On April 18, 2016, the Commission requested additional briefing on the effect of a Final Written Decision issued by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTAB”) on April 14, 2016, finding certain claims of the '934 patent unpatentable, on the Commission's final determination. 81 FR 23749-50 (Apr. 22, 2016). On April 26, 2016, the parties filed initial written submissions addressing the Commission's question. On May 3, 2016, the parties filed response briefs.

    Having examined the record of this investigation, including the final ID and the parties' submissions, the Commission has determined that RealD has proven a violation of section 337 based on infringement of claims 1-3, 9-11, 13, 15, 17-19, and 21 of the '455 patent; claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the '296 patent; and claims 1, 6, and 11 of the '934 patent. The Commission has determined to modify the ALJ's construction of the “uniformly modulate” limitation recited in claims 1 and 17 of the '455 patent. Under the modified construction, the Commission has determined that RealD has proven that the accused MasterImage Horizon 3D, 3D S, M, Rv1, and Rv2 products infringe the asserted claims of the '455 patent and that the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied with respect to that patent. The Commission has determined that the asserted claims of the '455 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(e), 102(g), 103, and 112, ¶¶ 1 and 2. The Commission has determined that the asserted claims of the '296 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 116 for improper inventorship. The Commission has also determined that the asserted claims of the '934 patent are not invalid under 35 U.S.C. 102(g) and 103.

    The Commission has determined the appropriate remedy is a limited exclusion order prohibiting the importation of certain three-dimensional cinema systems, and components thereof, that infringe the asserted claims of the '455, '296, and '934 patents and cease and desist orders directed against MasterImage. The Commission has determined the public interest factors enumerated in section 337(d)(1) and (f)(1) do not preclude issuance of the limited exclusion order or cease and desist orders.

    In view of the PTAB's Final Written Decision finding certain claims of the '934 patent unpatentable, the Commission has determined to suspend the enforcement of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders as to claims 1, 6, and 11 of the '934 patent pending final resolution of the PTAB's Final Written Decision. See 35 U.S.C. 318(b). The Commission has also determined to set a bond in the amount of 100 percent of the entered value of excluded products imported during the period of Presidential review (19 U.S.C. 1337(j)). The Commission's orders and opinion were delivered to the President and to the United States Trade Representative on the day of their issuance.

    The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 21, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17711 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 337-TA-1014] Certain Intermediate Bulk Containers; Institution of Investigation AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on June 22, 2016, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, on behalf of Schütz Container Systems Inc. of North Branch, New Jersey. The complaint was supplemented on June 29 and July 7, 2016. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States or sale of certain composite intermediate bulk containers by reason of infringement of certain trade dress, the threat or effect of which is to substantially destroy or injure a domestic industry.

    The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.

    ADDRESSES:

    The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, is available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Room 112, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. Hearing impaired individuals are advised that information on this matter can be obtained by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on (202) 205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at http://www.usitc.gov. The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Scope of Investigation: Having considered the complaint, the U.S. International Trade Commission, on July 21, 2016, ordered that

    (1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 in the importation into the United States or sale of certain composite intermediate bulk containers, the threat or effect of which is to substantially destroy or injure a domestic industry;

    (2) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:

    (a) The complainant is: Schütz Container Systems Inc., 200 Aspen Hill Road, North Branch, NJ 08876-5950.

    (b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Zhenjiang Runzhou Jinshan Packaging Factory, Road Dantu City Industrial Park, Hengshun Zhenjiang, China.

    (c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and

    (3) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.

    Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the Commission of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.

    Failure of the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.

    Authority:

    The authority for institution of this investigation is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and in section 210.10 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10 (2016).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: July 22, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17745 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration Geoffrey D. Peterson, N.P.; Decision and Order

    On April 14, 2015, the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, issued an Order to Show Cause to Geoffrey D. Peterson, N.P. (hereinafter, Registrant), of Hixson, Tennessee. The Show Cause Order proposed the revocation of Registrant's DEA Certificate of Registration MP3330545,1 pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a mid-level practitioner, and the denial of any applications on two grounds. GX 1, at 1.

    1 While Government also alleges that Registrant holds an additional registration (MP1971731) and seeks its revocation as well, in its Request for Final Agency Action, the Government acknowledges that this registration had expired shortly before the issuance of the Show Cause Order. To ensure that Registrant did not file a renewal application for this registration, I have taken official notice of Registrant's registration record with the Agency. See 5 U.S.C. 556(e). That record shows that Registrant allowed this registration to expire and did not file an application to renew it whether timely or not. Accordingly, I find that this proceeding is moot insofar as it seeks the revocation of this registration.

    First, the Show Cause Order alleged that effective January 27, 2015, the Tennessee Nursing Board had summarily suspended Registrant's nurse practitioner license. Id. at 2. The Order thus alleged that Registrant is currently without authority to dispense controlled substances in the State in which he is registered with the Agency and therefore, his registration is subject to revocation. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 802(21), 823(f), 824(a)(3)).

    Second, the Show Cause Order alleged that Registrant materially falsified his October 7, 2014 application for the above registration. Id. (citing 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1)). More specifically, the Show Cause Order alleged that on February 17, 2014, Registrant was arrested by local authorities and charged with the “unlawful possession of marijuana.” Id. The Order then alleged that the charge was still pending at the time Registrant submitted his renewal application, and that “[o]n this application, [he] did not answer `yes' to the . . . liability question: `Has the applicant ever been convicted of a crime in connection with controlled substance(s) under state or federal law, or is any action pending?' ” Id. The Government thus alleged that Registrant violated 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1).2

    2 While the Government contends that Registrant violated section 824(a)(1), this provision is simply a grant of authority to the Attorney General to revoke or suspend a registration and does not itself impose a substantive rule of conduct. Rather, the rule of conduct is imposed by 21 U.S.C. 843(a)(4)(A) (“It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally . . . to furnish false or fraudulent material information in, or omit any material information from, any application . . . filed under this subchapter[.]”).

    The Show Cause Order also notified Registrant of his right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving his right to a hearing, the procedure for electing either option, and the consequence of failing to elect either option. Id. at 2-3 (citing 21 CFR 1301.43, 1301.46). On April 23, 2015, the Show Cause Order was personally served on Registrant by a DEA Diversion Investigator. GX 3.

    On April 7, 2016, the Government forwarded a Request for Final Agency Action. Therein, the Government represented that neither Registrant “nor anyone representing him has requested a hearing or sent any other correspondence to DEA.” Req. for Final Agency Action, at 7. Based on the Government's representation, I find that 30 days have now passed since the Show Cause Order was served on Registrant and that he has neither requested a hearing nor submitted a written statement in lieu of hearing. 21 CFR 1301.43(b) & (c). Accordingly, I find that Registrant has waived his right to a hearing or to submit a written statement and issue this Decision and Order based on the evidence submitted by the Government. Id. § 1301.43(d) & (e). I make the following findings.

    Findings

    Registrant is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration MP3330545, pursuant to which he is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V, as a mid-level practitioner, at the registered address of Hormone Replacement Specialists, 5550 Highway 153, Suite 103, Hixson, Tennessee. GX 7, at 1. Registrant renewed this registration on October 7, 2014, at which time he was required to answer the following question: “Has the applicant ever been convicted of a crime in connection with controlled substance(s) under state or federal law, or been excluded or directed to be excluded from participation in a medicare or state health care program, or any [sic] such action pending?” GX 6. Registrant entered “N” for no. Id.

    On February 17, 2014, Registrant was arrested by a member of the Sequatchie County Sheriff's Department and charged with felony possession of marijuana, an offense under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-415. GX 5, at 1, 3, 6. According to a March 31, 2015 letter from the Clerk of the General Sessions Court of Sequatchie County, criminal charges were pending against Registrant “as of October 31, 2014.” GX 8. The Clerk's letter further states that the “[c]harges were expunged on 11/21/2014.” Id.

    Registrant was also previously licensed by the Tennessee Board of Nursing (Board) as an advanced practice nurse (APN) and held a Certificate of Fitness to prescribe. GX 4, at 2. However, on January 27, 2015, the Board ordered the summary suspension of Registrant's advance practice nurse license and Certificate of Fitness to Prescribe. Id. at 7. The Board based its order on findings which included that on December 19, 2014, a search warrant was executed at Registrant's residence during which the search team found “prefilled syringes of morphine, vials of morphine, shopping bags full of used needles, a bottle of prednisone, and a bottle of animal morphine,” and that “[t]he syringes of morphine are of unknown origin with no identifying prescription information.” Id. at 3. The search team also found a pipe containing marijuana residue. Id.

    The Board also based its order on findings that from April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014, Registrant was “a top 50 prescriber in Tennessee based on morphine equivalents,” and that in a letter to the Board, he had stated that “he had no intention of curbing his prescribing practices.” Id. at 4. The Board further found that on January 12, 2015, Registrant had “obstructed a Department of Health investigation” into his activities at a pain clinic, by “refus[ing] to allow access to [the] clinic or to cooperate in any fashion, leaving the Department unable to verify the conditions of the clinic or obtain patient charts to determine whether [he] has a supervising physician or a medical director at the pain clinic.” Id.

    Based on these and other findings, the Board found that Registrant “[i]s unfit or incompetent by reason of negligence, habits or other cause”; “[i]s guilty of unprofessional conduct”; and “[h]as violated or attempted to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisted in or abetted the violation of or conspired to violate any provision of this chapter or any lawful order of the board.” Id. at 6. (citing Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-7-115(a)(1)). The Board then explained that Registrant's “impaired judgment combined with the high amount of controlled substances he prescribes . . . create[s] an extreme and untenable danger to his patients and the public of Tennessee” and his “actions constitute a serious and immediate danger to the public's health, safety and welfare and require emergency action by this Board.” Id.

    Subsequently, on May 6, 2015, Registrant entered into an Agreed Order with the Board, which the latter approved on August 6, 2015 and which suspended his APN license and his Certificate of Fitness to prescribe.3 GX 10, at 8. The Order also imposed numerous conditions, including that he voluntarily surrender his DEA registrations within 10 days of the Board's ratification of the Order. Id. at 10.

    3 I take official notice of the Agreed Order and have made it a part of the record. See 5 U.S.C. 556(e).

    Therein, the parties agreed to a variety of factual findings pertinent to his prescribing of controlled substances. These included that during 2011, he had worked at a Chattanooga-based clinic (Superior One Medical Clinic) and “wrote prescriptions for schedule II controlled substances with no medical necessity or supporting documentation as to the condition which would warrant such prescribing.” Id. at 3. As for his prescribing at Holistic Health and Primary Care (a pain clinic in Hixson, TN which was owned by his father), the Board reviewed 10 patients charts maintained by him “from March 2012 to December 2013” and found that it reflected treatment “with controlled substances in amounts and/or durations not medically necessary, advisable, or justified.” Id. The Board also found that “he typically prescribed opioids in amounts not medically necessary,” that he “does not utilize alternative treatments . . . for his pain management patients and neglected to establish a treatment plan . . . other than the continuation of controlled substances,” and that while he had patients provide urine drug tests, he “often failed to address inconsistent results.” Id. at 3-4.

    Registrant also stipulated to the findings of the Summary Suspension Order regarding the various controlled substances and paraphernalia found during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, the findings that he was a Top 50 prescriber of morphine equivalents and had told the Board that he did not intend to curb his prescribing, and the findings related to his obstruction of the Department of Health's investigation of his father's pain clinic.4

    4 Registrant also stipulated to findings that he had abused animals and his 88-years old father, who was listed as his supervising physician, as well as that he had “obstructed attempts by three independent agencies to determine the welfare of” his father. Agreed Order, at 4-7.

    Discussion Registrant's Lack of State Authority

    Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), “[a] registration . . . to . . . dispense a controlled substance . . . may be suspended or revoked by the Attorney General upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended, revoked, or denied by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” This Agency has further held that notwithstanding that this provision grants the Agency authority to suspend or revoke a registration, other provisions of the Controlled Substances Act “make plain that a practitioner can neither obtain nor maintain a DEA registration unless the practitioner currently has authority under state law to handle controlled substances.” James L. Hooper, 76 FR 71371, 71372 (2011), pet. for rev. denied, Hooper v. Holder, 481 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012). See also Frederick Marsh Blanton, M.D., 43 FR 27616, 27617 (1978) (“State authorization to dispense or otherwise handle controlled substances is a prerequisite to the issuance and maintenance of a Federal controlled substances registration.”).

    These provisions include section 102(21), which defines the term “practitioner” to “mean[ ] a physician . . . licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . to distribute, dispense, [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice,” 21 U.S.C. 802(21), as well as section 303(f), which directs that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . to dispense . . . controlled substances . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” Id. § 823(f). As the Supreme Court has explained, “[i]n the case of a physician, this scheme contemplates that he is authorized by the State to practice medicine and to dispense drugs in connection with his professional practice.” United States v. Moore, 423 U.S. 122, 140-41 (1975).

    Here, it undisputed that the Tennessee Board of Nursing has suspended Registrant's advance practice nursing license and his Certificate of Fitness to prescribe. I therefore find that Registrant is without authority to dispense controlled substances in Tennessee, the State in which he is registered. Because Registrant no longer meets the CSA's prerequisite for maintaining a practitioner's registration, I will order that his existing registration be revoked.

    Material Falsification

    Pursuant to section 304(a)(1), the Attorney General is also authorized to suspend or revoke a registration “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has materially falsified any application filed pursuant to or required by this subchapter.” 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(1). Based on Registrant's failure to disclose his arrest for marijuana possession on his October 7, 2014 application, the Government contends that he materially falsified the application when he answered “N” or no to the question: “Has the applicant ever been convicted of a crime in connection with controlled substance(s) under state or federal law, or been excluded or directed to be excluded from participation in a medicare or state health care program, or any [sic] such action pending?” GX 6.

    Notably, the Government does not argue that Registrant has been convicted of the unlawful possession of marijuana, let alone that he had been convicted of the offense prior to submitting his application on October 7, 2014. Indeed, the only evidence it offers relevant to whether Registrant has been convicted of a controlled substance offense is the state court clerk's letter stating that Registrant “did have criminal charges pending against him . . . as of October 31, 2014” and that the “[c]harges were expunged” several weeks later.

    The clerk's letter does not, however, even identify what charges were pending against Registrant at the time. Moreover, the Government does not rely on the line of cases holding that a deferred adjudication of an offense falling under 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(2) which ultimately results in dismissal of the charge is still a conviction for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act and that the failure to disclose such conviction on a subsequent application is a material falsification. See Hoxie v. DEA, 419 F.3d 477, 481(6th Cir. 2005) (upholding Agency's finding that practitioner committed material falsification when he failed to disclose a controlled substance conviction which was expunged). See also Pamela Monterosso, 73 FR 11146, 11148 (2008) (citing David A. Hoxie, 69 FR 51477, 51478 (1994); Eric A. Baum, 53 FR 47272, 42274 (1988)); see also Kimberly Maloney, 76 FR 60922, 60922 (2011); Mark De La Lama, 76 FR 20011, 20013-14, 20019-20 (2011).

    Instead, the Government argues that Registrant materially falsified his application because “the new application required that [Registrant] disclose this arrest because the application asked: `Has the applicant ever been convicted of a crime in connection with controlled substance(s) or is any action pending?' ” Request for Final Agency Action, at 5-6. The question does not, however, require the disclosure of an arrest. Rather, it requires the disclosure of “any action pending,” and while this is reasonably read to include a criminal prosecution for a controlled substance offense which is ongoing at the time an application is submitted, the Government's evidence establishes only that charges were pending 24 days after Registrant submitted his application and not on the date he submitted his application. While it may be that the marijuana possession charge was pending on October 7, 2014 and was expunged pursuant to a deferred adjudication, which under Agency precedent constitutes a conviction even where the conviction is later expunged, the Government did not produce any evidence establishing that this was the basis for the expungement of the charge.

    Accordingly, I find that the Government has failed to provide substantial evidence to support its contention that Registrant materially falsified his application. Nonetheless, because Registrant no longer holds authority under Tennessee law to dispense controlled substances, he is not entitled to maintain his registration. Accordingly, I will order that his registration be revoked.

    Order

    Pursuant to the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f) and 824(a), as well as 28 CFR 0.100(b), I order that DEA Certificate of Registration MP3330545 issued to Geoffrey D. Peterson, N.P., be, and it hereby is, revoked. I further order that any application of Geoffrey D. Peterson to renew or modify the above registration be, and it hereby is, denied. This Order is effective immediately.5

    5 Based on the findings of the Tennessee Board, I find that the public interest necessitates that this Order be effective immediately. 21 CFR 1316.67. I further note that as of this date, Registrant has failed to surrender his DEA registration as required by the Board.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17722 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Occupational Safety and Health Administration [Docket No. OSHA-2013-0016] Nemko-CCL, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition AGENCY:

    Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In this notice, OSHA announces its final decision to expand the scope of recognition for Nemko-CCL, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

    DATES:

    The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on July 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:

    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3647, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-1999; email: [email protected]

    General and technical information: Contact Kevin Robinson, Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 693-2110; email: [email protected] OSHA's Web page includes information about the NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of Nemko-CCL, Inc. (CCL), as an NRTL. CCL's expansion covers the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites and twenty-two additional test standards to their NRTL scope of recognition.

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.

    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application. These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational Web page for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are available from the Agency's Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.

    CCL submitted two applications, dated January 28, 2015 (OSHA-2013-0016-0008) and January 26, 2016 (OSHA-2013-0016-0011), to expand its recognition to include the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites located at: Nemko USA, Inc., 2210 Faraday Avenue, Suite 150, Carlsbad, California 92008; and Nemko Canada, Inc., 303 River Road, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1V 1H2. Additionally, the January 2016 application sought to relocate their headquarters to Ottawa, Canada and recognize a new administrative site, Nemko-CCL, Inc., 2964 West 4700 South Suite 200, Salt Lake City, Utah 84129. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information. OSHA staff also performed on-site review of the testing and certification facilities for Nemko Canada, Inc. on November 17-18, 2015 and Nemko USA, Inc. on January 11-12, 2016. The Nemko-CCL Salt Lake site was assessed via an electronic audit (no on-site visit).

    CCL's first application also requested the addition of twenty-two test standards to its scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet, reviewed other pertinent information, and conducted the on-site reviews described above in relation to this application.

    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing CCL's expansion application in the Federal Register on May 17, 2016 (81 FR 30566). The Agency requested comments by June 1, 2016, but it received no comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this final notice to grant expansion of CCL's scope of recognition.

    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the CCL's application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Room N-2625, Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2013-0016 contains all materials in the record concerning CCL's recognition.

    II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined CCL's expansion application, conducted detailed on-site assessments, and examined other pertinent information. Based on its review of this evidence, OSHA finds that CCL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of its recognition, subject to the limitations and conditions listed below.

    OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant CCL's scope of recognition to include the two new test sites. OSHA limits the expansion of CCL's recognition to include the sites at Nemko Canada Inc., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Nemko-CCL, Inc. Salt Lake City, Utah, Nemko USA, Inc., Carlsbad, California. Further, OSHA approves CCL's request to relocate its headquarters to the Ottawa, Canada site and recognizes the new administrative site at the Nemko-CCL Salt Lake site. Additionally, OSHA acknowledges the name change of Nemko-CCL, Inc. to Nemko North America, Inc. and will adjust future correspondence and reference to Nemko North America, Inc. [NEMKO]. OSHA's recognition of these sites limits CCL to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in CCL's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.

    OSHA is also proceeding with this final notice to grant CCL's scope of recognition to include the twenty-two test standards. OSHA limits this expansion of CCL's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed in Table 1 below.

    List of Appropriate Test Standards for Inclusion in CCL's NRTL Scope of Recognition Test standard Test standard title UL 60335-1 Safety of Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 1: General Requirements. UL 60335-2-24 Safety Requirement for Household and Similar Electrical Appliances, Part 2: Refrigerating Appliances, Ice-Cream Appliances and Ice Makers. UL 197 Commercial Electric Cooking Appliances. UL 250 Household Refrigerators and Freezers. UL 427 Refrigerating Units. UL 471 Commercial Refrigerators and Freezers. UL 499 Electric Heating Appliances. UL 507 Electric Fans. UL 561 Floor Finishing Machines. UL 563 Ice Makers. UL 705 Power Ventilators. UL 751 Vending Machines. UL 763 Motor-Operated Commercial Food Preparing Machines. UL 859 Personal Grooming Appliance. UL 867 Electrostatic Air Cleaners. UL 982 Motor-Operated Food Preparing Machines. UL 1017 Electric Vacuum Cleaning Machines and Blower Cleaners. UL 1026 Electric Household Cooking and Food-Serving Appliances. UL 1082 Household Electric Coffee Makers and Brewing-Type Appliances. UL 1083 Household Electric Skillets and Frying-Type Appliances. UL 1431 Personal Hygiene and Health Care Appliances. UL 1563 Electric Spas, Equipment Assemblies and Associated Equipment.

    OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.

    The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as an American National Standards. However, for convenience, we may use the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 1-0.3, Appendix C, paragraph XIV), any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.

    A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, CCL also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:

    1. CCL must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as an NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);

    2. CCL must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and

    3. CCL must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on CCL's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.

    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the recognition of CCL, subject to these limitations and conditions specified above.

    Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912, Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 19, 2016. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17793 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Survivor's Form for Benefits (CM-912). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the ADDRESSES section below on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email [email protected]. Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or Email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background: This collection of information is required to administer the benefit payment provisions of the Black Lung Act for survivors of deceased miners. Completion of this form constitutes the application for benefits by survivors and assists in determining the survivor's entitlement to benefits. Form CM-912 is authorized for use by the Black Lung Benefits Act 30 U.S.C. 901, et seq., 20 CFR 410.221 and CFR 725.304 and is used to gather information from a survivor of a miner to determine if the survivor is entitled to benefits. This information collection is currently approved for use through December 31, 2016.

    II. Review Focus: The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

    • 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;

    • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions: The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently-approved information collection in order to gather information to determine eligibility for benefits of a survivor of a Black Lung Act beneficiary.

    Type of Review: Extension.

    Agency: Office of Workers' Compensation Programs.

    Title: Survivor's Form for Benefits.

    OMB Number: 1240-0027.

    Agency Number: CM-912.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Total Respondents: 1,100.

    Total Annual Responses: 1,100.

    Average Time per Response: 8 minutes.

    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 147.

    Frequency: One time.

    Total Burden Cost (capital/startup): $0.

    Total Burden Cost (operating/maintenance): $450.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they will also become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Yoon Ferguson, Agency Clearance Officer, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17725 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-CK-P
    DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Proposed Collection of Existing Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Division of Coal Mine Workers' Compensation, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Department of Labor

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Request for State or Federal Workers' Compensation Information (CM-905). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the addresses section below on or before September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Ms. Yoon Ferguson, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW., Room S-3323, Washington, DC 20210, telephone/fax (202) 354-9647, Email [email protected] Please use only one method of transmission for comments (mail, fax, or Email).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, as amended (30 U.S.C. 901) and 20 CFR 725.535, require that DOL Black Lung benefit payments to a beneficiary for any month be reduced by any other payments of state or federal benefits for workers' compensation due to pneumoconiosis. To ensure compliance with this mandate, DCMWC must collect information regarding the status of any state or Federal workers' compensation claim, including dates of payments, weekly or lump sum amounts paid, and other fees or expenses paid out for this award, such as attorney fees and related expenses associated with pneumoconiosis. Form CM-905 is used to request the amount of those workers' compensation benefits. This information collection is currently approved for use through December 31, 2016.

    II. Review Focus

    The Department of Labor is particularly interested in comments which:

    • 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;

    • evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submissions of responses.

    III. Current Actions

    The Department of Labor seeks the approval for the extension of this currently-approved information collection in order to gather information to determine the amounts of Black Lung benefits paid to beneficiaries. Black Lung amounts are reduced dollar for d