Federal Register Vol. 81, No.146,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 146 (July 29, 2016)

Page Range49855-50281
FR Document

81_FR_146
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 50281 - Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to LebanonPDF
81 FR 49961 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 50012 - Government in the Sunshine Act Meeting NoticePDF
81 FR 50035 - Sunshine Act MeetingPDF
81 FR 49869 - Truth in Lending (Regulation Z)PDF
81 FR 50012 - Meeting of the Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review BoardPDF
81 FR 49962 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49965 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49970 - Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Transco to Charleston ProjectPDF
81 FR 49970 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-547); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
81 FR 49971 - PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Penneast Pipeline ProjectPDF
81 FR 49927 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49908 - Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems; Training Certification ProgramsPDF
81 FR 49998 - Chemical Transportation Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 49958 - Opportunity To Enter Into a Joint Venture With the National Technical Information Service for Data Innovation Support; Extension of Proposal Submission PeriodPDF
81 FR 50044 - U.S. Department of State Advisory Committee on Private International Law (ACPIL): Public Meeting on Family LawPDF
81 FR 50058 - Quarterly Publication of Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, as Required by Section 6039GPDF
81 FR 50003 - 30-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Form 50900: Elements for the Annual Moving to Work Plan and Annual Moving to Work ReportPDF
81 FR 50000 - Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Amended System of Records Notice, Active Partners Performance SystemPDF
81 FR 50007 - Notice of Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board MeetingPDF
81 FR 49927 - Foreign-Trade Zone 24-Pittston, Pennsylvania; Application for Subzone; Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc.; Hazleton, PennsylvaniaPDF
81 FR 50042 - Virginia Disaster #VA-00064PDF
81 FR 49981 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 50035 - Order Granting Application of Investors' Exchange LLC for a Limited Exemption from Exchange Act Rule 10b-10(a)(2)(i)(A) pursuant to Rule 10b-10(f)PDF
81 FR 49927 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38-Spartanburg, South Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Benteler Automotive Corporation (Automotive Suspension and Body Components); Duncan, South CarolinaPDF
81 FR 49934 - Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron MicroscopePDF
81 FR 50043 - Pennsylvania Disaster # PA-00070PDF
81 FR 49949 - University of Pittsburgh, et al.; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific InstrumentsPDF
81 FR 49976 - Certain New Chemicals; Receipt and Status Information for June 2016PDF
81 FR 49982 - Request for Scientific Views: Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Estuarine/Marine Water Quality Criteria for Copper-2016PDF
81 FR 50043 - Kansas Disaster # KS-00096PDF
81 FR 49961 - Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49963 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49964 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions and ApprovalsPDF
81 FR 49964 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49957 - Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Review for North Atlantic Right WhalePDF
81 FR 49908 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government EntitiesPDF
81 FR 49997 - Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49997 - National Institute Of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 49998 - National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 49996 - National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 49998 - Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 50056 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and ApprovalsPDF
81 FR 49974 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 49973 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 49973 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 50045 - Progressive Rail Incorporated-Continuance in Control Exemption-Iowa Southern Railway CompanyPDF
81 FR 50044 - Iowa Southern Railway Company-Lease and Operation Exemption-Appanoose County Community Railroad, Inc.PDF
81 FR 49959 - Procurement List; Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 49960 - Procurement List; Proposed Additions and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 49984 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49985 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49968 - Call for U.S.-China Energy Performance Contracting Pilot Projects To Be Recognized at the 7th Annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency ForumPDF
81 FR 50066 - Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 50006 - Renewal of Agency Information Collection for Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ProgramPDF
81 FR 49967 - Agency Information Collection RenewalPDF
81 FR 50057 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities: ExemptionsPDF
81 FR 49965 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Support Services Annual Performance ReportPDF
81 FR 50014 - Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety GrantsPDF
81 FR 50013 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Notice of Issuance of Insurance PolicyPDF
81 FR 49898 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Hopewell, VAPDF
81 FR 49926 - Mountain Run Watershed Dam No. 50, Culpeper County, VirginiaPDF
81 FR 50046 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of an Approved Information Collection Request: Transportation of Hazardous Materials, Highway RoutingPDF
81 FR 50045 - Determination Regarding Waiver of Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements With Respect to Goods and Services of the Republic of MoldovaPDF
81 FR 50054 - Notice of Buy America WaiverPDF
81 FR 49922 - Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and Specialty Crop CommitteePDF
81 FR 49958 - New England Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 50000 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Form I-191; Revision of a Currently Approved CollectionPDF
81 FR 49903 - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Fourth MeetingPDF
81 FR 49925 - Ontonagon Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 49923 - Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 50009 - Notice of Availability of the Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan/Final Environmental Impact Statement, AlaskaPDF
81 FR 50008 - Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, AlaskaPDF
81 FR 50011 - Notice of Public Meeting, Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council Meeting, New MexicoPDF
81 FR 49940 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Final Affirmative DeterminationPDF
81 FR 49946 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 49938 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 49925 - Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Manti-La Sal National ForestPDF
81 FR 49932 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Final Affirmative DeterminationPDF
81 FR 49928 - Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for NATO International Competitive BiddingPDF
81 FR 49995 - National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program; List of Petitions ReceivedPDF
81 FR 49975 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance ProgramPDF
81 FR 50047 - Notice of Funding Opportunity for FY 2017 Positive Train Control Grant FundsPDF
81 FR 49953 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 49929 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the United Kingdom: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair ValuePDF
81 FR 49943 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative DeterminationPDF
81 FR 49950 - Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Russian Federation: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in PartPDF
81 FR 49935 - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Russian Federation: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances DeterminationPDF
81 FR 50244 - Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of InadmissibilityPDF
81 FR 50003 - Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program Fiscal Year 2016; RevisedPDF
81 FR 49909 - Safety Zone, Banks Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NCPDF
81 FR 50023 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Coal Mine Rescue Teams; Arrangements for Emergency Medical Assistance and Transportation for Injured Persons; Agreements; Reporting Requirements; Posting RequirementsPDF
81 FR 50022 - Proposed Extension of Information Collection; Ventilation Plan and Main Fan Maintenance RecordPDF
81 FR 49956 - Marine Mammals; File No. 14245PDF
81 FR 50056 - Notice and Request for Public CommentPDF
81 FR 50011 - Stainless Steel Wire Rod From Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan; DeterminationPDF
81 FR 50024 - Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 50026 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Public Disclosure of Exchange Usage of Market DataPDF
81 FR 50036 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Tied to Stock OrdersPDF
81 FR 50029 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Modify NASDAQ Options Market LLC Pricing at Chapter XVPDF
81 FR 50041 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ BX, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Public Disclosure of Exchange Usage of Market DataPDF
81 FR 50024 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Update Public Disclosure of Exchange Usage of Market DataPDF
81 FR 50028 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Stock Exchange, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to NSX Rule 11.25(a), Stating it Will Utilize IEX Market Data From the CQS/UQDF for Purposes of Order Handling, Routing, and Related Compliance ProcessesPDF
81 FR 49987 - Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2017PDF
81 FR 49993 - General Wellness: Policy for Low Risk Devices; Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 49983 - Information Collections Being Submitted for Review and Approval to the Office of Management and BudgetPDF
81 FR 49921 - Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking ProceedingPDF
81 FR 49974 - Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-539); Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 49967 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants-State-Level Activity FundsPDF
81 FR 49966 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Aid Program Application for Section 7002 AssistancePDF
81 FR 49902 - Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MIPDF
81 FR 50012 - Meeting of the Office of Justice Programs' Science Advisory BoardPDF
81 FR 50052 - Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Open SeasonPDF
81 FR 49876 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 49924 - Information Collection; Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection SystemsPDF
81 FR 49873 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 49871 - Special Conditions: ATR Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A Airplanes; Seats With Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic PanelsPDF
81 FR 49869 - Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 Airplanes; Installation of an Airbag System To Limit the Axial Rotation of the Upper Leg on Single- and Multiple-Place Side-Facing SeatsPDF
81 FR 49878 - Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability StandardsPDF
81 FR 49899 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Volatile Organic CompoundsPDF
81 FR 49911 - Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Volatile Organic CompoundsPDF
81 FR 49911 - Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality StandardPDF
81 FR 49863 - Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRCPDF
81 FR 49855 - Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards ActPDF
81 FR 49868 - Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final Coverage Determination; Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 49969 - Updating Weatherization Health and Safety GuidancePDF
81 FR 50011 - Notice of Meeting, Front Range Resource Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 49928 - In the Matter of: Donald V. Bernardo, a/k/a Don Bernardo, 8930 Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte, NC 28277; OrderPDF
81 FR 49986 - Change of Address for the Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied NutritionPDF
81 FR 49894 - Change of Address; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 50004 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 49897 - Amendments to Designated AreasPDF
81 FR 50046 - Membership in the National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking CommitteePDF
81 FR 49904 - Clarification and Update of the Trade Fair Certification ProgramPDF
81 FR 49913 - Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of OperationsPDF
81 FR 50194 - National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Eliminating Applications Through Community Eligibility as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010PDF
81 FR 50170 - Administrative Reviews in the School Nutrition ProgramsPDF
81 FR 50151 - Local School Wellness Policy Implementation Under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010PDF
81 FR 50132 - National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010PDF
81 FR 50212 - Amendments to the Commission's Rules of PracticePDF
81 FR 50068 - Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable TrainsPDF

Issue

81 146 Friday, July 29, 2016 Contents Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

See

Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

See

Natural Resources Conservation Service

NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and Specialty Crop Committee, 49922-49923 2016-17971
AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49961-49962 2016-18008 2016-18042 Army Army Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49962-49963 2016-17924 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection RULES Truth in Lending (Regulation Z); CFR Correction, 49869 2016-18050 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49984-49986 2016-17987 2016-17988 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: James River, Hopewell, VA, 49898-49899 2016-17976 PROPOSED RULES Dynamic Positioning Training Certification Programs, 49908-49909 2016-18036 Safety Zones: Banks Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC, 49909-49911 2016-17927 NOTICES Meetings: Chemical Transportation Advisory Committee, 49998-50000 2016-18035 Commerce Commerce Department See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

See

National Technical Information Service

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49927 2016-18037
Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 49959-49961 2016-17989 2016-17990 Commodity Futures Commodity Futures Trading Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 49961 2016-18134 Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50056-50057 2016-17916 2016-17996 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50057-50058 2016-17981 Defense Acquisition Defense Acquisition Regulations System NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49963-49965 2016-18005 2016-18006 2016-18007 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

See

Army Department

See

Defense Acquisition Regulations System

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49965 2016-18041
Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Impact Aid Program Application for Section 7002 Assistance, 49966-49967 2016-17894 Student Support Services Annual Performance Report, 49965-49966 2016-17979 Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds, 49967 2016-17895 Energy Department Energy Department See

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office

See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RULES Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final Coverage Determination; Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products; Correction, 49868-49869 2016-17752 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49967-49968 2016-17983
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office NOTICES Request for Project Submissions: Call For U.S.-China Energy Performance Contracting Pilot Projects To Be Recognized At the 7th Annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum, 49968-49969 2016-17986 Updating Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance, 49969-49970 2016-17751 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Volatile Organic Compounds, 49899-49901 2016-17815 PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Alabama; Volatile Organic Compounds, 49911 2016-17813 Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, 49911-49913 2016-17787 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program, 49975-49976 2016-17944 Certain New Chemicals: Receipt and Status Information for June, 49976-49981 2016-18015 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, 49981-49982 2016-18021 Scientific Views: Draft Aquatic Life Ambient Estuarine/Marine Water Quality Criteria for Copper—2016, 49982-49983 2016-18014 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 49876-49878 2016-17863 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 49873-49876 2016-17861 Special Conditions: ATR Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/ -212/ 212A Airplanes; Seats with Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels, 49871-49873 2016-17846 Embraer S.A. Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes; Installation of an Airbag System to Limit the Axial Rotation of the Upper Leg on Single- and Multiple-Place Side-Facing Seats, 49869-49871 2016-17845 PROPOSED RULES Class E Airspace; Establishments: Iron Mountain, MI, 49902-49903 2016-17893 NOTICES Requests for Nominations: National Parks Overflights Advisory Group Aviation Rulemaking Committee, 50046 2016-17564 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission PROPOSED RULES Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding, 49921 2016-17900 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49983-49984 2016-17901 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission RULES Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, 49878-49894 2016-17842 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 49970, 49974-49975 2016-17896 2016-18039 Combined Filings, 49973-49974 2016-17993 2016-17994 2016-17995 Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC, 49971-49973 2016-18038 Environmental Reviews: Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC, Transco to Charleston Project, 49970-49971 2016-18040 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 50046-50047 2016-17974 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunity: Fiscal Year 2017 Positive Train Control Grant Funds, 50047-50052 2016-17943 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Funding Opportunity: Fiscal Year 2017 Positive Train Control Grant Funds, 50047-50052 2016-17943 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration RULES Change of Address, 49894-49897 2016-17658 NOTICES Change of Address: Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, 49986-49987 2016-17659 Guidance: General Wellness—Policy for Low Risk Devices, 49993-49995 2016-17902 Medical Device User Fee Rates for Fiscal Year 2017, 49987-49993 2016-17903 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service RULES Administrative Reviews in the School Nutrition Programs, 50170-50194 2016-17231 Local School Wellness Policy Implementation under the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 50151-50170 2016-17230 National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program: Eliminating Applications through Community Eligibility as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 50194-50210 2016-17232 Nutrition Standards for All Foods Sold in School as Required by the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, 50132-50151 2016-17227 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Subzones: Michaels Stores Procurement Co., Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 24, Pittston, PA, 49927-49928 2016-18024 Production Activities: Benteler Automotive Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 38, Spartanburg, SC, 49927 2016-18019 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems, 49924-49925 2016-17862 Assessment Reports: Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Manti-La Sal National Forest, 49925-49926 2016-17949 Meetings: Ontonagon Resource Advisory Committee, 49925 2016-17966 Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory Committee, 49923-49924 2016-17964 Grain Inspection Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration RULES Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act, 49855-49863 2016-17762 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

National Institutes of Health

Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES List of Petitions Received: National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 49995-49996 2016-17946 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

RULES Expansion of Provisional Unlawful Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility, 50244-50277 2016-17934
Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Elements for the Annual Moving to Work Plan and Annual Moving to Work Report, 50003-50004 2016-18028 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 50004-50006 2016-17653 Final Fair Market Rents for the Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program: Fiscal Year 2016; Revised, 50003 2016-17932 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 50000-50002 2016-18026 Indian Affairs Indian Affairs Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act Program, 50006-50007 2016-17984 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for NATO International Competitive Bidding, 49928-49929 2016-17947 Orders: Donald V. Bernardo a.k.a. Don Bernardo, 49928 2016-17681 Interior Interior Department See

Indian Affairs Bureau

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Office of Natural Resources Revenue

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Individuals, Who Have Chosen To Expatriate, 50058-50066 2016-18029 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration PROPOSED RULES Clarification and Update of the Trade Fair Certification Program, 49904-49908 2016-17414 NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, 49940-49943, 49946-49949 2016-17951 2016-17952 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India, 49932-49934, 49938-49940 2016-17948 2016-17950 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 49943-49946, 49953-49956 2016-17939 2016-17941 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation, 49935-49938, 49950-49953 2016-17937 2016-17938 Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom, 49929-49931 2016-17940 Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, et al.; Electron Microscope, 49934-49935 2016-18018 University of Pittsburgh, et al., 49949-49950 2016-18016 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, and Taiwan, 50011-50012 2016-17914 Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50012 2016-18086 Justice Department Justice Department See

Justice Programs Office

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability: Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities, 49908 2016-18003
Justice Programs Justice Programs Office NOTICES Meetings: Public Safety Officer Medal of Valor Review Board, 50012 2016-18043 Science Advisory Board, 50012-50013 2016-17890 Labor Department Labor Department See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Notice of Issuance of Insurance Policy, 50013-50014 2016-17977
Land Land Management Bureau PROPOSED RULES Onshore Oil and Gas Operations: Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations, 49913-49921 2016-17400 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Alpine Satellite Development Plan for the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, Alaska, 50008-50009 2016-17962 Eastern Interior Proposed Resource Management Plan; Alaska, 50009-50010 2016-17963 Meetings: Albuquerque District Resource Advisory Council, NM, 50011 2016-17953 Front Range Resource Advisory Council, 50011 2016-17747 Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, 50007-50008 2016-18025 Maritime Maritime Administration NOTICES Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement Open Season, 50052-50054 2016-17888 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Coal Mine Rescue Teams; Arrangements for Emergency Medical Assistance and Transportation for Injured Persons; Agreements; Reporting Requirements; Posting Requirements, 50023-50024 2016-17926 Ventilation Plan and Main Fan Maintenance Record, 50022-50023 2016-17925 Funding Availability: Brookwood-Sago Mine Safety Grants, 50014-50022 2016-17978 National Endowment for the Humanities National Endowment for the Humanities NOTICES Meetings: Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities, Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee, 50024 2016-17913 National Foundation National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities See

National Endowment for the Humanities

National Highway National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NOTICES Buy America Waiver, 50054-50056 2016-17972 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: Center for Scientific Review, 49998 2016-17997 2016-17998 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 49997, 49998 2016-18000 2016-18001 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 49996-49997 2016-17999 Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, 49997 2016-18002 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: New England Fishery Management Council, 49958 2016-17970 Endangered and Threatened Species: North Atlantic Right Whale; Initiation of 5-Year Review, 49957-49958 2016-18004 Meetings: New England Fishery Management Council, 49958 2016-17969 Permit Amendments: Marine Mammals; File No. 14245, 49956-49957 2016-17919 National Technical National Technical Information Service NOTICES Joint Venture Opportunity: Data Innovation Support, 49958-49959 2016-18034 National Resources Natural Resources Conservation Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Mountain Run Watershed Dam No. 50, Culpeper County, VA, 49926-49927 2016-17975 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission RULES Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC, 49863-49868 2016-17766 Natural Resources Office of Natural Resources Revenue RULES Amendments to Designated Areas, 49897-49898 2016-17599 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration PROPOSED RULES Hazardous Materials: Oil Spill Response Plans and Information Sharing for High-Hazard Flammable Trains, 50068-50129 2016-16938 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Lebanon; Continuation of National Emergency (Notice of July 27, 2016), 50279-50281 2016-18215 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission RULES Rules of Practice, 50212-50242 2016-16987 NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 50035 2016-18061 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., 50036-50041 2016-17910 Investors Exchange LLC, 50035-50036 2016-18020 NASDAQ BX, Inc., 50041-50042 2016-17908 NASDAQ PHLX LLC, 50026-50028 2016-17911 National Stock Exchange, Inc., 50028-50029 2016-17906 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 50024-50026, 50029-50034 2016-17907 2016-17909 Small Business Small Business Administration NOTICES Disaster Declarations: Kansas, 50043 2016-18012 Pennsylvania, 50043-50044 2016-18017 Virginia, 50042-50043 2016-18023 State Department State Department NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Private International Law; Family Law, 50044 2016-18033 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board NOTICES Continuance in Control Exemptions: Progressive Rail Inc.; Iowa Southern Railway Co., 50045 2016-17992 Lease and Operation Exemptions: Iowa Southern Railway Company from Appanoose County Community Railroad, Inc., 50044-50045 2016-17991 Trade Representative Trade Representative, Office of United States NOTICES Waivers: Discriminatory Purchasing Requirements with Respect to Goods and Services of the Republic of Moldova, 50045 2016-17973 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Maritime Administration

See

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

PROPOSED RULES Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Fourth Meeting, 49903-49904 2016-17967
Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Internal Revenue Service

U.S. Citizenship U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Application for Relief under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 50000 2016-17968 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation, 50066 2016-17985 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Transportation Department, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 50068-50129 2016-16938 Part III Agriculture Department, Food and Nutrition Service, 50132-50210 2016-17231 2016-17230 2016-17232 2016-17227 Part IV Securities and Exchange Commission, 50212-50242 2016-16987 Part V Homeland Security Department, 50244-50277 2016-17934 Part VI Presidential Documents, 50279-50281 2016-18215 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.

81 146 Friday, July 29, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration 7 CFR Part 800 RIN 0580-AB24 Reauthorization of the United States Grain Standards Act AGENCY:

Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration, USDA.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is revising existing regulations and adding new regulations under the United States Grain Standards Act (USGSA), as amended, in order to comply with amendments to the USGSA made by the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015. Specifically, this rulemaking eliminates mandatory barge weighing, removes the discretion for emergency waivers of inspection and weighing, revises GIPSA's fee structure, revises exceptions to official agency geographic boundaries, extends the length of licenses and designations, and imposes new requirements for delegated States.

DATES:

Effective July 29, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Barry Gomoll, 202-720-8286.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA Target Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Overview

On September 30, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Agriculture Reauthorizations Act of 2015, Public Law 114-54 (The Reauthorization Act). In addition to extending certain provisions of the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 71-87k) to 2020, the Reauthorization Act also made several changes to the existing law. Therefore, GIPSA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend 7 CFR part 800 to comply with the amendments made by the Reauthorization Act and solicited comments from interested parties (81 FR 3970). Specifically, GIPSA proposed to:

• Remove the requirement to officially weigh inbound barge shipments at export port locations (§ 800.15 and § 800.216);

• approve requests for waivers of official inspection and weighing requirements for export grain in “emergencies or other circumstances that would not impair the objectives of the [USGSA] whenever the parties to a contract for such shipment mutually agree to the waiver and documentation of such agreement is provided to the Secretary prior to shipment” (§ 800.18);

• base the portion of fees assessed on tonnage on the 5-year rolling average of export tonnage volume (§ 800.71);

• adjust fees annually to maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve for inspection and supervision services (§ 800.71);

• remove the provision that allows applicants to request service from an official agency outside an assigned geographic region after 90 days of nonuse of service (§ 800.117);

• waive the geographic boundaries established for official agencies between two adjacent official agencies if both official agencies agree in writing to the waiver (§ 800.117);

• without changing current termination dates, terminate inspection licenses every 5 years instead of every 3 years (§ 800.175);

• require delegated States to notify GIPSA of any intent to temporarily discontinue official inspection or weighing services at least 72 hours in advance, except in the case of a major disaster (§ 800.195);

• review delegated states every 5 years and certify that they comply with the requirements for delegation under the USGSA (§ 800.195);

• require designated official agencies to respond to concerns identified during GIPSA's consultations with customers as part of the renewal of a designation (§ 800.196); and

• extend the minimum length of designation for official agencies from 3 years to 5 years (§ 800.196).

Fees

GIPSA last made changes to its fee schedule on May 1, 2013 (78 FR 22151-66). At that time, GIPSA determined that the existing fee schedule for inspection and weighing services would not generate sufficient revenue to adequately cover program costs through fiscal year 2017. To correct this problem and to build an operating reserve, GIPSA increased fees by 5 percent in fiscal year 2013 and an additional 2 percent for each successive year through fiscal year 2017.

In addition, GIPSA restructured its tonnage fees to more accurately reflect the administrative and supervisory costs at the national and local level. In order to establish an equitable tonnage fee for all export tonnage utilizing the official system, GIPSA began assessing the national tonnage fee on all export grain inspected and/or weighed (excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico) by delegated States and designated agencies. GIPSA also shifted workers compensation costs from the national to the local level to fully reflect where those workers compensation costs originated.

Prior to the Reauthorization Act, GIPSA used projected future tonnage volumes as a basis to calculate tonnage fees. The Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to require that tonnage fees be based on the five-year rolling average of export tonnage volumes. In order to comply with this new tonnage fee requirement, GIPSA proposed to adjust both the national and local tonnage fees on a yearly basis. GIPSA proposed that the national tonnage fee would be the national program administrative costs (the costs of management and support of official inspection and weighing) for the previous fiscal year divided by the average export tonnage for the previous 5 fiscal years. Also, the local tonnage fees would be the Field Office administrative costs (the costs of management, support, and maintenance of each Field Office) for the previous fiscal year divided by the average tonnage serviced by that Field Office for the previous 5 fiscal years.

The Reauthorization Act further requires adjustment of all of GIPSA's fees for the performance, supervision, and administration of official inspection and weighing services at least annually to maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve. Given that the number of requests for official inspection and weighing services varies with the amount of grain produced and exported from year to year, an operating reserve allows funding of operations in periods during which revenue may not equal or exceed costs. In order to maintain an appropriate level of operating reserve, GIPSA proposed to increase or decrease inspection and weighing fees when the operating reserve is less than 3 times or more than 6 times monthly operating expenses. For each $1 million that the operating reserve is below 3 months or above 6 months of the operating expenses, GIPSA would increase or decrease fees by 2 percent, respectively. GIPSA also proposed to set a 5 percent limit on changes to fees for service per calendar year. GIPSA's annual user fee revenue for performance, supervision, and administration of official inspection and weighing is approximately $40 million. Therefore, an increase or decrease of 2 to 5 percent would approximately equal between $0.8 and $2 million annually.

In addition to these annual reviews of fees, GIPSA will continue to evaluate the financial status of the official inspection and weighing services to ensure that the revenue for each service covers the cost to GIPSA of providing that service. Also, GIPSA will continue to seek out cost saving measures and implement appropriate changes to reduce costs and minimize the need for fee increases.

This action is authorized under the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 79(j)), which provides for the establishment and collection of fees that are reasonable and, as nearly as practicable, cover the costs of the services rendered, including associated administrative and supervisory costs. The tonnage fees cover the GIPSA administrative and supervisory costs for the performance of GIPSA's official inspection and weighing services; including personnel compensation and benefits, travel, rent, communications, utilities, contractual services, supplies, and equipment.

Exceptions to Geographic Boundaries

The Reauthorization Act requires changes to GIPSA's exception program for official agencies to operate outside of their geographically assigned areas. Prior to the Reauthorization Act, the regulations provided for three types of exceptions: Timely service, nonuse of service for 90 consecutive days, and barge probe inspections. The Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to eliminate the nonuse of service exception and add a provision for geographically adjacent agencies to provide service in each other's assigned geographic territories at an applicant's request if both agencies agree in writing. GIPSA proposed to revise the current regulations to comply with the changes to the USGSA by the Reauthorization Act.

GIPSA currently has 95 agreements for agencies to operate outside of their assigned territories and GIPSA will continue to honor those agreements. Under GIPSA's proposed rule, an agency would be permitted to provide service at a location in another adjacent agency's territory, provided that both agencies and the applicant for service submit an agreement in writing to GIPSA.

Delegations

As required by the Reauthorization Act, GIPSA proposed to impose new requirements on State agencies that GIPSA delegates to perform export inspection and weighing services at export port locations under the USGSA. The Reauthorization Act requires the Secretary to certify that State agencies continue to meet statutory requirements. Accordingly, GIPSA will review each delegated state every 5 years to determine that it meets the criteria for delegation set forth in the USGSA. GIPSA proposed to implement a process mirroring the existing process that GIPSA uses to renew the designations of official agencies. The Reauthorization Act also requires that a delegated State must notify GIPSA in writing of any intent to discontinue providing official service at least 72 hours prior to discontinuation. GIPSA proposed to add this requirement to the section of the regulations concerning responsibilities of delegated States (7 CFR 800.195(f)).

Emergency Waivers

The Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA (7 U.S.C 77(a)(1)) to state, “The Secretary shall waive the foregoing requirement [that all grain exported from the U.S. be officially inspected and weighed] in emergency or other circumstances that would not impair the objectives of this chapter whenever the parties to a contract for such shipment mutually agree to the waiver and documentation of such agreement is provided to the Secretary prior to shipment.” This change to the USGSA substituted the word “shall” in place of the former word “may,” indicating that GIPSA no longer has discretion to approve waivers of official inspection and weighing requirements in emergencies. For this reason, GIPSA determined that it is important to clarify what constitutes an emergency.

In the proposed rule, GIPSA proposed to define the term “emergency” in 7 CFR 800.00 as “a situation outside the control of the Service or a delegated State that prevents prompt issuance of certificates in accordance with § 800.160(c).” The proposed rule linked the definition of “emergency” to the timely issuance of certificates. Upon further reflection, linking waivers to certification does not cover situations where no service is provided. Certificates would never be issued in circumstances where no official inspection or weighing occurs. Accordingly, GIPSA is revising the definition of “emergency” from the proposed rule to more closely tie emergency situations to the ability of GIPSA or a delegated State to provide official services in a timely manner when requested. The issuance of certificates, as described in 7 CFR 800.160(c), provides that a certificate must be issued by the close of business on the next business day after inspection or weighting. The proposed regulation incorporated that time period. Currently, 7 CFR 800.18(b)(6) provides a 24-hour period for granting a waiver for circumstances in which service is not available. Because GIPSA is no longer linking emergency waivers with only the issuance of certificates in 800.160(c), GIPSA has decided to set the determination for emergency waivers based on this same time frame as 800.18(b)(6).

Timely service delivery ensures that GIPSA will continue to facilitate the marketing of cereals and oilseeds and issue certificates in accordance with the regulations. To that end, the emergency waiver provisions provide a mechanism for grain shipments to continue in a situation that prevents service delivery within 24 hours of the scheduled service time.

Comment Review

GIPSA received nine comments in response to the proposed rule published January 25, 2016, in the Federal Register (81 FR 3970). One comment was a request for extension of the comment period, which GIPSA granted on February 24, 2016 (81 FR 9122). Two grain industry associations submitted a joint comment, which was supported by an additional submission from several other grain industry associations. Other comments were submitted by an association of official inspection agencies, a farm organization, a grain elevator operator, and two private individuals, one of whom submitted two separate comments. Two of the eight comments concerned quinoa and rice standards, commodities which are not covered under the USGSA and this rulemaking. All comments were supportive of the proposed rule, with some suggested changes to the proposed regulations. Suggestions are addressed below in the order they appear in the regulations.

Emergency Waivers (7 CFR 800.0 and 18)

Several commenters suggested changes to GIPSA's proposed definition of the term “emergency.” The grain industry associations suggested that GIPSA remove the terms “outside of the control of the Service or a delegated State” from the definition. They felt this would allow GIPSA to use excuses to avoid issuing emergency waivers. The farm organization commented that waivers of official inspection and weighing, even in emergency situations, could impair the objectives of the USGSA. They suggested that GIPSA define “emergency,” as narrowly as possible.

GIPSA notes that the intent of Congress in changing the language of the USGSA is to remove the Secretary's discretionary authority to deny emergency waivers. But, GIPSA does not agree with the industry associations' comment that GIPSA does not have the authority to define the term through the rulemaking process. Without a concrete definition, what constitutes an emergency is ambiguous and requires clarification.

For example, the industry associations' suggestion that any situation that prevents service should constitute an emergency is far too broad. This suggestion makes possible “emergency” situations in cases where the applicant or other interested party could have otherwise taken steps to allow official inspection or weighing to occur. GIPSA does agree, however, with the industry associations' comment that whether the situation is under the control of GIPSA should not matter for determining an emergency. But, GIPSA also agrees with the farm organization's comment that excessive waivers could impair the USGSA as they allow grain to be exported from the U.S. without official inspection or weighing.

Therefore, GIPSA finds it important to define “emergency” in the regulations to prevent future confusion over what does and does not constitute an emergency. GIPSA is adopting a definition of “emergency” to describe situations outside of the control of the applicant for service, as defined in the regulations. Under this definition, applicants would still be responsible for complying with the requirements for obtaining official service listed in 7 CFR 800.46.

Waivers for Other Circumstances (7 CFR 800.18)

The industry associations and farm organization both addressed the issuance of waivers in circumstances other than emergencies. The industry associations point out that the language of the USGSA provides for mandatory waivers in instances other than emergencies for “other circumstances that would not impair the objectives of the USGSA when the buyer and seller agree to waive official inspection and weighing requirements.” The associations requested that GIPSA revise the language in 7 CFR 800.18(b)(7)(A) and (B) to be inclusive of this. The associations contend that waivers must be granted regardless of whether an “emergency” exists. The farm organization maintains that by allowing grain to ship without certification of quality or quantity, waivers impair the objectives of the USGSA and should not be granted in non-emergency situations.

7 CFR 800.18 provides for two categories of waivers: (1) Emergency and (2) other circumstances that do not impair the objectives of the USGSA. The Reauthorization Act removed GIPSA's discretionary authority to approve such waivers but added to the second category the condition that the parties to a contract must mutually agree to the waiver and provide documentation to GIPSA. The proposed rule incorporated portions of this language in 7 CFR 800.18, but review of the comments showed that this interpretation would be misconstrued to connect “emergency waivers” with the “other circumstances” waivers.

In the Congressional findings and declaration of policy (7 U.S.C. 74), the objectives of the USGSA include “that grain may be marketed in an orderly and timely manner and that trading in grain may be facilitated” and “that the primary objective of the official United States standards for grain is to certify the quality of grain as accurately as practicable.”

GIPSA already provides for waivers in “other circumstances that would not impair objectives of [the USGSA]” in 7 CFR 800.18. GIPSA provides waivers for: Elevators that ship fewer than 15,000 metric tons in a calendar year, grain exported for seeding purposes, grain shipped in bond, grain exported by rail or truck to Canada or Mexico, grain not sold by grade (7 U.S.C. 77 provides for this specific category of waiver), service not available, and high quality specialty grain shipped in containers. GIPSA has determined that these circumstances, as described in the regulations, do not impair the objectives of the USGSA and that granting them helps facilitate the marketing of U.S. grain. GIPSA has historically used the notice-and-comment process of the Federal Register to determine which circumstances do not impair the objectives of the USGSA. Soliciting public opinion is the best method for determining other classes of waivers that do not impair the objectives of the USGSA. GIPSA agrees with the farm organization that waivers run counter to the objective of certifying grain as accurately as practicable and that excessive waivers would lead to a loss of confidence in U.S. exports. Provided that parties reach mutual agreement and provide notice to GIPSA, the amended USGSA requires GIPSA to consider what other circumstances for waivers would not impair the objectives of the USGSA. Additional general regulation is not required. For these reasons, GIPSA is omitting the proposed sections 800.118(b)(7)(B) & (C) from the final rule and is not adding a new blanket category of waivers for situations in which the buyer and seller agree to waive official inspection or Class X weighing.

Fees for Official Inspection and Weighing (7 CFR 800.71)

The grain industry associations recommend that GIPSA use the midpoint of the 3 to 6 month reserve figure as the determination of when fees are to be adjusted. They suggest that fees should be raised or lowered based on whether they exceed or fall below 4.5 months reserve. They agreed with GIPSA's proposal of 2 percent increase per $1 million above or below the target amount, though they disagreed with GIPSA's proposal of a 5 percent limit per year on increases or decreases and suggested there be no limit.

GIPSA agrees with the recommendation of setting the trigger for adjusting fees at the midpoint of 4.5 months reserve. This target should better help GIPSA to maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve. GIPSA disagrees with the grain industry associations' suggestion that there be no limit. GIPSA believes that a yearly limit on fee increases and decreases is necessary to provide a more stable fee structure from year to year, which affects all sectors of the industry. While a large decrease would likely be welcomed by producers, marketers, and consumers, GIPSA believes that the possibility of a large increase in future years would be untenable to these same groups. In the April 15, 2013, fee rule (78 FR 22151), GIPSA increased fees by 5 percent in the first year and by 2 percent in each ensuing year, in order to minimize the impact of a large increase. GIPSA feels that the annual 5 percent cap follows this precedent of minimizing the impact of large fee changes. Moreover, if the monthly operating reserve falls outside the 3 to 6 month reserve by an amount that cannot be adjusted by the automatic corrections established in this regulation, then GIPSA will reconsider the fees through additional rulemaking.

The grain industry associations recommended that GIPSA suspend the fee for supervision of official agency inspection and weighing, which GIPSA has done with a notice in the June 28, 2016, edition of the Federal Register (81 FR 41790). Their recommendations for changes to fees for rice and commodity inspections fall outside the scope of this rulemaking.

The grain industry associations recommended that GIPSA perform annual reviews of all fees in Schedule A of 7 CFR 800.71 in order to keep them in balance with each other. GIPSA currently conducts such a review approximately every five years. GIPSA proposed adding language to the regulations declaring its intent to continue periodic reviews. These reviews are intended to ensure that the fees for service are closely aligned with GIPSA's costs to provide these services. These reviews, along with departmental approval, comment solicitation, and comment review are often lengthy and costly processes. Because the automatic increases and decreases of all fees should maintain a 3 to 6 month operating reserve, GIPSA believes a complete review of fees every year would impose unnecessary time and money costs that would exceed any potential gain to stakeholders.

The grain industry associations recommended that GIPSA perform an annual review of expenses and work to bring those expenses down. They also mentioned that GIPSA should publish financial data for the preceding fiscal year by the beginning of the ensuing calendar year.

GIPSA is aware that the export grain industry is highly competitive and operates on slim margins. Accordingly, GIPSA takes measures to reduce costs whenever possible. In the recent past, GIPSA reduced cost by taking advantage of employee attrition to not fill positions after retirement, using intermittent and seasonal employees in export offices, and using alternative work schedules in order to reduce employee overtime hours. GIPSA publishes extensive financial data in its annual report to Congress. Additionally, GIPSA has made and will continue to make financial information available on its public Web site prior to the release of the annual report to Congress.

Geographic Boundary Exceptions (7 CFR 800.117)

The commenter representing an official inspection agency association recommended that GIPSA change the proposed language in 7 CFR 800.117(b)(3) to reflect the intent of Congress to remove GIPSA's discretion to approve waivers of official agency boundaries based on signed agreements. They acknowledge that GIPSA must still be notified of such agreements and review the agreements for compliance with the USGSA. Another commenter expressed support for allowing such agreements between adjacent official agencies. Since the Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA to read that “the Secretary shall allow a designated official agency to cross boundary lines” if certain provisions are met (7 U.S.C. 79(f)(2)), GIPSA agrees with the recommendation and is changing the language contained in the proposed rule.

Delegations (7 CFR 800.195)

The grain industry association commenters recommended a few changes to GIPSA's proposed rule language concerning delegations of State agencies. They recommended that a delegated State must notify all affected export port locations and elevator operators, in addition to notifying GIPSA, 72 hours in advance of any intent to discontinue service. They also recommended including language requiring GIPSA to notify Congress within 24 hours of any disruption.

The Reauthorization Act only requires delegated States to notify GIPSA of any intent to discontinue service, while requiring GIPSA to “immediately take such actions as are necessary to address the disruption and resume inspections or weighings” (7 U.S.C. 77(d)(1)). Under such circumstances, it would fall on GIPSA to provide notification to customers. GIPSA declines to include language in the regulations concerning its requirement to notify Congress, as that is already required by the USGSA (7 U.S.C. 77(d)(2)) and inclusion in the regulations is unnecessary.

Additionally, the industry commenters recommended that the reviews of delegated States should start no later than September 30, 2016, and that funding for the reviews be derived solely from appropriated funds. GIPSA intends to conduct formal reviews for each of the five delegated States mirroring the existing process that GIPSA uses to renew the designations of official agencies. GIPSA intends to conduct the first review prior to September 30, 2016, and plans to conduct reviews for every State before certain provisions of the USGSA are set to expire on October 1, 2020. GIPSA finds that the inclusion of language in the regulations concerning the funding of delegation review through appropriated funds to be unnecessary. The USGSA only authorizes user fees to cover the costs incidental to official inspection and weighing and related supervision and administration activities (7 U.S.C. 79(j) and 7 U.S.C. 79a(l)). Appropriated funds are authorized to perform compliance activities (7 U.S.C. 87h), which includes delegation reviews.

Final Action

Based on the above review of comments received in response to 81 FR 3970, GIPSA is amending the regulations of 7 CFR part 800 as outlined in the proposed rule, with exceptions noted in the comment review.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Office of Management and Budget has designated this rulemaking as not significant under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulation Review.” Since grain export volume can vary significantly from year to year, estimating the impact in any future fee changes can be difficult. GIPSA recognizes the need to provide predictability to the industry for inspection and weighing fees. While not required by the Reauthorization Act, this rulemaking limits the impact of a large annual change in fees by setting an annual cap of 5 percent for increases or decreases in inspection and weighing fees. The statutory requirement to maintain an operating reserve between 3 and 6 months of operating expenses ensures that GIPSA can adequately cover its costs without imposing an undue burden on its customers.

Currently, GIPSA regularly reviews its user-fee financed programs to determine if the fees charged for performing official inspection and weighing services adequately cover the cost of providing those services. This policy remains unchanged in this proposed regulation. GIPSA will continue to seek out cost saving measures and implement appropriate changes to reduce its costs to provide alternatives to fee increases.

This rulemaking is unlikely to have an annual effect of $100 million or more or adversely affect the economy. The changes to the regulation in this rulemaking are a direct response to Congressional action. Also, under the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-12), GIPSA has considered the economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities. The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions. This ensures that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. GIPSA is issuing this rulemaking solely because the Reauthorization Act amended the USGSA, which requires that the regulations be updated to reflect the changes made to the USGSA by the Reauthorization Act.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) defines small businesses by their North American Industry Classification System Codes (NAICS). This rulemaking affects customers of GIPSA's official inspection and weighing services in the domestic and export grain markets (NAICS code 115114). Fees for that program are in Schedules A (Tables 1-3) and B of section 800.71 of GIPSA's regulations (7 CFR 800.71).

Under the USGSA, all grain exported from the United States must be officially inspected and weighed. GIPSA provides mandatory inspection and weighing services at 45 export facilities in the United States and 7 facilities for U.S. grain transshipped through Canadian ports. Five delegated State agencies provide mandatory inspection and weighing services at 13 facilities. All of these facilities are owned by multi-national corporations, large cooperatives, or public entities that do not meet the requirements for small entities established by the SBA. Further, the provisions of this rulemaking apply equally to all entities. The USGSA requires the registration of all persons engaged in the business of buying grain for sale in foreign commerce. In addition, those persons who handle, weigh, or transport grain for sale in foreign commerce must also register. The regulations found at 7 CFR 800.30 define a foreign commerce grain business as persons who regularly engage in buying for sale, handling, weighing, or transporting grain totaling 15,000 metric tons or more during the preceding or current calendar year. Currently, there are 108 businesses registered to export grain, most of which are not small businesses.

Most users of the official inspection and weighing services do not meet the SBA requirements for small entities. Further, GIPSA is required by statute to make services available to all applicants and to recover the costs of providing such services as nearly as practicable, while maintaining a 3 to 6 month operating reserve. There are no additional reporting, record keeping, or other compliance requirements imposed upon small entities as a result of this rulemaking. GIPSA has not identified any other federal rules which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rulemaking. Because this rulemaking does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not provided.

Executive Order 12988

This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rulemaking does not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rulemaking. This rulemaking does not have retroactive effect.

Executive Order 13132

This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 13132, “Federalism.” The policies in this rulemaking do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among various levels of government, except as required by law. This rulemaking does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. Because States already retain records for their ordinary operations, § 800.195(g)(4) should not have a significant impact on State governments. Therefore, consultation with the States is not required.

Executive Order 13175

This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” To our knowledge, this rulemaking does not have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under Executive Order 13175. If a Tribe requests consultation, GIPSA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified in this rulemaking are not expressly mandated by the Reauthorization Act.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the information collection and record keeping requirements included in this rulemaking have been approved by the OMB under control number 0580-0013, which expires on January 31, 2018.

GIPSA is committed to complying with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act, which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to maximum extent possible.

E-Government Compliance

GIPSA is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 800

Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Grains, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, GIPSA amends 7 CFR part 800 as follows:

PART 800—GENERAL REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 800 continues to read as follows: Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87k.

2. In § 800.0, in paragraph (b), add in alphabetical order definitions for “Emergency”, “Field Office administrative costs”, “National program administrative costs”, “Operating expenses”, and “Operating reserve” to read as follows:
§ 800.0 Meaning of terms.

(b) * * *

Emergency. A situation that is outside the control of the applicant that prevents official inspection or weighing services within 24 hours of the scheduled service time.

Field Office administrative costs. The costs of management, support, and maintenance of a Field Office, including, but not limited to, the management and administrative support personnel, rent, and utilities. This does not include any costs directly related to providing original or review inspection or weighing services.

National program administrative costs. The costs of national management and support of official grain inspection and/or weighing. This does not include the Field Office administrative costs and any costs directly related to providing service.

Operating expenses. The total costs to the Service to provide official grain inspection and/or weighing services.

Operating reserve. The amount of funds the Service has available to provide official grain inspection and/or weighing services.

§ 800.15 [Amended]
3. Amend § 800.15 by removing paragraph (b)(2) and redesignating paragraphs (b)(3) and (4) as (b)(2) and (3), respectively. 4. In § 800.18, revise paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:
§ 800.18 Waivers of the official inspection and Class X weighing requirements.

(b) * * *

(7) Emergency waiver. (i) Upon request, the requirements for official inspection or Class X weighing will be waived whenever the Service determines that an emergency exists that precludes official inspection or Class X weighing;

(ii) To qualify for an emergency waiver, the exporter or elevator operator must submit a timely written request to the Service for the emergency waiver and also comply with all conditions that the Service may require.

5. Revise § 800.71 to read as follows.
§ 800.71 Fees assessed by the Service.

(a) Official inspection and weighing services. The fees shown in Schedule A of paragraph (a)(1) of this section apply to official inspection and weighing services performed by FGIS in the U.S. and Canada. The fees shown in Schedule B of paragraph (a)(2) of this section apply to official domestic inspection and weighing services performed by delegated States and designated agencies, including land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico. The fees charged to delegated States by the Service are set forth in the State's Delegation of Authority document. Failure of a delegated State or designated agency to pay the appropriate fees to the Service within 30 days after becoming due will result in an automatic termination of the delegation or designation. The delegation or designation may be reinstated by the Service if fees that are due, plus interest and any further expenses incurred by the Service because of the termination, are paid within 60 days of the termination.

(1) Schedule A—Fees for official inspection and weighing services performed in the United States and Canada, effective October 1, 2015. Canada fees include the noncontract hourly rate, the Toledo Field Office tonnage fee, and the actual cost of travel.

Table 1 of Schedule A—Fees for Official Services Performed at an Applicant's Facility in an Onsite FGIS Laboratory 1 Monday to
  • Friday
  • (6 a.m. to 6 p.m.)
  • Monday to
  • Friday
  • (6 p.m. to 6 a.m.)
  • Saturday,
  • Sunday, and
  • overtime 2
  • Holidays
    (i) Inspection and Weighing Services Hourly Rates (per service representative): 1-year contract ($ per hour) $40.20 $42.10 $48.20 $71.40 Noncontract ($ per hour) 71.40 71.40 71.40 71.40 (ii) Additional Tests (cost per test, assessed in addition to the hourly rate): 3 (A) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method) 11.40 (B) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method-applicant provides kit) 4 9.40 (C) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method) 20.80 (D) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method-applicant provides kit) 4 18.80 (E) NIR or NMR Analysis (protein, oil, starch, etc.) 2.70 (F) Waxy corn (per test) 2.70 (G) Fees for other tests not listed above will be based on the lowest noncontract hourly rate (H) Other services (1) Class Y Weighing (per carrier): (i) Truck/container 0.70 (ii) Railcar 1.70 (iii) Barge 3.00 (iii) Tonnage Fee (assessed in addition to all other applicable fees, only one tonnage fee will be assessed when inspection and weighing services are performed on the same carrier): (A) All outbound carriers serviced by the specific Field Office (per-metric ton): (1) League City 0.192 (2) New Orleans 0.094 (3) Portland 0.191 (4) Toledo 0.306 (5) Delegated States 5 0.061 (6) Designated Agencies 5 0.061 1 Fees apply to original inspection and weighing, re-inspection, and appeal inspection service and include, but are not limited to, sampling, grading, weighing, prior to loading stowage examinations, and certifying results performed within 25 miles of an employee's assigned duty station. Travel and related expenses will be charged for service outside 25 miles as found in § 800.72(a). 2 Overtime rates will be assessed for all hours in excess of 8 consecutive hours that result from an applicant scheduling or requesting service beyond 8 hours, or if requests for additional shifts exceed existing staffing. 3 Appeal and re-inspection services will be assessed the same fee as the original inspection service. 4 Applicant must provide the test kit, instrument hardware, calibration control, and all supplies required by the test kit manufacturer. 5 Tonnage fee is assessed on export grain inspected and/or weighed, excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico.
    Table 2 of Schedule A—Services Performed at Other Than an Applicant's Facility in an FGIS Laboratory 1 2 (i) Original Inspection and Weighing (Class X) Services: (A) Sampling only (use hourly rates from Table 1 of this section) (B) Stationary lots (sampling, grade/factor, & checkloading): (1) Truck/trailer/container (per carrier) $22.50 (2) Railcar (per carrier) 33.30 (3) Barge (per carrier) 209.10 (4) Sacked grain (per hour per service representative plus an administrative fee per hundredweight) (CWT) 0.08 (C) Lots sampled online during loading (sampling charge under (1)(i) of this table, plus): (1) Truck/trailer container (per carrier) 13.50 (2) Railcar (per carrier) 28.10 (3) Barge (per carrier) 143.00 (4) Sacked grain (per hour per service representative plus an administrative fee per hundredweight) (CWT) 0.08 (D) Other services: (1) Submitted sample (per sample—grade and factor) 13.50 (2) Warehouseman inspection (per sample) 23.60 (3) Factor only (per factor—maximum 2 factors) 6.60 (4) Checkloading/condition examination (use hourly rates from Table 1 of this section, plus an administrative fee per hundredweight if not previously assessed) (CWT) 0.08 (5) Re-inspection (grade and factor only. Sampling service additional, item (1)(i) of this table) 14.60 (6) Class X Weighing (per hour per service representative) 71.40 (E) Additional tests (excludes sampling): (1) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method) 33.60 (2) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method—applicant provides kit) 3 31.60 (3) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method) 43.20 (4) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method—applicant provides kit) 3 41.20 (5) NIR or NMR Analysis (protein, oil, starch, etc.) 11.40 (6) Waxy corn (per test) 11.40 (7) Canola (per test-00 dip test) 11.40 (8) Pesticide Residue Testing: 4 (i) Routine Compounds (per sample) 240.90 (ii) Special Compounds (Subject to availability) 128.40 (9) Fees for other tests not listed above will be based on the lowest noncontract hourly rate from Table 1 of this section (ii) Appeal inspection and review of weighing service 5 (A) Board Appeals and Appeals (grade and factor) 91.50 (1) Factor only (per factor—max 2 factors) 48.20 (2) Sampling service for Appeals additional (hourly rates from Table 1 of this section) (B) Additional tests (assessed in addition to all other applicable tests): (1) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method) 33.60 (2) Aflatoxin (rapid test kit method—applicant provides kit) 3 31.60 (3) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method) 52.60 (4) All other Mycotoxins (rapid test kit method—applicant provides kit) 3 50.60 (5) NIR or NMR Analysis (protein, oil, starch, etc.) 19.80 (6) Sunflower oil (per test) 19.80 (7) Mycotoxin (per test-HPLC) 157.30 (8) Pesticide Residue Testing: 4 (i) Routine Compounds (per sample) 240.90 (ii) Special Compounds (Subject to availability) 128.40 (9) Fees for other tests not listed above will be based on the lowest noncontract hourly rate from Table 1 of this section. (C) Review of weighing (per hour per service representative) 92.30 (iii) Stowage examination (service-on-request): 4 (A) Ship (per stowage space) (minimum $285.00 per ship) 57.00 (B) Subsequent ship examinations (same as original) (minimum $171.00 per ship) 57.00 (C) Barge (per examination) 45.80 (D) All other carriers (per examination) 18.00 1 Fees apply to original inspection and weighing, re-inspection, and appeal inspection service and include, but are not limited to, sampling, grading, weighing, prior to loading stowage examinations, and certifying results performed within 25 miles of an employee's assigned duty station. Travel and related expenses will be charged for service outside 25 miles as found in § 800.72(a). 2 An additional charge will be assessed when the revenue from the services in Schedule A, Table 2, does not cover what would have been collected at the applicable hourly rate as provided in § 800.72(b). 3 Applicant must provide the test kit, instrument hardware, calibration control, and all supplies required by the test kit manufacturer. 4 If performed outside of normal business, 11/2 times the applicable unit fee will be charged. 5 If, at the request of the Service, a file sample is located and forwarded by the Agency, the Agency may, upon request, be reimbursed at the rate of $3.50 per sample by the Service. Table 3 of Schedule A—Miscellaneous Services 1 (i) Grain grading seminars (per hour per service representative) 2 $71.40 (ii) Certification of diverter-type mechanical samplers (per hour per service representative) 2 71.40 (iii) Special weighing services (per hour per service representative): 2 (A) Scale testing and certification 92.90 (B) Scale testing and certification of railroad track scales 92.90 (C) Evaluation of weighing and material handling systems 92.90 (D) NTEP Prototype evaluation (other than Railroad Track Scales) 92.90 (E) NTEP Prototype evaluation of Railroad Track Scale 92.90 (F) Use of GIPSA railroad track scale test equipment per facility for each requested service. (Track scales tested under the Association of American Railroads agreement are exempt.) 557.30 (G) Mass standards calibration and re-verification 92.90 (H) Special projects 92.90 (iv) Foreign travel (hourly fee) 3 92.90 (v) Online customized data service: (A) One data file per week for 1 year 557.30 (B) One data file per month for 1 year 334.40 (vi) Samples provided to interested parties (per sample) 3.50 (vii) Divided-lot certificates (per certificate) 2.20 (viii) Extra copies of certificates (per certificate) 2.20 (ix) Faxing (per page) 2.20 (x) Special mailing Actual Cost. (xi) Preparing certificates onsite or during other than normal business hours (use hourly rates from Table 1). 1 Any requested service that is not listed will be performed at $71.40 per hour. 2 Regular business hours—Monday through Friday—service provided at other than regular business hours will be charged at 11/2 times the applicable hourly rate. (See the definition of “business day” in § 800.0(b)) 3 Foreign travel charged hourly fee of $92.90 plus travel, per diem, and related expenditures.

    (2) Schedule B—Fees for FGIS Supervision of Official Inspection and Weighing Services Performed by Delegated States and/or Designated Agencies in the United States. The supervision fee charged by the Service is $0.011 per metric ton of domestic U.S. grain shipments inspected and/or weighed, including land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico.

    (b) Annual review of fees. For each calendar year, starting with 2017, the Service will review the fees in Schedule A in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and publish fees effective January 1 of each year according to the following:

    (1) Tonnage fees. Tonnage fees will consist of the national tonnage fee and local tonnage fees and will be calculated and rounded to the nearest $0.001 per metric ton. All outbound grain officially inspected and/or weighed by the Field Offices in New Orleans, League City, Portland, and Toledo will be assessed the national tonnage fee plus the appropriate local tonnage fee. Export grain officially inspected and/or weighed by delegated States and official agencies, excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico, will be assessed the national tonnage fee only. The fees will be set according to the following:

    (i) National tonnage fee. The national tonnage fee is the national program administrative costs for the previous fiscal year divided by the average yearly tons of export grain officially inspected and/or weighed by delegated States and designated agencies, excluding land carrier shipments to Canada and Mexico, and outbound grain officially inspected and/or weighed by the Service during the previous 5 fiscal years.

    (ii) Local tonnage fee. The local tonnage fee is the Field Office administrative costs for the previous fiscal year divided by the average yearly tons of outbound grain officially inspected and/or weighed by the Field Office during the previous 5 fiscal years. The local tonnage fee is calculated individually for each Field Office.

    (2) Operating reserve. In order to maintain an operating reserve not less than 3 and not more than 6 months, the Service will review the value of the operating reserve at the end of each fiscal year and adjust fees according to the following:

    (i) Less than 4.5 months. If the operating reserve is less than 4.5 times the monthly operating expenses, the Service will increase all fees in Schedule A in paragraph (a)(1) of this section by 2 percent for each $1,000,000, rounded down, that the operating reserve is less than 4.5 times the monthly operating expense, with a maximum increase of 5 percent annually. Except for fees based on tonnage or hundredweight, all fees will be rounded to the nearest $0.10.

    (ii) Greater than 4.5 months. If the operating reserve is greater than 4.5 times the monthly operating expenses, the Service will decrease all fees in Schedule A in paragraph (a)(1) of this section by 2 percent for each $1,000,000, rounded down, that the operating reserve is greater than 4.5 times the monthly operating expense, with a maximum decrease of 5 percent annually. Except for fees based on tonnage or hundredweight, all fees will be rounded to the nearest $0.10.

    (c) Periodic review. The Service will periodically review and adjust all fees in Schedules A and B in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, respectively, as necessary to ensure they reflect the true cost of providing and supervising official service. This process will incorporate any fee adjustments from paragraph (b) of this section.

    (d) Miscellaneous fees for other services—(1) Registration certificates and renewals. (i) The nature of your business will determine the fees that your business must pay for registration certificates and renewals:

    (A) If you operate a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in foreign commerce, you must pay $135.00.

    (B) If you operate a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in foreign commerce and you are also in a control relationship (see definition in section 17A(b)(2) of the Act) with respect to a business that buys, handles, weighs, or transports grain for sale in interstate commerce, you must pay $270.00.

    (ii) If you request extra copies of registration certificates, you must pay $2.20 for each copy.

    (2) Designation amendments. If you submit an application to amend a designation, you must pay $75.00.

    (3) Scale testing organizations. If you submit an application to operate as a scale testing organization, you must pay $250.00.

    § 800.72 [Amended]
    6. In § 800.72(b), remove the reference “§ 800.71” from the first sentence and add in its place the reference “§ 800.71(a)(1).” 7. Amend § 800.117 by removing paragraph (b)(2), redesignating paragraph (b)(3) as (b)(2), and adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
    § 800.117 Who shall perform original services.

    (b) * * *

    (3) Written agreement. If the assigned official agency agrees in writing with the adjacent official agency to waive the current geographic area restriction at the request of the applicant for service, the adjacent official agency may provide service at a particular location upon providing written notice to the Service, and the Service determines that the written agreement conforms to the provisions in the Act.

    8. In § 800.175, revise paragraph (a) to read as follows:
    § 800.175 Termination of licenses.

    (a) Term of license. Each license shall terminate in accordance with the termination date shown on the license and as specified in paragraph (b) of this section. The termination date for a license shall be no less than 5 years or more than 6 years after the issuance date for the initial license; thereafter, every 5 years. Upon request of a licensee and for good cause shown, the termination date may be advanced or delayed by the Administrator for a period not to exceed 60 days.

    9. In § 800.195, add paragraphs (f)(11) and (g)(4) to read as follows:
    § 800.195 Delegations.

    (f) * * *

    (11) Notification to Secretary. A delegated State shall notify the Secretary of its intention to temporarily discontinue official inspection and/or weighing services for any reason, except in the case of a major disaster. The delegated State must provide written notification to the Service no less than 72 hours in advance of the discontinuation date.

    (g) * * *

    (4) Review. At least once every 5 years, a delegated State shall submit to a review of its delegation by the Service in accordance with the criteria and procedures for delegation prescribed in section 7(e) of the Act, this section of the regulations, and the instructions. The Administrator may revoke the delegation of a State according to this subsection if the State fails to meet or comply with any of the criteria for delegation set forth in the Act, regulations, and instructions.

    10. In § 800.196, revise paragraphs (e)(2)(ii) and (iii), add paragraph (e)(2)(iv), and revise paragraph (h)(1)(i) to read as follows:
    § 800.196 Designations.

    (e) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (ii) The applicant meets the conditions and criteria specified in the Act and regulations;

    (iii) The applicant is better able than any other applicant to provide official services; and

    (iv) The applicant addresses concerns identified during consultations that the Service conducts with applicants for service to the satisfaction of the Service.

    (h) Termination and renewal—(1) Every 5 years—(i) Termination. A designation shall terminate at a time specified by the Administrator, but not later than 5 years after the effective date of the designation. A notice of termination shall be issued by the Service to a designated agency at least 120 calendar days in advance of the termination date. The notice shall provide instructions for requesting renewal of the designation. Failure to receive a notice from the Service shall not exempt a designated agency from the responsibility of having its designation renewed on or before the specified termination date.

    11. In § 800.216, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:
    § 800.216 Activities that shall be monitored.

    (c) Grain handling activities. Grain handling activities subject to monitoring for compliance with the Act include, but are not limited to:

    (1) Shipping export grain without inspection or weighing;

    (2) Violating any Federal law with respect to the handling, weighing, or inspection of grain;

    (3) Deceptively loading, handling, weighing, or sampling grain; and

    (4) Exporting grain without a certificate of registration.

    Larry Mitchell, Administrator, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17762 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-KD-P
    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 20, 26, 32, 40, 50, 53, 73, 74, and 150 [NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, and NRC-2009-0079] RIN 3150-AH18; 3150-AG89; 3150-AG64; 3150-AH81; 3150-AI29; 3150-AI68; 3150-AI50 Rulemaking Activities Being Discontinued by the NRC AGENCY:

    Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Rulemaking activities; discontinuation.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is discontinuing eight rulemaking activities. The purpose of this action is to inform members of the public that these rulemaking activities are being discontinued and to provide a brief discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue them. These rulemaking activities will no longer be reported in the NRC's portion of the Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (the Unified Agenda).

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016, the rulemaking activities discussed in this document are discontinued.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please refer to Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or NRC-2009-0079 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this action. You may obtain publicly-available information related to this document using any of the following methods:

    Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket IDs NRC-1999-0002, NRC-2001-0012, NRC-2002-0013, NRC-2006-0008, NRC-2008-0200, NRC-2009-0227, or NRC-2009-0079. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-3463; email: [email protected] For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Leslie Terry, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-1167; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18; NRC-1999-0002) IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-0012) V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN 3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013) VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008) VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29; NRC-2008-0200) VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN 3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227) IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket ID) X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials—Amendments and Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079) XI. Conclusion I. Background

    Each year the NRC staff develops the NRC's Common Prioritization of Rulemaking report, which is used to develop rulemaking program budget estimates and to determine the relative priority of rulemaking activities. During the most recent review of ongoing and potential rulemaking activities, the NRC staff identified seven rulemaking activities in various stages of development, which the Commission approved to be discontinued. For transparency, the NRC staff is including in this action an additional eighth activity that the Commission has already provided initial direction to discontinue.

    A discussion of the NRC's decision to discontinue these eight rulemaking activities is provided in Sections III through X of this document.

    II. Process for Discontinuing Rulemaking Activities

    When the NRC staff identifies a rulemaking activity that can be discontinued, they will request, through a Commission paper, approval from the Commission to discontinue it. The Commission provides its decision in an SRM. If the Commission approves discontinuing the rulemaking activity, the NRC will inform the public of the decision to discontinue it.

    A rulemaking activity may be discontinued at any stage in the rulemaking process. For a rulemaking activity that has received public comments, the NRC will consider those comments before discontinuing the rulemaking activity; however, the NRC will not provide individual comment responses.

    After Commission approval to discontinue the rulemaking activity, in the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for the rulemaking activity to indicate that it is no longer being pursued. The rulemaking activity will appear in the completed section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions.

    III. Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials (RIN 3150-AH18; NRC-1999-0002)

    The NRC began an enhanced participatory process to evaluate alternative courses of action for control of solid materials at NRC-licensed facilities that have very low amounts of, or no amount of, radioactivity. As part of this process, the NRC published an Issues Paper in the Federal Register on June 30, 1999 (64 FR 35090), requesting public comment on various alternatives. The NRC also held a series of public meetings during the fall of 1999. The Issues Paper described the following process alternatives: (1) Continue the current NRC practice of case-by-case consideration of licensee requests for release of solid material and consider updating existing guidance; or (2) conduct a rulemaking to establish criteria for control of solid materials. The Issues Paper indicated that a rulemaking could have three technical approaches: (1) Permit release of solid materials for unrestricted use if the potential dose to the public from this use is less than a specified level determined during the rulemaking process; (2) restrict release of solid materials to only certain authorized uses; or (3) do not permit either unrestricted or restricted release of solid materials that have been in an area where radioactive material has been used or stored, and instead require all these materials to go to a licensed low-level waste disposal facility.

    The agency received over 900 comment letters containing around 2,379 individual comments on the Issues Paper, in addition to those summarized from the public meeting transcripts. The comments were summarized in NUREG/CR-6682, “Summary and Categorization of Public Comments on Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials,” published in September 2000 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040720691). Comments were received from essentially every stakeholder group, including environmental and citizen's groups, members of the general public, scrap and recycling companies, steel and cement manufacturers, hazardous and solid waste management facilities, U.S. Department of Energy, State agencies, Tribal governments, scientific organizations, international organizations, NRC licensees, and licensee organizations. Most of the comments focused on the specific technical approach or criteria that should be developed and reflected a broad spectrum of viewpoints on the issues related to control of solid materials. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.

    The NRC staff submitted a draft proposed rule to the Commission, SECY-05-0054, “Proposed Rule: Radiological Criteria for Controlling the Disposition of Solid Materials,” dated March 31, 2005 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML041550790). The NRC staff proposed this rule to the Commission because the NRC wanted to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the NRC regulatory process by establishing criteria for the disposition of solid materials in the regulations. This proposed rule would have added radiological criteria for controlling the disposition of solid materials that have no, or very small amounts of, residual radioactivity resulting from licensed operations, and which originate in restricted or impacted areas of NRC-licensed facilities. In the SRM for SECY-05-0054, dated June 1, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML051520185), the Commission disapproved publication of the proposed rule at that time [emphasis added] because the NRC was “faced with several high priority and complex tasks, the current approach to review specific cases on an individual basis is fully protective of public health and safety, and the immediate need for this rule has changed due to the shift in timing for reactor decommissioning.”

    This rulemaking continued to be on hold while the Commission was focused on enhancing security and emergency preparedness and response as well as beginning preparations for new authorizations under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, including new nuclear facility licensing and regulation.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because, even though there has been a recent increase in decommissioning, the current regulatory framework provides for case by case approval of alternate disposal procedures under 10 CFR 20.2002. To date, the NRC has received a limited number of licensee requests per year. The NRC staff is conducting a low-level waste programmatic assessment. As part of this assessment, the NRC staff will conduct a scoping study of various low-level waste issues. If the NRC staff determines a need to pursue rulemaking as a result of this study, then the NRC staff will request Commission approval for the rulemaking.

    IV. Entombment Options for Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AG89; NRC-2001-0012)

    The NRC published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in the Federal Register (66 FR 52551; October 16, 2001) to request public comment on the issues surrounding the feasibility of entombment. The ANPR was published because the NRC was considering an amendment to its regulations that would have clarified the use of entombment for power reactors. The NRC had determined that entombment of power reactors was a technically viable decommissioning alternative and could be accomplished safely. The ANPR also included dose criteria for license termination. The dose criteria given in the ANPR included a provision that would have permitted license termination under restricted and unrestricted release conditions.

    The agency received 19 comment letters on the ANPR from States, licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors' E-24 Committee, the Southeast Compact Commission, and a private individual. There was no consensus on a preferred option; some commenters supported the entombment option while other commenters did not. In general, comments from the eight utilities and the Nuclear Energy Institute stated that they would like to have entombment available as a decommissioning option; however, none committed to using entombment as a decommissioning process.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the three decommissioning options, which include entombment for power reactors, are currently being considered within the rulemaking for reactor decommissioning. Specifically, in the SRM for SECY-14-0118, “Request by Duke Energy Florida, Inc., for Exemptions from Certain Emergency Planning Requirements,” dated December 30, 2014 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14364A111), the Commission directed the NRC staff to proceed with rulemaking on reactor decommissioning.

    V. Transfers of Certain Source Materials by Specific Licensees (RIN 3150-AG64; NRC-2002-0013)

    On August 28, 2002 (67 FR 55175), the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would have required prior NRC approval for transfers of source material derived from licensees' specifically licensed material to ensure that these transfers do not pose a health and safety concern.

    The NRC received 25 comments from individuals, industrial groups, environmental organizations, and State and Federal government agencies. A summary of comments and issues raised by commenters includes the following: (1) Proposed release limits were inconsistent with part 20 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR); (2) better clarification was needed regarding doses applied to non-disposal transfers; (3) the only technical basis discussed was based on an overly conservative assessment; (4) the proposed rule was inconsistent with the existing exemption in 10 CFR 40.13(a); (5) these transfers could impact public health and safety; (6) the environmental assessment was insufficient and the NRC should develop an environmental impact statement; (7) more information was needed about implementation of the rule; (8) the policy was inconsistent with past documents issued by the Commission on this subject; (9) the rule should also apply to general licensees; (10) there should be a minimum quantity level below which approvals for transfer would not be needed; (11) the number of transfers were underestimated; (12) the NRC underestimated the impact to industry because Agreement State licensees were not included in the regulatory analysis; and (13) differing commenter opinions on whether to include the word “disposes” in the authorized activities in 10 CFR 40.13(a). Several commenters commented on the agency's question on whether the regulations should include new requirements specifically prohibiting intentional dilution. Several commenters were against including new regulations for dilution because they believed that it would potentially lead to additional, unnecessary burdens for industry. Several commenters thought that regulations should be added to prevent intentional dilution for purposes of waste treatment and disposal. Some of these commenters thought that “intentional dilution” needed to be better defined. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the concerns are being considered in other regulatory processes. Specifically, there is ongoing work related to SECY-03-0068, “Interagency Jurisdictional Working Group Evaluating the Regulation of Low-Level Source Material or Materials Containing Less than 0.05 Percent by Weight Concentration Uranium and/or Thorium,” dated May 1, 2003 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML030920468), and recent discussions with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that would allow certain low-level wastes to be disposed of in Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (commonly known as RCRA) sites. In addition, the NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the NRC has, on a case-by-case basis, successfully dealt with the issues this rulemaking activity would have addressed.

    VI. Approach to Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Requirements for Nuclear Power Reactors (RIN 3150-AH81; NRC-2006-0008)

    On May 4, 2006 (71 FR 26267), the NRC published an ANPR in the Federal Register to request public comment on an approach that would have established a comprehensive set of risk-informed and performance-based requirements applicable for all nuclear power reactor technologies as an alternative to current requirements. At the time the ANPR was published, the NRC already had an ongoing effort to revise some specific regulations to make them risk-informed and performance-based. The rulemaking would have used operating experience, lessons learned from the rulemaking activities, and advances in the use of risk-informed technology to focus NRC and industry resources on the most risk-significant aspects of plant operations to better protect public health and safety. The set of new alternative requirements would have been intended primarily for new nuclear power reactors, although they would have been available to existing reactor licensees.

    The ANPR included 73 questions about the proposed rulemaking scope and plan. The NRC received 15 comment submittals from the regulated industry, consensus standard committees, private individuals, and a foreign regulatory body. Many of the public comments supported the concept of a risk-informed, performance-based regulatory framework and the development of technology-neutral regulations. Some public comments recommended that it was too soon to develop the proposed framework and that the NRC and the industry needed to pilot the licensing of advanced reactor technology using the current 10 CFR parts 50 and 52 frameworks to identify challenges. Some comments did not support the framework as described in the ANPR because it did not require specific design standards and asserted that it did not adequately employ consensus standards that have been demonstrated as adequate and safe for existing reactors. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.

    In SECY-07-0101, “Staff Recommendations Regarding a Risk-Informed and Performance-Based Revision to 10 CFR part 50,” dated June 14, 2007 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML070790253), the NRC staff requested that the Commission defer the rulemaking activity until after the development of the licensing strategy for the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP) or receipt of an application for design certification or a license for the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor. In the SRM for SECY-07-0101, dated September 10, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML072530501), the Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation to defer the rulemaking activity. In the same SRM, the Commission approved the NRC staff's proposal to provide a recommendation on initiating a rulemaking 6 months after the development of the licensing strategy for the NGNP was finalized. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Energy decided not to proceed with Phase 2 design activities because of fiscal constraints, competing priorities, projected cost of the prototype, and inability to reach a cost share agreement with the industry. As a result, the NRC no longer has a viable demonstration project to reference. Therefore, the NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity or continue to expend resources tracking this rulemaking, which is now 10 years old. The NRC has several initiatives underway that would further risk-inform and performance-base the regulatory framework. Discontinuing this particular rulemaking would not preclude other ongoing or future risk-informed, performance-based initiatives.

    The NRC is open to new opportunities to explore a risk-informed, performance-based licensing strategy. In the past 2 years, there has been renewed U.S. industry and Executive Branch interest in advanced non-light water reactors (LWRs). The NRC is working to develop a regulatory process to address the unique aspects of these designs within the current regulatory framework. A new risk-informed, performance-based framework has the potential to address some of these unique aspects assuming that the necessary supporting data is available. Currently the advanced non-LWR designs have not reached a level of maturity that would support development of a regulatory basis for rulemaking.

    When supporting data is available, the NRC staff would reevaluate the need for rulemaking.

    VII. Expansion of the National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29; NRC-2008-0200)

    On April 11, 2008, the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (73 FR 19749) that would have expanded the current National Source Tracking System (NSTS) to include certain additional sealed sources. This rule would have required licensees to report certain transactions involving these sealed sources to the NSTS; these transactions included the manufacture, transfer, receipt, disassembly, or disposal of the nationally tracked source. Each licensee would have had to provide its initial inventory of nationally tracked sources to the NSTS and annually verify and reconcile the information in the system with the licensee's actual inventory.

    The NRC received 19 comment letters from States, licensees, industry organizations, and individuals. Almost all of the comment letters were opposed to expanding the NSTS as proposed for the following reasons: (1) The rule is premature and should be delayed to allow time to refine the burden estimates in the regulatory analysis using actual experience from the current NSTS; (2) the NSTS should be fully operational and successfully tracking currently required sources before the NRC adds additional sources to NSTS; and (3) there needs to be additional justification of the security risks posed by these sources before incurring the additional regulatory burden. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.

    Based on public comments, the NRC staff requested the Commission to defer completion of the NSTS final rule (SECY-09-0011, “Deferral of Rulemaking: Expansion of National Source Tracking System (RIN 3150-AI29),” dated January 15, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083540566)).

    On May 11, 2009, a copy of a draft final rule was provided to the Agreement States for review. The Executive Boards of the Organization of Agreement States and the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors provided comments. The agency received 26 comments from individual states. All of the comments received from the States, except one, opposed the NSTS expansion final rule. Most of the commenters cited a risk that implementing the rule would shift limited personnel resources away from what they believe are more near-term and tangible health and safety aspects of radiation protection.

    The Commission was unable to reach a decision on the NRC staff's recommendation to defer the NSTS final rule (SRM for SECY-09-0011, dated May 28, 2009 (ADAMS Accession No. ML091480775)). Instead, the Commission directed the NRC staff to conduct a data and system operations and performance analysis of the NSTS based on system operation with Category 1 and 2 sources and report to the Commission. The NRC staff conducted these analyses and reported to the Commission.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the existing regulatory basis, draft proposed rule, and final proposed rule are now out of date. This rulemaking was developed and proposed as the NSTS was being developed and deployed in late 2008. Since 2009, the NRC published 10 CFR part 37, “Physical Protection of Category 1 and Category 2 Quantities of Radioactive Material” (78 FR 16922; March 19, 2013); gained significant experience in the management and operation of the National Source Tracking System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/nsts.html); and deployed two on-line applications to support validation of licenses, the Web-Based Licensing System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/wbl.html) and the License Verification System (see http://www.nrc.gov/security/byproduct/ismp/lvs.html). The NRC staff is conducting a program review of 10 CFR part 37, which includes an assessment of whether additional measures are warranted for Category 3 materials. Following completion of the 10 CFR part 37 assessment, if the NRC staff determines that the NSTS should be expanded, then the NRC staff will request Commission approval for the rulemaking. The NRC staff will be reporting to the Commission and the Congress on this review in 2016.

    VIII. Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities, Fuel, or Designated Material (RIN 3150-AI68; NRC-2009-0227)

    In SECY-12-0066, “Criminal Penalties for the Unauthorized Introduction of Weapons into Facilities Designated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,” dated April 26, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML120200150), the NRC staff recommended, in part, that the Commission defer a decision on whether to proceed with a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR 73.81, “Criminal penalties,” to add certain radioactive material or other property to the scope of criminal penalties for sabotage authorized under in Section 236, “Sabotage of Nuclear Facilities or Fuel,” of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA).

    In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff noted that the NRC had not previously issued regulations to implement the authority of Section 236 of the AEA. Instead, the NRC has viewed the language of this statute as plain enough to enable the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to initiate prosecutions for criminal acts, particularly involving the most significant facilities that the NRC regulates, including nuclear power reactors and fuel cycle facilities. This rulemaking would have allowed the NRC to identify certain radioactive material or other property for inclusion within the scope of Section 236.a(7) of the AEA if the Commission determined that this material or other property was significant to public health and safety or common defense and security. The NRC staff evaluated whether further rulemaking was needed to expand nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel covered under the scope of Section 236 of the AEA. The NRC staff evaluated (1) materials in 10 CFR part 73, appendix I, “Category 1 and 2 Radioactive Materials” (material list in appendix A to 10 CFR part 37); (2) production reactor spent nuclear fuel and naval reactor spent nuclear fuel, and (3) source material in the physical form of uranium hexafluoride.

    In SECY-12-0066, the NRC staff discussed why these materials were chosen for evaluation and the application of Section 236.a(3) of the AEA. The NRC staff stated that “Including certain radioactive material or other property within the scope of the criminal penalties in Section 236 of the AEA may provide DOJ with additional tools for combating terrorists and other malevolent actors.” However, the NRC staff noted that a determination of the list of radionuclides and quantities to use in a subsequent rulemaking would need to be coordinated with NRC activities to implement Recommendation 2 of the 2010 Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report [task force recommendations appear in SECY-11-0169, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Implementation Plan for the Radiation Source Protection and Security Task Force Report” (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML113070551)], as well as consideration of ongoing actions related to chemical security. The NRC staff indicated that it could not develop the required regulatory basis for a rulemaking to expand the scope of Section 236 of the AEA to include these materials until these activities are completed. The Commission approved the NRC staff's recommendation in the SRM for SECY-12-0066, dated June 18, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML121700765).

    The NRC staff completed the additional activities discussed in SECY-12-0066 and informed the Commission that there was no compelling reason to revise 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the scope authority provided by Section 236 of the AEA to provide criminal sanctions for sabotage of nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, and nuclear fuel or other property.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with this rulemaking activity because the NRC staff has concluded that a rulemaking to modify 10 CFR 73.81 to implement the new authority of Section 236 of the AEA would not serve as an effective deterrent for individuals intent on committing sabotage of nuclear facilities, nuclear waste, or nuclear fuel or other property and is not warranted at this time.

    IX. Security-Force Fatigue at Nuclear Facilities (No RIN or NRC Docket ID)

    In COMSECY-04-0037, “Fitness-for-Duty Orders to Address Fatigue of Nuclear Facility Security Force Personnel,” dated June 21, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML040790094), the NRC staff requested Commission approval to issue security orders concerning fitness-for-duty enhancements to address fatigue concerns for security force personnel at five classes of NRC-licensed facilities: (1) Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, (2) Decommissioning Reactors, (3) Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities, (4) Gaseous Diffusion Plants, and (5) the Natural Uranium Conversion Facility. In the SRM for COMSECY-04-0037, dated September 1, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042450533), the Commission directed the NRC staff to pursue the rulemaking process rather than issuing security orders for those materials facilities and personnel for whom the NRC staff believes fatigue related requirements are necessary.

    On June 18, 2014 (FR 79 34641), the NRC published a draft regulatory basis for public comment in the Federal Register to support the potential amendments to revise a number of existing security-related regulations relating to physical protection of special nuclear material at NRC-licensed facilities and in transit, as well as the fitness for duty programs for security officers at Category I fuel cycle facilities. The draft regulatory basis encompassed three separate rulemaking efforts: (1) Enhanced Security at Fuel Cycle Facilities, (2) Special Nuclear Material Transportation Security, and (3) Security-Force Fatigue at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities.

    During the public comment period the two Category I fuel cycle licensees proposed an alternative to the Security-Force Fatigue rulemaking. Specifically, the affected licensees proposed adding a fatigue management program for security officers into their security plans. On April 22, 2015 (80 FR 22434), the NRC published the final regulatory basis that explained that the NRC had decided to separate the regulatory basis activities for the Security-Force Fatigue at Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities to allow staff time to explore the alternative to rulemaking proposal.

    The NRC has decided not to proceed with the Security-Force Fatigue rulemaking activity because, after reviewing the two licensees' proposed changes to their security plans to manage security officer fatigue, NRC licensing staff considers the proposal a viable option because it will establish fatigue requirements that can be readily inspected and enforced for the two Category I fuel cycle licensees within their security plans.

    X. Domestic Licensing of Source Materials—Amendments and Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-AI50; NRC-2009-0079)

    On May 17, 2011 (76 FR 28336), the NRC published a proposed rule in the Federal Register, proposing to amend its regulations by adding additional requirements for source material licensees who possess significant quantities of uranium hexafluoride (UF6). The proposed amendments would require these licensees to conduct integrated safety analyses (ISAs) similar to the ISAs performed by 10 CFR part 70 licensees; set possession limits for UF6 for determining licensing authority (NRC or Agreement States); add defined terms; add an additional evaluation criterion for applicants who submit an evaluation in lieu of an emergency plan; require the NRC to perform a backfit analysis under specified circumstances; and make administrative changes to the structure of the regulations. The NRC held a public meeting on February 22, 2008, to discuss the scope of the proposed rulemaking and to seek public input on the proposed threshold quantities for determining when a facility will be regulated by the NRC or an Agreement State.

    The agency received nine comment letters addressing multiple issues. Comments on the proposed rule were submitted on behalf of several affected States, by industry representatives, NRC licensees, and an individual. The comments and responses were grouped into eight areas: General, procedural, definitions, performance requirements, jurisdiction/authority, backfitting, reporting, and corrections. Most of the comments were generally opposed to the proposed changes to the regulations. Several comments questioned the cost amounts used in the regulatory analysis. All the commenters opposed the probabilistic risk assessment. The NRC staff considered all the comments received.

    The NRC staff submitted a draft final rule to the Commission in SECY-12-0071, “Final Rule: Domestic Licensing of Source Material—Amendments/Integrated Safety Analysis (RIN 3150-A150),” dated May 7, 2012 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12094A344). The draft final rule was revised from the proposed rule based on comments from Agreement States and the public. In the SRM for SECY-12-0071, dated May 3, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13123A127), the Commission disapproved publication of the draft final rule. The Commission directed the NRC staff to revise the rule and associated guidance to address issues given in the SRM and to resubmit the rule for Commission consideration.

    In COMSECY-15-0002, “Termination of Rulemaking to Revise Title 10 of The Code of Federal Regulations Part 40, ‘Domestic Licensing of Source Material' and Staff Plans to Address Other Items in Staff Requirements Memorandum for SECY-12-0071 (RIN 3150-A150)” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13331A559), the NRC staff proposed termination of this rulemaking. The NRC staff based this recommendation on: (1) Honeywell's existing uranium conversion facility, and the licensed but as yet un-built uranium deconversion facility to be operated by International Isotopes; both already have newly approved ISAs as required by their licenses, (2) the NRC does not anticipate new applications for 10 CFR part 40 uranium conversion or deconversion facilities in the foreseeable future, (3) the hazards at Honeywell's uranium conversion facility and the hazards at International Isotopes planned uranium deconversion facility are facility-specific and sufficiently controlled, (4) the NRC staff's reanalysis of the rule has reduced the priority of the rulemaking, and (5) consideration of the cumulative effects of regulation. The agency plans to develop Interim Staff Guidance related to 10 CFR part 70 facilities. The Commission approved termination of this rulemaking in the SRM for COMSECY-15-0002, dated April 17, 2015 (ADAMS Accession No. ML15107A488).

    The NRC staff is including discussion of this decision in this document to inform members of the public.

    XI. Conclusion

    The NRC is no longer pursuing the eight rulemaking activities for the reasons discussed in this document. In the next edition of the Unified Agenda, the NRC will update the entry for these rulemaking activities with reference to this document to indicate that they are no longer being pursued. These rulemaking activities will appear in the completed section of that edition of the Unified Agenda but will not appear in future editions. Should the NRC determine to pursue anything in these areas in the future, it will inform the public through a new rulemaking entry in the Unified Agenda.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of July, 2016.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Andrew L. Bates, Acting, Secretary of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17766 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 430 [Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-TP-0029 and EERE-2011-BT-DET-0072] RIN 1904-AD44, 1904-AC66, and 1904-AC51 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Final Coverage Determination; Test Procedures for Miscellaneous Refrigeration Products; Correction AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    On July 18, 2016, the U.S. Department of Energy published a final rule establishing a final coverage determination and test procedures for miscellaneous refrigeration products. This correction addresses technical errors in the preamble and regulatory text. Neither the errors nor the corrections in this document affects the substance of the rulemaking or any of the conclusions reached in support of the final rule.

    DATES:

    Effective date: August 17, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph Hagerman, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. Email: [email protected]

    Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a final rule in the Federal Register on July 18, 2016 (“the July 18 final rule”), that established a final coverage determination and test procedures for miscellaneous refrigeration products. 81 FR 46767. In that rulemaking, DOE made drafting errors in the preamble and regulatory text. Specifically, DOE inadvertently amended 10 CFR 430.23 to add paragraph (dd) to coolers and combination cooler refrigeration products. That paragraph, however, is already assigned to portable air conditioners. Accordingly, references to paragraph (dd) must be corrected to refer to paragraph (ff). In order to remedy this error, DOE is correcting the preamble on page 46783, section 2., second paragraph where DOE references 10 CFR 430.23(dd). DOE is also correcting amendatory instruction 10.b. on page 46792, and the reference to paragraph (dd) on page 46794. The effective date for this rule is August 17, 2016.

    Correction

    In final rule FR Doc. 2016-14389, published in the issue of Monday, July 18, 2016, (80 FR 46767), the following corrections are made:

    1. On page 46783, first column, second paragraph, 5th line, the existing text “10 CFR 430.23 (dd)” is corrected to read as “10 CFR 430.23 (ff)”.

    2. On page 46792, third column, amendatory instruction 10.b. is corrected to read as follows:

    § 430.23 [Corrected]
    10. * * * b. Adding paragraph (ff).

    3. On page 46794, third column, second paragraph, “(dd)” is corrected to read as “(ff)”.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2016. Kathleen B. Hogan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17752 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION 12 CFR Part 1026 Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) CFR Correction

    In Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1026 to 1099, revised as of January 1, 2016, on page 749, in supplement I to part 1026, under section 1026.41,the heading 41(e)(5) Consumers in bankruptcy and paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 are added to read as follows:

    Supplement I to Part 1026—Official Interpretation
    Section 1026.41 Periodic Statements for Residential Mortgage Loans

    41(e)(5) Consumers in bankruptcy.

    1. Commencing a case. The requirements of § 1026.41 do not apply once a petition is filed under Title 11 of the United States Code, commencing a case in which the consumer is a debtor.

    2. Obligation to resume sending periodic statements. i. With respect to any portion of the mortgage debt that is not discharged, a servicer must resume sending periodic statements in compliance with § 1026.41 within a reasonably prompt time after the next payment due date that follows the earliest of any of three potential outcomes in the consumer's bankruptcy case: the case is dismissed, the case is closed, or the consumer receives a discharge under 11 U.S.C. 727, 1141, 1228, or 1328. However, this requirement to resume sending periodic statements does not require a servicer to communicate with a consumer in a manner that would be inconsistent with applicable bankruptcy law or a court order in a bankruptcy case. To the extent permitted by such law or court order, a servicer may adapt the requirements of § 1026.41 in any manner believed necessary.

    ii. The periodic statement is not required for any portion of the mortgage debt that is discharged under applicable provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. If the consumer's bankruptcy case is revived—for example if the court reinstates a previously dismissed case, reopens the case, or revokes a discharge—the servicer is again exempt from the requirement in § 1026.41.

    3. Joint obligors. When two or more consumers are joint obligors with primary liability on a closed-end consumer credit transaction secured by a dwelling subject to § 1026.41, the exemption in § 1026.41(e)(5) applies if any of the consumers is in bankruptcy. For example, if a husband and wife jointly own a home, and the husband files for bankruptcy, the servicer is exempt from providing periodic statements to both the husband and the wife.

    [FR Doc. 2016-18050 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6925; Special Conditions No. 25-623-SC] Special Conditions: Embraer S.A. Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 Airplanes; Installation of an Airbag System To Limit the Axial Rotation of the Upper Leg on Single- and Multiple-Place Side-Facing Seats AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for the Embraer S.A. (Embraer) Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This feature is an airbag system designed to limit the axial rotation of the upper leg on single-place and multiple-place side-facing seats. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on Embraer on July 29, 2016. We must receive your comments by September 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-6925 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jayson Claar, FAA, Airframe and Cabin Safety Branch, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2194; facsimile 425-227-1320.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected airplanes.

    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    On March 26, 2015, Embraer applied for a type design change for their new Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. These airplanes, currently approved under type certificate no. TC00062IB, are conventional configurations with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The EMB-545 is designed for a maximum of 9 passengers and the EMB-550 is designed for a maximum of 12 passengers. Both are equipped with two Honeywell HTF7500-E medium-bypass-ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft-fuselage pylons.

    Both airplane models have an interior configuration that includes single- and multiple-place side-facing seats (both seating configurations referred to as side-facing seats) that include an airbag system in the shoulder belt for these seats, per special conditions no. 25-495-SC; and an airbag system to limit the axial rotation of the upper leg (femur).

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Embraer must show that the Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. TC00062IB, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design features:

    An airbag system designed to limit the axial rotation of the upper leg on single-place and multiple-place side-facing seats.

    Discussion

    The FAA has developed a methodology to address all fully side-facing seats (seats positioned in the airplane with the occupant facing 90 degrees to the direction of airplane travel), and documented those requirements in special conditions 25-495-SC specifically for these airplanes, including special conditions for the installation of airbag systems in shoulder belts. Special condition 2(e) of those special conditions contain safety criteria to address the potential for serious upper-leg injuries.

    Serious leg injuries, such as femur fracture, can occur in aviation side-facing seats. Such injuries could threaten the occupant's life directly or eliminate the occupant's ability to evacuate the airplane. Limiting upper-leg axial rotation to a conservative limit of 35 degrees (approximately the 50-percentile range of motion) should limit the risk of serious leg injury. Research suggests that the angle of rotation can be determined by observing lower-leg flailing in typical high-speed video of the dynamic tests. Alternately, the anthropomorphic test dummy could be instrumented to directly measure upper-leg axial rotation. This requirement complies with the intent of the § 25.562(a) injury criteria in preventing serious leg injury.

    To comply with special condition 2(e) on some seat positions, Embraer proposes to install leg-flail airbags. This airbag is not addressed in special conditions 25-495-SC. Therefore, the FAA must issue new special conditions to address this leg-flail airbag installation. These special conditions are similar to other special conditions previously issued for airbags.

    The FAA has issued special conditions in the past for airbag systems on lap belts for some forward-facing seats. These special conditions for the airbag system in the shoulder belt are based on the previous special conditions for airbag systems on lap belts with some changes to address the specific issues of side-facing seats. The special conditions are not an installation approval. Therefore, while the special conditions relate to each such system installed, the overall installation approval is a separate finding, and must consider the combined effects of all such systems installed.

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

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 airplanes. Should Embraer apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

    Conclusion

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Embraer Model EMB-550 and Model-545 series airplanes.

    In addition to the requirements of §§ 25.562 and 25.785, and special conditions no. 25-495-SC, the following special conditions are part of the type certification basis for the Embraer Model EMB-545 and EMB-550 series airplanes with leg-flail airbags installed on side-facing seats.

    1. For seats with a leg-flail airbag system, the system must deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th-percentile male. At some buttock popliteal length and effective seat-bottom depth, the lower legs will not be able to form a 90-degree angle relative to the upper leg; at this point, the lower leg flail would not occur. The leg-flail airbag system must provide a consistent approach to prevention of leg flail throughout that range of occupants whose lower legs can form a 90-degree angle relative to the upper legs when seated upright in the seat. Items that need to be considered include, but are not limited to, the range of occupants' popliteal height, the range of occupants' buttock popliteal length, the design of the seat effective height above the floor, and the effective depth of the seat-bottom cushion.

    2. The leg-flail airbag system must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active leg-flail airbag system.

    3. The leg-flail airbag system must not be susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environmental conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.

    4. Deployment of the leg-flail airbag system must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress.

    5. Inadvertent deployment of the leg-flail airbag system, during the most critical part of the flight, must either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b), or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.

    6. The leg-flail airbag system must not impede rapid egress of occupants from the airplane 10 seconds after airbag deployment.

    7. The leg-flail airbag system must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lightning (§ 25.1316) and HIRF (§ 25.1317) are incorporated by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.

    8. The leg-flail airbag system must function properly after loss of normal airplane electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the leg-flail airbag system does not have to be considered.

    9. The leg-flail airbag system must not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.

    10. The leg-flail airbag system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.

    11. A means must be available to verify the integrity of the leg-flail airbag system's activation system prior to each flight, or the leg-flail airbag system's activation system must reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the leg-flail airbag system's deployment function alone (i.e., independent of the conditional event that requires the leg-flail airbag system's deployment) is a major-failure condition.

    12. The airbag inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches per minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).

    13. The leg-flail airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency-lighting system (i.e., block floor-proximity lights to the extent that the lights no longer meet their intended function).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17845 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8246; Special Conditions No. 25-624-SC] Special Conditions: ATR Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A Airplanes; Seats With Non-Traditional, Large, Non-Metallic Panels AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final special conditions; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    These special conditions are issued for ATR Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is seats with non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

    DATES:

    This action is effective on ATR on July 29, 2016. We must receive your comments by September 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-8246 using any of the following methods:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Shelden, Airframe and Cabin Safety, ANM-115, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-2785; facsimile 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The FAA has determined that notice of, and opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval, and thus delivery, of the affected airplanes.

    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public-comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Comments Invited

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

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

    Background

    On March 2, 2016, ATR applied for a change to type certificate no. A53EU for the installation of seats constructed of non-traditional, non-metallic materials in the Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500, and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes.

    The Model ATR-42/-72 series airplanes are twin-engine, turbopropeller-powered, transport-category airplanes with maximum passenger capacity up to 74, depending upon airplane model.

    Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, ATR must show that the Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes, as changed, continue to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A53EU, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

    Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

    Passenger seats that incorporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal frame covered by fabric.

    Discussion

    In the early 1980s, the FAA conducted extensive research on the effects of post-crash flammability in the passenger cabin. As a result of this research and service experience, the FAA adopted new standards for interior surfaces associated with large surface-area parts. Specifically, the rules require measurement of heat release and smoke emission (part 25, Appendix F, parts IV and V) for the affected parts. Heat release has been shown to have a direct correlation with post- crash-fire survival time. Materials that comply with the standards (i.e., § 25.853, “Compartment interiors” at Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66) extend survival time by approximately 2 minutes over materials that do not comply.

    At the time these standards were written, the potential application of the requirements of seat heat release and smoke emission was explored. The seat frame itself was not a concern because it was primarily made of aluminum and only small amounts of non-metallic materials. Research determined that the overall effect on survivability was negligible, whether or not the food trays met the heat-release and smoke-emission requirements. The requirements therefore did not address seats. The preambles to both the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), Notice No. 85-10 (50 FR 15038, April 16, 1985), and the Final Rule at Amendment 25-61 (51 FR 26206, July 21, 1986), specifically note that seats were excluded “because the recently adopted standards for flammability of seat cushions will greatly inhibit involvement of the seats.”

    Subsequently, the Final Rule at Amendment 25-83 (60 FR 6615, March 6, 1995) clarified the definition of minimum panel size: “It is not possible to cite a specific size that will apply in all installations; however, as a general rule, components with exposed surface areas of one square foot or less may be considered small enough that they do not have to meet the new standards. Components with exposed surface areas greater than two square feet may be considered large enough that they do have to meet the new standards. Those with exposed surface areas greater than one square foot, but less than two square feet, must be considered in conjunction with the areas of the cabin in which they are installed before a determination could be made.”

    In the late 1990s, the FAA issued Policy Memorandum 97-112-39, “Guidance for Flammability Testing of Seat/Console Installations,” October 17, 1997 (http://rgl.faa.gov). That memo was issued when it became clear that seat designs were evolving to include large, non-metallic panels with surface areas that would impact survivability during a cabin-fire event, comparable to partitions or galleys. The memo noted that large-surface-area panels must comply with heat-release and smoke-emission requirements, even if they were attached to a seat. If the FAA had not issued such policy, seat designs could have been viewed as a loophole to the airworthiness standards that would result in an unacceptable decrease in survivability during a cabin-fire event.

    In October of 2004, an issue was raised regarding the appropriate flammability standards for passenger seats that incorporated non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels in lieu of the traditional metal covered by fabric. The FAA Seattle Aircraft Certification Office and Transport Standards Staff reviewed this design, and determined that it represented the kind and quantity of material that should be required to pass the heat-release and smoke-emissions requirements. The FAA has determined that special conditions would be issued to apply the standards defined in 14 CFR 25.853(d) to seats with large, non-metallic panels in their design. Traditional seat panels would not be covered by the special conditions.

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

    Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes. Should ATR apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well. These special conditions apply to new seat-certification programs. Previously approved seats are not affected by these special conditions.

    Conclusion

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:

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

    The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for ATR Model ATR-42-200/-300/-320/-500 and ATR-72-102/-202/-212/-212A airplanes for new seat-certification programs.

    1. Compliance with 14 CFR part 25 Appendix F, parts IV and V, “Heat release and smoke emission,” is required for seats that incorporate non-traditional, large, non-metallic panels that may be either a single component or multiple components in a concentrated area in their design.

    2. The applicant may designate up to and including 1.5 square feet of non-traditional, non-metallic panel material per seat place that does not have to comply with special condition 1, above. A triple seat assembly may have a total of 4.5 square feet excluded on any portion of the assembly (e.g., outboard seat place, 1 sq. ft.; middle, 1 sq. ft.; and inboard, 2.5 sq. ft.)

    3. Seats need not meet the test requirements of 14 CFR part 25 Appendix F, parts IV and V, when installed in compartments that are not otherwise required to meet these requirements. Examples include airplanes:

    a. With passenger capacities of 19 or fewer;

    b. that do not have smoke-emission and heat-release test requirements in their certification basis, and that are not required by 14 CFR 121.312 to conduct such tests; or

    c. that are exempted from smoke-emission and heat-release testing.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 21, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17846 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-3700; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-171-AD; Amendment 39-18595; AD 2016-15-04] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200CB series airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that the lap splices at stringer S-14R, lower fastener row, are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This AD requires external dual frequency eddy current (DFEC) or internal high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections of the lap splice, inner skin fasteners, at stringer S-14R, station (STA) 440 through STA 540, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage skin lap splice. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 2, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3700.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3700; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-5527) is 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:

    Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200CB series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 1, 2016 (81 FR 10533) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating that the lap splices at stringer S-14R, lower fastener row, are subject to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive external DFEC or internal HFEC inspections of the lap splice, inner skin fasteners, at stringer S-14R, STA 440 through STA 540, and corrective action if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage skin lap splice. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    Comments

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

    Request for Updated Service Information

    United Airlines generally concurred with the NPRM, but requested that repairs be incorporated into a subsequent revision of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015. According to United Airlines, the lack of certain approved repairs adds a significant level of burden on the operators.

    We acknowledge United Airlines' comment and concerns. We have been advised that Boeing is working on revising the referenced service information to include repair information, but Boeing cannot provide a fixed date when the next revision will be published. To delay this AD until this service information is available is inappropriate since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists and that inspections must be conducted to ensure continued safety. If the updated service information is approved and published, any operator may request approval of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. We may also consider further rulemaking after reviewing any updated service information. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Request To Add Exclusion to the Service Information

    United Airlines requested that the note under step 3.B.1. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015, be changed so that any FAA-approved repair that meets the minimum 3 rows on either side of the lap splice would qualify as exempt from the initial and repeat inspections. United Airlines stated that this change would remove the need to request approval of an AMOC.

    The FAA does not make changes to service bulletins. The commenter's request could be incorporated into the AD, but we do not agree with the requested change because each existing repair affected by this AD needs to be evaluated in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD. For any repair in the affected area, operators may request approval of an AMOC as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD. We have not changed this AD regarding this issue.

    Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the supplemental type certificate (STC) ST01518SE does not affect the actions specified in the NPRM.

    We agree with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of the NPRM as (c)(1) and added new paragraph (c)(2) to this final rule to state that installation of STC ST01518SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this final rule. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” AMOC approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    Clarification of Service Information Exception

    Paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM describes a standard service information exception; however that exception does not apply to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015. Therefore, we have removed paragraph (h)(2) of the NPRM from this AD.

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015. The service information describes procedures for performing repetitive external DFEC or internal HFEC inspections of the lap splice, inner skin fasteners, at stringer S-14R, STA 440—STA 540, and corrective action if necessary. 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 572 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per product Cost on U.S. operators Option 1: External DFEC inspection 4 work-hours × $85 per hour = $340 per inspection cycle $0 $340 per inspection cycle $194,480 per inspection cycle. Option 2: Internal HFEC inspection 10 work-hours × $85 per hour = $850 per inspection cycle $0 $850 per inspection cycle $486,200 per inspection cycle.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-15-04 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18595; Docket No. FAA-2016-3700; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-171-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 2, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 757-200 and -200CB series airplanes, certificated in any category.

    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01518SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSTC.nsf/0/38B606833BBD98B386257FAA00602538?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01518se) does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01518SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder indicating that the lap splices at stringer S-14R, lower fastener row, are subject to widespread fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the fuselage skin lap splice. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Inspections

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: Do an external dual frequency eddy current inspection or internal high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking of the lap splice, inner skin lower fastener row, at stringer S-14R, station (STA) 440 through STA 540, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015. Repeat either inspection thereafter at the time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015.

    (h) Service Information Exceptions

    Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original issue date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

    (i) Repair

    If any crack is found during any inspection required by this AD, before further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes ODA that has been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.

    (4) Except as required by paragraph (h) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.

    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures.

    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

    (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-5348; fax: 562-627-5210; email: [email protected]

    (l) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 757-53A0102, dated October 8, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-5000, extension 1; fax: 206-766-5680; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.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.

    (4) 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.

    (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 21, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17861 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5463; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-013-AD; Amendment 39-18598; AD 2016-15-07] 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 CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. This AD requires replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a corroded slat or flap torque tube. This condition could result in an inoperative slat or flap system and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 2, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 2, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    For service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; 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-2016-5463.

    Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5463; 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 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 CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21503) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of corrosion found on the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a corroded slat or flap torque tube. This condition could result in an inoperative slat or flap system and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-03R1, dated February 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been a number of reports of corrosion found on the torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. Investigation revealed that the current design of the flap and slat torque tubes do not have proper corrosion protection and are not entirely sealed which leads to moisture ingress and internal corrosion. A corroded tube may rupture resulting in an inoperative slat or flap system, or in a worst case scenario, could result in reduced controllability of the aeroplane. This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of affected slat and flap system torque tubes with [new or] modified torque tubes.

    This [Canadian] AD was revised to add the statement that accomplishment of the initial Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-27-067, dated 15 January 2015 also meets the requirements of this AD and to correct the editorial error for the release date of SB 670BA-27-067, Revision A.

    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-2016-5463.

    Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supported the NPRM.

    Conclusion

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

    • Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the NPRM 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

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067, Revision A, dated February 23, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. 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 509 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

    Estimated Costs Action Labor cost Parts cost Cost per
  • product
  • Cost on U.S. operators
    Replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes 34 work-hours × $85 per hour = $2,890 $105,000 $107,890 $54,916,010

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost estimate.

    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): 2016-15-07 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18598; Docket No. FAA-2016-5463; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-013-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 2, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD.

    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10342 inclusive.

    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15361 inclusive.

    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15361 inclusive.

    (4) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19041 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

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

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a corroded slat or flap torque tube. This condition could result in an inoperative slat or flap system and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Replace Slat and Flap Torque Tubes in the Slat and Flap Control System

    Within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Replace the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system with new or modified slat and flap torque tubes, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067, Revision A, dated February 23, 2015.

    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 28,000 total flight hours or less as of the effective date of this AD, or 137 months or less since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Before the accumulation of 34,000 total flight hours or within 167 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 28,000 total flight hours but not more than 36,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, and more than 137 months but not more than 176 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (ii) Before the accumulation of 38,000 total flight hours, or within 186 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs first.

    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 36,000 total flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, or more than 176 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD: Within 2,000 flight hours or 10 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

    (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 Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067, dated January 15, 2015.

    (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

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-03R1, dated February 18, 2016, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5463.

    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

    (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 670BA-27-067, Revision A, dated February 23, 2015.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 Côte-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Québec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone: 1-514-855-2999; 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 21, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17863 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 18 CFR Part 40 [Docket No. RM15-14-002; Order No. 829] Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directs the North American Electric Reliability Corporation to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard that addresses supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. The new or modified Reliability Standard is intended to mitigate the risk of a cybersecurity incident affecting the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective September 27, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Daniel Phillips (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6387, [email protected]

    Simon Slobodnik (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6707, [email protected]

    Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-6840, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Order No. 829 Final Rule

    1. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the Federal Power Act (FPA),1 the Commission directs the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard that addresses supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. The new or modified Reliability Standard is intended to mitigate the risk of a cybersecurity incident affecting the reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System.

    1 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5).

    2. The record developed in this proceeding supports our determination under FPA section 215(d)(5) that it is appropriate to direct the creation of mandatory requirements that protect aspects of the supply chain that are within the control of responsible entities and that fall within the scope of our authority under FPA section 215. Specifically, we direct NERC to develop a forward-looking, objective-based Reliability Standard to require each affected entity to develop and implement a plan that includes security controls for supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services associated with bulk electric system operations.2 The new or modified Reliability Standard should address the following security objectives, discussed in detail below: (1) Software integrity and authenticity; (2) vendor remote access; (3) information system planning; and (4) vendor risk management and procurement controls. In making this directive, the Commission does not require NERC to impose any specific controls, nor does the Commission require NERC to propose “one-size-fits-all” requirements. The new or modified Reliability Standard should instead require responsible entities to develop a plan to meet the four objectives, or some equally efficient and effective means to meet these objectives, while providing flexibility to responsible entities as to how to meet those objectives.

    2Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 43,354 (Jul. 22, 2015), 152 FERC ¶ 61,054, at P 66 (2015) (NOPR).

    I. Background A. Section 215 and Mandatory Reliability Standards

    3. Section 215 of the FPA requires a Commission-certified Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) to develop mandatory and enforceable Reliability Standards, subject to Commission review and approval. Reliability Standards may be enforced by the ERO, subject to Commission oversight, or by the Commission independently.3 Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, the Commission established a process to select and certify an ERO,4 and subsequently certified NERC.5

    3 16 U.S.C. 824o(e).

    4Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006).

    5North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff'd sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

    B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    4. The NOPR, inter alia, identified as a reliability concern the potential risks to bulk electric system reliability posed by the “supply chain” (i.e., the sequence of processes involved in the production and distribution of, inter alia, industrial control system hardware, software, and services). The NOPR explained that changes in the bulk electric system cyber threat landscape, exemplified by recent malware campaigns targeting supply chain vendors, have highlighted a gap in the Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) Reliability Standards.6 To address this gap, the NOPR proposed to direct that NERC develop a forward-looking, objective-driven Reliability Standard that provides security controls for supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services associated with bulk electric system operations.7

    6 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 63.

    7Id. P 66.

    5. Recognizing that developing supply chain management requirements would likely be a significant undertaking and require extensive engagement with stakeholders to define the scope, content, and timing of the Reliability Standard, the Commission sought comment on: (1) the general proposal to direct that NERC develop a Reliability Standard to address supply chain management; (2) the anticipated features of, and requirements that should be included in, such a standard; and (3) a reasonable timeframe for development of a Reliability Standard.8

    8Id.

    6. In response to the NOPR, thirty-four entities submitted comments on the NOPR proposal regarding supply chain risk management. A list of these commenters appears in Appendix A.

    C. January 28, 2016 Technical Conference

    7. On January 28, 2016, Commission staff led a Technical Conference to facilitate a dialogue on supply chain risk management issues that were identified by the Commission in the NOPR. The January 28 Technical Conference addressed: (1) The need for a new or modified Reliability Standard; (2) the scope and implementation of a new or modified Reliability Standard; and (3) current supply chain risk management practices and collaborative efforts.

    8. Twenty-four entities representing industry, government, vendors, and academia participated in the January 28 Technical Conference through written comments and/or presentations.9

    9 Written presentations at the January 28, 2016 Technical Conference and the Technical Conference transcript referenced in this Final Rule are accessible through the Commission's eLibrary document retrieval system in Docket No. RM15-14-000.

    9. We address below the comments submitted in response to the NOPR and comments made as part of the January 28 Technical Conference.

    II. Discussion

    10. Pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, the Commission determines that it is appropriate to direct NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard(s) that address supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations.10 Based on the comments received in response to the NOPR and at the technical conference, we determine that the record in this proceeding supports the development of mandatory requirements for the protection of aspects of the supply chain that are within the control of responsible entities and that fall within the scope of our authority under FPA section 215.

    10 16 U.S.C. 824o(d)(5) (“The Commission . . . may order the [ERO] to submit to the Commission a proposed reliability standard or a modification to a reliability standard that addresses as specific matter if the Commission considers such a new or modified reliability standard appropriate to carry out this section.”).

    11. In its NOPR comments, NERC acknowledges that “supply chains for information and communications technology and industrial control systems present significant risks to [Bulk-Power System] security, providing various opportunities for adversaries to initiate cyberattacks.” 11 Several other commenters also recognized the risks posed to the bulk electric system by supply chain security issues and generally support, or at least do not oppose, Commission action to address the reliability gap.12 For example, in prepared remarks submitted for the January 28 Technical Conference, one panelist noted that attacks targeting the supply chain are on the rise, particularly attacks involving third party service providers.13 In addition, it was noted that, while many responsible entities are already independently assessing supply chain risks and asking vendors to address the risks, these individual efforts are likely to be less effective than a mandatory Reliability Standard.14

    11 NERC NOPR Comments at 8.

    12See Peak NOPR Comments at 3-6; ITC NOPR Comments at 13-15; CyberArk NOPR Comments at 4; Ericsson NOPR Comments at 2; Isologic and Resilient Societies Joint NOPR Comments at 9-12; ACS NOPR Comments at 4; ISO NE NOPR Comments at 2-3; NEMA NOPR Comments at 1-2.

    13 Olcott Technical Conference Comments at 1-2.

    14 Galloway Technical Conference Comments at 1 (“. . . ISO-NE supports the Commission's proposal to direct NERC to develop requirements relating to supply chain risk management. We believe that the risks to the reliability of the Bulk Electric System that result from compromised third-party software are real, significant and largely unaddressed by existing reliability standards. While many public utilities are already assessing these risks and asking vendors to address them, these one-off efforts are far less likely to be effective than an industry-wide reliability standard.”).

    12. We recognize, however, that most commenters oppose development of Reliability Standards addressing supply chain management for various reasons. These commenters contend that Commission action on supply chain risk management would, among other things, address or influence activities beyond the scope of the Commission's FPA section 215 jurisdiction.15 Commenters also assert that the existing CIP Reliability Standards adequately address potential risks to the bulk electric system from supply chain issues.16 In addition, commenters claim that responsible entities have minimal control over their suppliers and are not able to identify all potential vulnerabilities associated with each of their products or parts; therefore, even if a responsible entity identifies a vulnerability created by a supplier, the responsible entity does not necessarily have any authority, influence or means to require the supplier to apply mitigation.17 Other commenters argue that the Commission's proposal may unintentionally inhibit innovation.18 A number of commenters assert that voluntary guidelines would be more effective at addressing the Commission's concerns.19 Finally, commenters are concerned that the contractual flexibility necessary to effectively address supply chain concerns does not fit well with a mandatory Reliability Standard.20

    15See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24; Southern NOPR Comments at 14-16; CEA NOPR Comments at 4-5; NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 7.

    16See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 20-25; Gridwise NOPR Comments at 3; Arkansas NOPR Comments at 6; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 8-9; NEI NOPR Comments at 3-5; NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 5-6; Luminant NOPR Comments at 4-5; SCE NOPR Comments at 4.

    17See Arkansas NOPR Comments at 5-6; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9; Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 25.

    18See Arkansas NOPR Comments at 6; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9; NERC NOPR Comments at 13.

    19See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 23; Southern NOPR Comments at 13; AEP NOPR Comments at 5; NextEra NOPR Comments at 4-5; Luminant NOPR Comments at 5.

    20See Arkansas NOPR Comments at 6; Southern NOPR Comments at 13.

    13. As discussed below, we conclude that our directive falls within the Commission's authority under FPA section 215. We also determine that, notwithstanding the concerns raised by commenters opposed to the NOPR proposal, it is appropriate to direct the development of mandatory requirements to protect industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. Many of the commenters' concerns are addressed by the flexibility inherent in our directive to develop a forward-looking, objective-based Reliability Standard that includes specific security objectives that a responsible entity must achieve, but affords flexibility in how to meet these objectives. The Commission does not require NERC to impose any specific controls nor does the Commission require NERC to propose “one-size-fits-all” requirements. The new or modified Reliability Standard should instead require responsible entities to develop a plan to meet the four objectives, or some equally efficient and effective means to meet these objectives, while providing flexibility to responsible entities as to how to meet those objectives. Moreover, our directive comports well with the NOPR comments submitted by NERC, in which NERC explained what it believes would be the features of a workable supply chain management Reliability Standard.21

    21 NERC NOPR Comments at 8-9. The record evidence on which the directive in this Final Rule is based is either comparable or superior to past instances in which the Commission has directed, pursuant to FPA section 215(d)(5), that NERC propose a Reliability Standard to address a gap in existing Reliability Standards. See, e.g., Reliability Standards for Physical Security Measures, 146 FERC ¶ 61,166 (2014) (directing, without seeking comment, that NERC develop proposed Reliability Standards to protect against physical security risks related to the Bulk-Power System).

    14. We address below the following issues raised in the NOPR, NOPR comments, and January 28 Technical Conference comments: (1) the Commission's authority to direct the ERO to develop supply chain management Reliability Standards under FPA section 215(d)(5); and (2) the need for supply chain management Reliability Standards, including the risks posed by the supply chain, objectives of a supply chain management Reliability Standard, existing CIP Reliability Standards, and responsible entities' ability to affect the supply chain.

    A. Commission Authority To Direct the ERO To Develop Supply Chain Management Reliability Standards Under FPA Section 215(d)(5) NOPR

    15. In the NOPR, the Commission stated that it anticipates that a Reliability Standard addressing supply chain management security would, inter alia, respect FPA Section 215 jurisdiction by only addressing the obligations of responsible entities and not directly imposing obligations on suppliers, vendors, or other entities that provide products or services to responsible entities.22

    22 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 66.

    Comments

    16. Commenters contend that the Commission's proposal to direct NERC to develop mandatory Reliability Standards to address supply chain risks could exceed the Commission's jurisdiction under FPA section 215. The Trade Associations state that the NOPR discussion “appears to suggest a new mandate, over and above Section 215 for energy security, integrity, quality, and supply chain resilience, and the future acquisition of products and services.” 23 The Trade Associations assert that the Commission's NOPR proposal does not provide any reasoning that connects energy security and integrity with reliable operations for Bulk-Power System reliability. The Trade Associations seek clarification that the Commission does not intend to define energy security as a new policy mandate.24

    23 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24.

    24Id.

    17. Southern states that it agrees with the Trade Associations that expanding the focus of the NERC Reliability Standards “to include concepts such as security, integrity, and supply chain resilience is beyond the statutory authority granted in Section 215.” 25 Southern contends that while these areas “have an impact on the reliable operation of the bulk power system, [. . .] they are areas that are beyond the scope of [the Commission's] jurisdiction under Section 215.” 26 NIPSCO raises a similar argument, stating that the existing CIP Reliability Standards should address the Commission's concerns “without involving processes and industries outside of the Commission's jurisdiction under section 215 of the Federal Power Act.” 27

    25 Southern NOPR Comments at 16.

    26 Southern NOPR Comments at 16; see also Trade Association NOPR Comments at 24.

    27 NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 7.

    18. Southern questions how a mandatory Reliability Standard that achieves all of the objectives specified in the NOPR “could effectively address [the Commission's] concerns and still stay within the bounds of [the Commission's] scope and mission under Section 215.” 28 Southern asserts that “a reading of Section 215 indicates that [the Commission's] mission and authority under Section 215 is focused on the operation of the bulk power system elements, not on the acquisition of those elements and associated procurement practices.” 29 In support of its assertion, Southern points to the definition in FPA section 215 of “reliability standard,” noting the use and meaning of the terms “reliable operation” and “operation.” Southern contends that “Section 215 standards should ensure that a given BES Cyber System asset is protected from vulnerabilities once connected to the BES, and should not be concerned about how the Responsible Entity works with its vendors and suppliers to ensure such reliability (such as higher financial incentives or greater contractual penalties).” 30

    28 Southern NOPR Comments at 14-15.

    29Id. at 15 (emphasis in original).

    30Id. at 16.

    19. The Trade Associations and Southern also observe that, while the NOPR indicates that the Commission has no direct oversight authority over third-party suppliers or vendors and cannot indirectly assert authority over them through jurisdictional entities, the NOPR proposal appears to assert that authority.31 The Trade Associations maintain that such an extension of the Commission's authority would be unlawful and, therefore, seek clarification that “the Commission will avoid seeking to extend its authority since such an extension would set a troubling precedent.” 32 CEA raises a concern that the NOPR proposal “appears to lend itself to the interpretation that authority is indirectly being asserted over non-jurisdictional entities.” 33

    31 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24-25; Southern NOPR Comments at 17; see also Trade Associations Post-Technical Conference Comments at 20-21.

    32 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24-25.

    33 CEA NOPR Comments at 5.

    20. The Trade Associations also maintain that the Commission's use of the term “industrial control system” in the scope of its proposal suggests that the Commission is seeking to address issues beyond CIP and cybersecurity-related issues. The Trade Associations seek clarification that the Commission does not intend for NERC broadly to address industrial control systems, such as fuel procurement and delivery systems or system protection devices, but intends for its proposal to be limited to CIP and cybersecurity-related issues.34

    34 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 25.

    Discussion

    21. We are satisfied that FPA section 215 provides the Commission with the authority to direct NERC to address the reliability gap concerning supply chain management risks identified in the NOPR. We reject the contention that our directive could be read to address issues outside of the Commission's FPA section 215 jurisdiction. However, to be clear, we reiterate the statement in the NOPR that any action taken by NERC in response to the Commission's directive to address the supply chain-related reliability gap should respect “section 215 jurisdiction by only addressing the obligations of responsible entities” and “not directly impose obligations on suppliers, vendors or other entities that provide products or services to responsible entities.” 35 The Commission expects that NERC will adhere to this instruction as it works with stakeholders to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard to address the Commission's directive. As discussed below, we reject the remaining comments regarding the Commission's authority to direct the development of supply chain management Reliability Standards under FPA section 215(d)(5).

    35 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 66.

    22. Our directive does not suggest, as the Trade Associations contend, a new mandate above and beyond FPA section 215. The Commission's directive to NERC to address supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations is not intended to “define `energy security' as a new policy mandate” under the CIP Reliability Standards.36 Instead, our directive is meant to enhance bulk electric system cybersecurity by addressing the gap in the CIP Reliability Standards identified in the NOPR relating to supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. This directive is squarely within the statutory definition of a “reliability standard,” which includes requirements for “cybersecurity protection.” 37

    36See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24.

    37See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(3) (defining “reliability standard” to mean “a requirement, approved by the Commission under [section 215 of the FPA] to provide for the reliable operation of the bulk-power system. The term includes requirements for the operation of existing bulk-power system facilities, including cybersecurity protection, and the design of planned additions or modifications to such facilities to the extent necessary to provide for reliable operation . . .”) (emphasis added).

    23. We reject Southern's argument that FPA section 215 limits the scope of the NERC Reliability Standards to “ensur[ing] that a given BES Cyber System asset is protected from vulnerabilities once connected” to the bulk electric system.38 While Southern's comment implies that the Commission should only be concerned with real-time operations based on the definition of the term “reliable operation,” the definition of “reliability standard” in FPA section 215 also includes requirements for “the design of planned additions or modifications” to bulk electric system facilities “necessary to provide for reliable operation of the bulk-power system.” 39 Moreover, as noted, FPA section 215 is clear that maintaining reliable operation also includes protecting the bulk electric system from cybersecurity incidents.40 Indeed, our findings and directives in the Final Rule are intended to better protect the Bulk-Power System from potential cybersecurity incidents that could adversely affect reliable operation of the Bulk-Power System. Accordingly, we would not be carrying out our obligations under FPA section 215 if the Commission determined that cybersecurity incidents resulting from gaps in supply chain risk management were outside the scope of FPA section 215.

    38See Southern NOPR Comments at 16.

    39See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(4) (defining “reliable operation”); see also 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(3).

    40See 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(4).

    24. With regard to concerns that the NOPR's use of the term “industrial control system” signals the Commission's intent to address issues beyond the CIP Reliability Standards or cybersecurity controls, we clarify that our directive is only intended to address the protection of hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations from supply chain-related cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities.

    B. Need for a New or Modified Reliability Standard 1. Cyber Risks Posed by the Supply Chain NOPR

    25. In the NOPR, the Commission observed that the global supply chain, while providing an opportunity for significant benefits to customers, enables opportunities for adversaries to directly or indirectly affect the operations of companies that may result in risks to the end user. The NOPR identified supply chain risks including the insertion of counterfeits, unauthorized production, tampering, theft, or insertion of malicious software, as well as poor manufacturing and development practices. The NOPR pointed to changes in the bulk electric system cyber threat landscape, evidenced by recent malware campaigns targeting supply chain vendors, which highlighted a gap in the protections under the current CIP Reliability Standards.41

    41 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at PP 61-62.

    26. Specifically, the NOPR identified two focused malware campaigns identified by the Department of Homeland Security's Industry Control System—Computer Emergency Readiness Team (ICS-CERT) in 2014.42 The NOPR stated that this new type of malware campaign is based on the injection of malware while a product or service remains in the control of the hardware or software vendor, prior to delivery to the customer.43

    42Id. P 63 (citing ICS-CERT, Alert: ICS Focused Malware (Update A), https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/alerts/ICS-ALERT-14-176-02A; ICS-CERT, Alert Ongoing Sophisticated Malware Campaign Compromising ICS (Update E), https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/alerts/ICS-ALERT-14-281-01B). ICS-CERT is a division of the Department of Homeland Security that works to reduce risks within and across all critical infrastructure sectors by partnering with law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community.

    43 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 63.

    Comments

    27. NERC acknowledges the NOPR's concerns regarding the threats posed by supply chain management risks to the Bulk-Power System. NERC states that “the supply chains for information and communications technology and industrial control systems present significant risks to [Bulk-Power System] security, providing various opportunities for adversaries to initiate cyberattacks.” 44 NERC further explains that “supply chains risks are . . . complex, multidimensional, and constantly evolving, and may include, as the Commission states, insertion of counterfeits, unauthorized production, tampering, theft, insertion of malicious software and hardware, as well as poor manufacturing and development practices.” 45 NERC states, however, that as to these supply chains, there are “significant challenges to developing a mandatory Reliability Standard consistent with [FPA] Section 215 . . . .” 46

    44 NERC NOPR Comments at 8.

    45Id. at 10.

    46Id. at 2.

    28. IRC, Peak, Idaho Power, CyberArk, NEMA, Resilient Societies and other commenters share the NOPR's concern that supply chain risks pose a threat to bulk electric system reliability. IRC states that it supports the Commission's efforts to address the risks associated with supply chain management.47 Peak explains that “the security risk of supply chain management is a real threat, and . . . a CIP standard for supply chain management may be necessary.” 48 Peak notes, for example, that it is possible for a malware campaign to infect industrial control software with malicious code while the product or service is in the control of the hardware and software vendor, and states that, “[w]ithout proper controls, the vendor may deliver this infected product or service, unknowingly passing the risk onto the utility industry customer.” 49 Isologic and Resilient Societies comments that supply chain vulnerabilities are one of the most difficult areas of cybersecurity because, among other concerns, entities “are seldom aware of the risks [supply chain vulnerabilities] pose.” 50

    47 IRC NOPR Comments at 1-2.

    48 Peak NOPR Comments at 3.

    49Id. at 3.

    50 Isologic and Resilient Societies Joint NOPR Comments at 9.

    29. Idaho Power agrees “that the supply chain could pose an attack vector for certain risks to the bulk electric system.” 51 CyberArk states that “infection of vendor Web sites is just one of the potential ways a supply chain management attack could be executed” and notes that network communications links between a vendor and its customer could be used as well.52 NEMA agrees with the NOPR that “keeping the electric sector supply chain free from malware and other cybersecurity risks is essential.” 53 NEMA highlights a number of principles it represents as vendor best practices, and encourages the Commission and NERC to reference those principles as the effort to address supply chain risks progresses.54

    51 Idaho Power NOPR Comments at 3.

    52 CyberArk NOPR Comments at 4.

    53 NEMA NOPR Comments at 1.

    54Id. at 2.

    30. Other commenters do not agree that the risks identified in the NOPR support the Commission's NOPR proposal. The Trade Associations, Southern, and NIPSCO contend that the two malware campaigns identified by ICS-CERT and cited in the NOPR do not actually represent a changed threat landscape that defines a reliability gap. Specifically, the Trade Associations state that the two identified malware campaigns “seek to inject malware, while a product is in the control of and in use by the customer and not, as the NOPR suggests, the vendor.” 55 In support of this position, the Trade Associations note that the ICS-CERT mitigation measures for the two alerts “focused on the customer and do not address security controls, while the products are under control of the vendors.” 56

    55 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 20-21.

    56 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 21; see also NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 6.

    31. The Trade Associations and Southern also contend that there is no information from various NERC programs and activities that leads to a reasonable conclusion that supply chain management issues have caused events or disturbances on the bulk electric system.57 Luminant states that it “does not perceive the same reliability gap that is expressed in the NOPR concerning risks associated with supply chain management” and contends that it is important to understand the potential risks and cost impacts related to any potential mitigation efforts before developing any additional security controls.58 KCP&L states that it does not share the Commission's view of the supply chain-related reliability gap described in the NOPR and, therefore, does not support the Commission's proposal.59

    57 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 21; Southern Comments at 11.

    58 Luminant NOPR Comments at 4.

    59 KCP&L NOPR Comments at 7.

    Discussion

    32. We find ample support in the record to conclude that supply chain management risks pose a threat to bulk electric system reliability. As NERC commented, “the supply chains for information and communications technology and industrial control systems present significant risks to [Bulk-Power System] security, providing various opportunities for adversaries to initiate cyberattacks.” 60 The malware campaigns analyzed by ICS-CERT and identified in the NOPR are only examples of such risks (i.e., supply chain attacks targeting supply chain vendors). Commenters identified additional supply chain-related threats,61 including events targeting electric utility vendors.62

    60 NERC NOPR Comments at 8.

    61 Commenters reference tools and information security frameworks, such as ES-C2M2, NIST-SP-800-161 and NIST-SP-800-53, which describe the scope of supply chain risk that could impact bulk electric system operations. See Department of Energy, Electricity Subsector Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (February 2014), http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f7/ES-C2M2-v1-1-Feb2014.pdf; NIST Special Publication 800-161, Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations at 51, http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-161.pdf; NIST Special Publication 800-53, Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations, http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-53r4.pdf. These risks include the insertion of counterfeits, unauthorized production and modification of products, tampering, theft, intentional insertion of tracking software, as well as poor manufacturing and development practices. One technical conference participant noted that supply chain attacks can target either (1) the hardware/software components of a system (thereby creating vulnerabilities that can be exploited by a remote attacker) or (2) a third party service provider who has access to sensitive IT infrastructure or holds/maintains sensitive data. See Olcott Technical Conference Comments at 1.

    62 Olcott discusses two events targeting electric utility vendors and service providers. Olcott Technical Conference Comments at 2. Specific recent examples of attacks on third party vendors include: (1) unauthorized code found in Juniper Firewalls in 2015; (2) the 2013 Target incident involving stolen vendor credentials; (3) the 2015 Office of Personnel Management incident also involving stolen vendor credentials; and (4) two events targeting electric utility vendors. See id. at 1-4.

    33. Even among the comments opposed to the NOPR, there is acknowledgment that supply chain reliability risks exist. The Trade Associations state that their “respective members have identified security issues associated with potential supply chain disruption or compromise as being a significant threat.” 63 Recognizing that such risks exist, we reject the assertion by the Trade Associations and Southern that there is an inadequate basis for the Commission to take action because “[t]he Trade Associations can find nothing within various NERC programs and activities that lead to a reasonable conclusion that supply chain management issues have caused events or disturbances on the bulk power system.” 64

    63 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 17.

    64See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 21.

    34. We disagree with the Trade Associations' arguments suggesting that the two malware campaigns identified in the NOPR do not represent a change in the threat landscape to the bulk electric system. First, while the Trade Associations are correct that the ICS-CERT alerts referenced in the NOPR describe remediation steps for customers to take in the event of a breach, the vulnerabilities exploited by those campaigns were the direct result of vendor decisions about: (1) How to deliver software patches to their customers and (2) the necessary degree of remote access functionality for their information and communications technology products.65 Second, the malware campaigns also demonstrate that attackers have expanded their efforts to include the execution of broad access campaigns targeting vendors and software applications, rather than just individual entities. The targeting of vendors and software applications with potentially broad access to BES Cyber Systems 66 marks a turning point in that it is no longer sufficient to focus protection strategies exclusively on post-acquisition activities at individual entities. Instead, we believe that attention should also be focused on minimizing the attack surfaces of information and communications technology products procured to support bulk electric system operations.

    65 The ICS-CERT alert regarding ICS Focused Malware indicated that “the software installers for . . . vendors were infected with malware known as the Havex Trojan.”

    66 Cyber systems are referred to as “BES Cyber Systems” in the CIP Reliability Standards. The NERC Glossary defines BES Cyber Systems as “One or more BES Cyber Assets logically grouped by a responsible entity to perform one or more reliability tasks for a functional entity.” NERC Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards (May 17, 2016) at 15 (NERC Glossary). The NERC Glossary defines “BES Cyber Asset” as “A Cyber Asset that if rendered unavailable, degraded, or misused would, within 15 minutes of its required operation, misoperation, or non-operation, adversely impact one or more Facilities, systems, or equipment, which, if destroyed, degraded, or otherwise rendered unavailable when needed, would affect the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System. Redundancy of affected Facilities, systems, and equipment shall not be considered when determining adverse impact. Each BES Cyber Asset is included in one or more BES Cyber Systems.” Id.

    2. Objectives of a Supply Chain Management Reliability Standard NOPR

    35. The NOPR stated that the reliability goal of a supply chain risk management Reliability Standard should be a forward-looking, objective-driven Reliability Standard that encompasses activities in the system development life cycle: from research and development, design and manufacturing stages (where applicable), to acquisition, delivery, integration, operations, retirement, and eventual disposal of the responsible entity's information and communications technology and industrial control system supply chain equipment and services. The NOPR explained that the Reliability Standard should support and ensure security, integrity, quality, and resilience of the supply chain and the future acquisition of products and services.67

    67 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 64.

    36. The NOPR recognized that, due to the breadth of the topic and the individualized nature of many aspects of supply chain management, a Reliability Standard pertaining to supply chain management security should:

    • Respect FPA section 215 jurisdiction by only addressing the obligations of responsible entities. A Reliability Standard should not directly impose obligations on suppliers, vendors or other entities that provide products or services to responsible entities.

    • Be forward-looking in the sense that the Reliability Standard should not dictate the abrogation or re-negotiation of currently-effective contracts with vendors, suppliers or other entities.

    • Recognize the individualized nature of many aspects of supply chain management by setting goals (the “what”), while allowing flexibility in how a responsible entity subject to the Reliability Standard achieves that goal (the “how”).

    • Given the types of specialty products involved and the diversity of acquisition processes, the Reliability Standard may need to allow exceptions (e.g., to meet safety requirements and fill operational gaps if no secure products are available).

    • Provide enough specificity so that compliance obligations are clear and enforceable. In particular, the Commission anticipated that a Reliability Standard that simply requires a responsible entity to “have a plan” addressing supply chain management would not suffice. Rather, to adequately address the concerns identified in the NOPR, the Commission stated a Reliability Standard should identify specific controls.68

    68Id. P 66.

    37. The NOPR recognized that, because security controls for supply chain management likely vary greatly with each responsible entity due to variations in individual business practices, the right set of supply chain management security controls should accommodate, inter alia, an entity's: (1) Procurement process; (2) vendor relations; (3) system requirements; (4) information technology implementation; and (5) privileged commercial or financial information. As examples of controls that may be instructional in the development of any new Reliability Standard, the NOPR identified the following Supply Chain Risk Management controls from NIST SP 800-161: (1) Access Control Policy and Procedures; (2) Security Assessment Authorization; (3) Configuration Management; (4) Identification and Authentication; (5) System Maintenance Policy and Procedures; (6) Personnel Security Policy and Procedures; (7) System and Services Acquisition; (8) Supply Chain Protection; and (9) Component Authenticity.69

    69 NOPR, 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 at P 65 (citing NIST Special Publication 800-161 at 51).

    Comments

    38. NERC states that a Commission directive requiring the development of a supply chain risk management Reliability Standard: (1) Should provide a minimum of two years for Reliability Standard development activities; (2) should clarify that any such Reliability Standard build on existing protections in the CIP Reliability Standards and the practices of responsible entities, and focus primarily on those procedural controls that responsible entities can reasonably be expected to implement during the procurement of products and services associated with bulk electric system operations to manage supply chain risks; and (3) must be flexible to account for differences in the needs and characteristics of responsible entities, the diversity of bulk electric system environments, technologies, risks, and issues related to the limited applicability of mandatory NERC Reliability Standards.70

    70 NERC NOPR Comments at 8-9.

    39. While sharing the Commission's concern that supply chain risks pose a threat to bulk electric system reliability, some commenters suggest that the Commission address certain threshold issues before moving forward with the NOPR proposal. IRC notes its concern that the NOPR proposal is overly broad, which IRC states could hamper industry's ability to address the Commission's concerns.71 Idaho Power expresses a concern “that tightening purchasing controls too tightly could also pose a risk because there are limited vendors” available to industry.72 Idaho Power states that any supply chain Reliability Standard “should be laid out in terms of requirements built around controls that are developed by the regulated entity rather than prescriptive requirements like many other CIP standards.” 73 ISO-NE supports the development of procedural controls “such as requirements that Registered Entities must transact with organizations that meet certain criteria, use specified procurement language in contracts, and review and validate vendors' security practices.” 74 Peak notes that “the number of vendors for certain hardware, software and services may be limited” and, therefore, a supply chain-related Reliability Standard should grant responsible entities the flexibility “to show preference for, but not the obligation to use, vendors who demonstrate sound supply chain security practices.” 75

    71 IRC NOPR Comments at 2.

    72 Idaho Power NOPR Comments at 3.

    73Id. at 3-4.

    74 ISO-NE NOPR Comments at 2 (citing NERC NOPR Comments at 17-18).

    75 Peak NOPR Comments at 4.

    40. NERC, the Trade Associations, Southern, Gridwise, and other commenters request that, should the Commission find it reasonable to direct NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard for supply chain management, the Commission adopt certain principles for NERC to follow in the standards development process. As an initial matter, NERC and other commenters state that the Commission should identify the risks that it intends NERC to address.76 In addition, NERC, SPP RE, and AEP state that the Commission should ensure that any new or modified supply chain-related Reliability Standard carefully considers the risk being addressed against the cost of mitigating that risk.77

    76 NERC NOPR Comments at 9-11; Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 26; Gridwise NOPR Comments at 5; AEP NOPR Comments at 8; SPP RE NOPR Comments at 11; EnergySec NOPR Comments at 4.

    77 NERC NOPR Comments at 11-12; SPP RE NOPR Comments at 11; AEP NOPR Comments at 9.

    41. NERC states that the focus of any supply chain risk management Reliability Standard “should be a set of requirements outlining those procedural controls that entities should take, as purchasers of products and services, to design more secure products and modify the security practices of suppliers, vendors, and other parties throughout the supply chain.” 78 Similarly, SPP RE notes that, while one responsible entity alone may not have adequate leverage to make a vendor or supplier adopt adequate security practices, “the collective application of the procurement language across a broad collection of Responsible Entities may achieve the intended improvement in security safeguards.” 79 Isologic and Resilient Societies recommends limiting the Reliability Standard requirements to a few that are immediately necessary, such as: (1) Preventing the installation of cyber related system or grid components which have been reported by ICS-CERT to be provably vulnerable to a supply chain attack, unless the vulnerability has been corrected; (2) removing from operation any system or component reported by ICS-CERT as containing an exploitable vulnerability; and (3) subjecting hardware and software to penetration testing prior to installation on the grid.80

    78 NERC NOPR Comments at 17.

    79 SPP RE NOPR Comments at 12.

    80 Isologic and Resilient Societies Joint NOPR Comments at 11.

    42. In post-technical conference comments, while still opposing the NOPR proposal, APPA suggests certain parameters that should govern the development of any supply chain-related Reliability Standard.81 Specifically, APPA states that a supply chain-related Reliability Standard should be risk-based and “must embody an approach that enables utilities to perform a risk assessment of the hardware and systems that create potential vulnerabilities,” similar to the approach taken in Reliability Standard CIP-014-2, Requirement R1 (Physical Security).82 In addition, APPA states that a supply chain-related Reliability Standard should not require responsible entities to actively manage third-party vendors or their processes since that would risk involving utilities in areas that are outside of their core expertise. APPA also argues that “it would be unreasonable for any standard that FERC directs to hold utilities liable for the actions of third-party vendors or suppliers.” 83 Finally, APPA states that responsible entities should be able to rely on a credible attestation by a vendor or supplier that it complied with identified supply chain security process. APPA contends that this would be the most efficient way to “establish a standard of care on the suppliers' part.” 84

    81 APPA's post-technical conference comments were submitted jointly with LPPC and TAPS.

    82 APPA Post-Technical Conference Comments at 3-4.

    83Id. at 4-5.

    84Id. at 5.

    Discussion

    43. We direct that NERC, pursuant to section 215(d)(5) of the FPA, develop a forward-looking, objective-driven new or modified Reliability Standard to require each affected entity to develop and implement a plan that includes security controls for supply chain management for industrial control system hardware, software, and services associated with bulk electric system operations. Our directive is consistent with the NOPR comments advocating flexibility as to what form the Commission's directive should take.

    44. We agree with NERC and other commenters that a supply chain risk management Reliability Standard should be flexible and fall within the scope of what is possible using Reliability Standards under FPA section 215. The directive discussed below, we believe, is consistent with both points. In particular, the flexibility inherent in our directive should account for, among other things, differences in the needs and characteristics of responsible entities and the diversity of BES Cyber System environments, technologies and risks. For example, the new or modified Reliability Standard may allow a responsible entity to meet the security objectives discussed below by having a plan to apply different controls based on the criticality of different assets. And by directing NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard, the Commission affords NERC the option of modifying existing Reliability Standards to satisfy our directive. Finally, we direct NERC to submit the new or modified Reliability Standard within one year of the effective date of this Final Rule.85

    85 We note that the Trade Associations request that the Commission allow “at least one year for discussion, development, and approval by the NERC Board of Trustees.” See Trade Associations Post-Technical Conference Comments at 22. NERC should submit an informational filing within ninety days of the effective date of this Final Rule with a plan to address the Commission's directive.

    45. The plan required by the new or modified Reliability Standard developed by NERC should address, at a minimum, the following four specific security objectives in the context of addressing supply chain management risks: (1) Software integrity and authenticity; (2) vendor remote access; (3) information system planning; and (4) vendor risk management and procurement controls. Responsible entities should be required to achieve these four objectives but have the flexibility as to how to reach the objective (i.e., the Reliability Standard should set goals (the “what”), while allowing flexibility in how a responsible entity subject to the Reliability Standard achieves that goal (the “how”)).86 Alternatively, NERC can propose an equally effective and efficient approach to address the issues raised in the objectives identified below. In addition, while in the discussion below we identify four objectives, NERC may address additional supply chain management objectives in the standards development process, as it deems appropriate.

    86See Order No. 672, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204 at P 260.

    46. The new or modified Reliability Standard should also require a periodic reassessment of the utility's selected controls. Consistent with or similar to the requirement in Reliability Standard CIP-003-6, Requirement R1, the Reliability Standard should require the responsible entity's CIP Senior Manager to review and approve the controls adopted to meet the specific security objectives identified in the Reliability Standard at least every 15 months. This periodic assessment should better ensure that the required plan remains up-to-date, addressing current and emerging supply chain-related concerns and vulnerabilities.

    47. Also, consistent with this reliance on an objectives-based approach, and as part of this periodic review and approval, the responsible entity's CIP Senior Manager should consider any guidance issued by NERC, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) or other relevant authorities for the planning, procurement, and operation of industrial control systems and supporting information systems equipment since the prior approval, and identify any changes made to address the recent guidance. This periodic reconsideration will help ensure an ongoing, affirmative process for reviewing and, when appropriate, incorporating such guidance.

    First Objective: Software Integrity and Authenticity

    48. The new or modified Reliability Standard must address verification of: (1) The identity of the software publisher for all software and patches that are intended for use on BES Cyber Systems; and (2) the integrity of the software and patches before they are installed in the BES Cyber System environment.

    49. This objective is intended to reduce the likelihood that an attacker could exploit legitimate vendor patch management processes to deliver compromised software updates or patches to a BES Cyber System. One of the two focused malware campaigns identified by ICS-CERT in 2014 utilized similar tactics, executing what is commonly referred to as a “Watering Hole” attack 87 to exploit affected information systems. Similar tactics appear to have been used in a recently disclosed attack targeting electric sector infrastructure in Japan.88 These types of attacks might have been prevented had the affected entities applied adequate integrity and authenticity controls to their patch management processes.

    87 “Watering Hole” attacks exploit poor vendor/client patching and updating processes. Attackers generally compromise a vendor of the intended victim and then use the vendor's information system as a jumping off point for their attack. Attackers will often inject malware or replace legitimate files with corrupted files (usually a patch or update) on the vendor's Web site as part of the attack. The victim then downloads the files without verifying each file's legitimacy believing that it is included in a legitimate patch or update.

    88See Cylance, Operation DustStorm, https://www.cylance.com/hubfs/2015_cylance_website/assets/operation-dust-storm/Op_Dust_Storm_Report.pdf.

    50. As NERC recognizes in its NOPR comments, NIST SP-800-161 “establish[es] instructional reference points for NERC and its stakeholders to leverage in evaluating the appropriate framework for and security controls to include in any mandatory supply chain management Reliability Standard.” 89 NIST SP-800-161 includes a number of security controls which, when taken together, reduce the probability of a successful Watering Hole or similar cyberattack in the industrial control system environment and thus could assist in addressing this objective. For example, in the System and Information Integrity (SI) control family, control SI-7 suggests that the integrity of information systems and components should be tested and verified using controls such as digital signatures and obtaining software directly from the developer. In the Configuration Management (CM) control family, control CM-5(3) requires that the information system prevent the installation of firmware or software without verification that the component has been digitally signed to ensure that hardware and software components are genuine and valid. NIST SP-800-161, while not meant to be definitive, provides examples of controls for addressing the Commission's directive regarding this first objective. Other security controls also could meet this objective.

    89 NERC NOPR Comments at 16-17; see also Resilient Societies NOPR Comments at 11.

    Second Objective: Vendor Remote Access to BES Cyber Systems

    51. The new or modified Reliability Standard must address responsible entities' logging and controlling all third-party (i.e., vendor) initiated remote access sessions. This objective covers both user-initiated and machine-to-machine vendor remote access.

    52. This objective addresses the threat that vendor credentials could be stolen and used to access a BES Cyber System without the responsible entity's knowledge, as well as the threat that a compromise at a trusted vendor could traverse over an unmonitored connection into a responsible entity's BES Cyber System. The theft of legitimate user credentials appears to have been a critical aspect to the successful execution of the 2015 cyberattack on Ukraine's power grid.90 In addition, controls adopted under this objective should give responsible entities the ability to rapidly disable remote access sessions in the event of a system breach.

    90See E-ISAC, Analysis of the Cyber Attack on the Ukrainian Power Grid at 3 (Mar. 18, 2016), http://www.nerc.com/pa/CI/ESISAC/Documents/E-ISAC_SANS_Ukraine_DUC_18Mar2016.pdf.

    53. DHS noted the importance of controlling vendor remote access in its alert on the Ukrainian cyberattack: “Remote persistent vendor connections should not be allowed into the control network. Remote access should be operator controlled, time limited, and procedurally similar to “lock out, tag out.” The same remote access paths for vendor and employee connections can be used; however, double standards should not be allowed.” 91

    91See ICS-CERT Alert, Cyber-Attack Against Ukrainian Critical Infrastructure, https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/alerts/IR-ALERT-H-16-056-01.

    54. NIST SP-800-53 and NIST SP-800-161 provide several security controls which, when taken together, reduce the probability that an attacker could use legitimate third-party access to compromise responsible entity information systems. In the Systems and Communications (SC) control family, for example, control SC-7 addressing boundary protection requires that an entity implement appropriate monitoring and control mechanisms and processes at the boundary between the entity and its suppliers, and that provisions for boundary protections should be incorporated into agreements with suppliers. These protections are applied regardless of whether the remote access session is user-initiated or interactive in nature.

    55. In the Access Control (AC) control family, control AC-17 requires usage restrictions, configuration/connection requirements, and monitoring and control for remote access sessions, including the entity's ability to expeditiously disconnect or disable remote access. In the Identification and Authentication (IA) control family, control IA-5 requires changing default “authenticators” (e.g., passwords) prior to information system installation. In the System and Information Integrity (SI) control family, control SI-4 addresses monitoring of vulnerabilities resulting from past information and communication technology supply chain compromises, such as malicious code implanted during software development and set to activate after deployment. These sources, while not meant to be definitive, provide examples of controls for addressing the Commission's directive regarding objective two. Other security controls also could meet this objective.

    Third Objective: Information System Planning and Procurement

    56. The new or modified Reliability Standard must address how a responsible entity will include security considerations as part of its information system planning and system development lifecycle processes. As part of this objective, the new or modified Reliability Standard must address a responsible entity's CIP Senior Manager's (or delegate's) identification and documentation of the risks of proposed information system planning and system development actions. This objective is intended to ensure adequate consideration of these risks, as well as the available options for hardening the responsible entity's information system and minimizing the attack surface.

    57. This third objective addresses the risk that responsible entities could unintentionally plan to procure and install unsecure equipment or software within their information systems, or could unintentionally fail to anticipate security issues that may arise due to their network architecture or during technology and vendor transitions. For example, the BlackEnergy malware campaign identified by ICS-CERT and referenced in the NOPR resulted from the remote exploitation of previously unidentified vulnerabilities, which allowed attackers to remotely execute malicious code on remotely accessible devices.92 According to ICS-CERT, this attack might have been mitigated if affected entities had taken steps during system development and planning to: (1) Minimize network exposure for all control system devices/subsystems; (2) ensure that devices were not accessible from the internet; (3) place devices behind firewalls; and (4) utilize secure remote access techniques.93 The third objective also supports, where appropriate, the need for strategic technology refreshes as recommended by ICS-CERT in response to the 2015 Ukraine cybersecurity incident.94

    92See ICS-CERT Alert, Ongoing Sophisticated Malware Campaign Compromising ICS (Update E).

    93See ICS-CERT Advisory, GE Proficy Vulnerabilities, https://ics-cert.us-cert.gov/advisories/ICSA-14-023-01.

    94See ICS-CERT Alert, Cyber-Attack Against Ukrainian Critical Infrastructure.

    58. NIST SP 800-53 and SP 800-161 provide several controls which, when taken together, reduce the likelihood that an information system will be deployed and/or remain in service with potential vulnerabilities that have not been identified or adequately considered. For example, in the NIST SP 800-53 Systems Acquisition (SA) control family, control SA-3 provides that organizations should: (1) Manage information systems using an organizationally-defined system development life cycle that incorporates information security considerations; and (2) integrate the organizational information security risk management process into system development life cycle activities.95 Similarly, control SA-8 recommends using secure engineering principles during the planning and acquisition phases of future projects such as: (1) Developing layered protections; (2) establishing sound security policy, architecture, and controls as the foundation for design; (3) incorporating security requirements into the system development life cycle; and (4) reducing risk to acceptable levels, thus enabling informed risk management decisions.96 Finally, control SA-22 provides controls to address unsupported system components, recommending the replacement of information and communication technology components when support is no longer available, or the justification and approval of an unsupported system component to meet specific business needs. These sources, while not meant to be definitive, provide examples of controls for addressing the Commission's directive regarding objective three. Other security controls also could meet this objective.

    95 NIST Special Publication 800-53, Appendix F (Security Control Catalog) at 157.

    96Id. at 162.

    Fourth Objective: Vendor Risk Management and Procurement Controls

    59. The new or modified Reliability Standard must address the provision and verification of relevant security concepts in future contracts for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. Specifically, NERC must address controls for the following topics: (1) Vendor security event notification processes; (2) vendor personnel termination notification for employees with access to remote and onsite systems; (3) product/services vulnerability disclosures, such as accounts that are able to bypass authentication or the presence of hardcoded passwords; (4) coordinated incident response activities; and (5) other related aspects of procurement. NERC should also consider provisions to help responsible entities obtain necessary information from their vendors to minimize potential disruptions from vendor-related security events.

    60. This fourth objective addresses the risk that responsible entities could enter into contracts with vendors who pose significant risks to their information systems, as well as the risk that products procured by a responsible entity fail to meet minimum security criteria. In addition, this objective addresses the risk that a compromised vendor would not provide adequate notice and related incident response to responsible entities with whom that vendor is connected.

    61. The Department of Energy (DOE) Cybersecurity Procurement Language for Energy Delivery Systems document outlines security principles and controls for entities to consider when designing and procuring control system products and services (e.g., software, systems, maintenance, and networks), and provides example language that could be incorporated into procurement specifications. The procurement language encourages buyers to incorporate baseline procurement language that ensures the supplier establishes, documents and implements risk management practices for supply chain delivery of hardware, software, and firmware.97 In addition, NIST SP 800-161 encourages buyers to use the Information and Communications Technology supply chain risk management (ICT SCRM) plans for their respective systems and missions throughout their acquisition activities.98 The controls in the ICT SCRM plans can be applied in different life cycle processes.

    97See Energy Sector Control Systems Working Group, Cybersecurity Procurement Language—Energy Delivery Systems at 27, http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/04/f15/CybersecProcurementLanguage-EnergyDeliverySystems_040714_fin.pdf.

    98See NIST Special Publication 800-161 at 51.

    62. NIST SP 800-161 also provides specific recommendations in control SA-4 pertaining to systems acquisition processes, which are relevant for consideration during the standards development process, including but not limited to: (1) Defining requirements that cover regulatory requirements (i.e., telecommunications or IT), technical requirements, chain of custody, transparency and visibility, sharing information on supply chain security incidents throughout the supply chain, rules for disposal or retention of elements such as components, data, or intellectual property, and other relevant requirements; (2) defining requirements for critical elements in the supply chain to demonstrate a capability to remediate emerging vulnerabilities based on open source information and other sources; and (3) defining requirements for the expected life span of the system and ensuring that suppliers can provide insights into their plans for the end-of-life of components. Other relevant provisions can be found in the System and Communications Protection (SC) control family under control SC-18 addressing SCRM guidance for mobile code, which recommends that organizations employ rigorous supply chain protection techniques in the acquisition, development, and use of mobile code to be deployed in information systems.99 These sources, while not meant to be definitive, provide examples of controls for addressing the Commission's directive regarding objective four. Other security controls also could meet this objective.

    99 Mobile code is a software program or parts of a program obtained from remote information systems, transmitted across a network, and executed on a local information system without explicit installation or execution by the recipient. NIST Special Publication 800-53, Appendix B (Glossary) at 14. Mobile code technologies include, for example, Java, JavaScript, ActiveX, Postscript, PDF, Shockwave movies, Flash animations, and VBScript. Id.

    3. Existing CIP Reliability Standards Comments

    63. NERC comments that although the CIP Reliability Standards do not explicitly address supply chain procurement practices, existing requirements mitigate the supply chain risks identified in the NOPR. In particular, NERC states that requirements in Reliability Standards CIP-004-6, CIP-005-5, CIP-006-6, CIP-007-6, CIP-008-5, CIP-009-6, CIP-010-2, and CIP-011-2 “include controls that correspond to controls in NIST SP 800-161.” 100

    100 NERC NOPR Comments at 15-16.

    64. For example, NERC explains that responsible entity compliance with Reliability Standard CIP-004-6, addressing the implementation of cybersecurity awareness programs, may include reinforcement of cybersecurity practices to mitigate supply chain risks. NERC also states that requirements in Reliability Standard CIP-004-6 (addressing personnel risk assessment) and requirements in Reliability Standards CIP-004-6, CIP-005-5, CIP-006-6, CIP-007-6, and CIP-010-2 (addressing electronic and physical access) apply to any outside vendors or contractors.

    65. The Trade Associations, Arkansas, G&T Cooperatives, NIPSCO, Luminant, Southern, NextEra, and SCE contend that the existing CIP Reliability Standards, at least partly, address supply chain risks that are within a responsible entity's control.

    66. The Trade Associations state that, while the existing CIP Reliability Standards do not contain explicit provisions addressing supply chain management, “transmission owners and operators already have significant responsibilities to perform under various Commission-approved CIP standards that already address supply chain issues.” 101 Specifically, the Trade Associations, NIPSCO, and others state that Reliability Standard CIP-010-2 establishes requirements for cyber asset change management that mandate extensive baseline configuration testing and change monitoring, as well as vulnerability assessments, prior to connecting a new cyber asset to a High Impact BES Cyber Asset.102

    101 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 19-20.

    102 Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 20; NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 5; Southern NOPR Comments at 12; Luminant NOPR Comments at 4-5; SCE NOPR Comments at 6.

    67. The Trade Associations also contend that the CIP Reliability Standards provide adequate vendor remote access protections by mandating: (1) Controls that restrict personnel access (physical and electronic) to protected information systems; (2) controls that prevent direct access to applicable systems for interactive remote access sessions using routable protocols; (3) the use of encryption for connections extending outside of an electronic security perimeter; (4) the use of two factor authentication when accessing medium and high impact systems; and (5) integration controls which require changing known default accounts and passwords.103

    103 Trade Associations Post-Technical Conference Comments at 6.

    68. NIPSCO, Luminant, and G&T Cooperatives point to Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 as an existing Reliability Standard that addresses supply chain risks. Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 requires responsible entities to have processes under which only necessary ports and services should be enabled; security patches should be tracked, evaluated, and installed on applicable BES Cyber Systems; and anti-virus software or other prevention tools should be used to prevent the introduction and propagation of malicious software on all Cyber Assets within an Electronic Security Perimeter.104

    104 NIPSCO NOPR Comments at 5; Luminant NOPR Comments at 4; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 8-9.

    69. Commenters also identify existing voluntary guidelines that, they contend, augment the existing CIP Reliability Standards to further address any potential risks posed by the supply chain. Southern points to voluntary cybersecurity procurement guidance materials developed by the DHS and the DOE as examples of procurement language that could be used in the course of vendor negotiations. Southern states that the DHS and DOE guidelines recognize the need for flexibility and allow for multiple contractual approaches.105

    105 Southern NOPR Comments at 13.

    70. Commenters suggest that the Commission direct NERC to develop cybersecurity procurement guidance documents as opposed to a mandatory Reliability Standard. AEP, NextEra, and Southern state that the Commission could direct NERC to develop guidance documents addressing supply chain risk management based, in part, on the DHS and DOE voluntary cybersecurity procurement guidance materials.106 Luminant asserts that NERC-developed guidance “would effectively communicate key issues while permitting industry the flexibility to effectively protect their BES Cyber Systems in a way most effective for that entity and at the lowest cost.” 107

    106 AEP NOPR Comments at 7-8; NextEra NOPR Comments at 4-5; Southern NOPR Comments at 12-13.

    107 Luminant NOPR Comments at 5.

    Discussion

    71. While we recognize that existing CIP Reliability Standards include requirements that address aspects of supply chain management, we determine that existing Reliability Standards do not adequately protect against supply chain risks that are within a responsible entity's control. Specifically, we find that existing CIP Reliability Standards do not provide adequate protection for the four aspects of supply chain risk management that underlie the four objectives for a new or modified Reliability Standard discussed above.108 Moreover, a fundamental premise of cyber security is “defense in depth,” and addressing issues in the supply chain (to the extent a utility reasonably can) is an important component of a strong, multi-layered defense.

    108 Since the directive to NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard is limited to the four objectives discussed above, we limit our analysis of the existing CIP Reliability Standards to requirements that relate to those objectives.

    Software Integrity and Authenticity

    72. With regard to software integrity and authenticity, we agree with commenters who state that the existing CIP Reliability Standards contain requirements for responsible entities to implement a patch management process for tracking, evaluating, and installing cybersecurity patches and to implement processes to detect, prevent, and mitigate the threat of malicious code. These provisions, however, do not require responsible entities to verify the identity of the software publisher for all software and patches that are intended for use on their BES Cyber Systems or to verify the integrity of the software and patches before they are installed in the BES Cyber System environment.109 As discussed above, the CIP Reliability Standards should address compromised software or patches that a responsible entity receives from a vendor, in order to protect the bulk electric system from Watering-Hole or similar cyberattacks. These concerns are not addressed by existing CIP Reliability Standards.

    109See Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 38 (indicating that integrity checking mechanisms used to verify software, firmware, and information integrity found in the NIST SP-800-161 System and Information Integrity (SI) control family are not addressed in the CIP version 5 Reliability Standards).

    73. Mandatory controls in the existing CIP Reliability Standards referenced by commenters do not provide sufficient protection against attacks that compromise software and software patch integrity and authenticity. For example, while Reliability Standard CIP-007-6, Requirement R2 requires responsible entities to enforce a patch management process for tracking, evaluating, and installing cyber security patches for applicable systems, including evaluating security patches for applicability, the requirement does not address mechanisms to acquire the patch file from a vendor in a secure manner and methods to validate the integrity of a patch file before installation.

    74. With respect to mandatory configuration controls, Reliability Standard CIP-010-2, Requirement R1 requires responsible entities to authorize and document all changes to baseline configurations and, where technically feasible, test patches in a test environment before installing. However, NERC's technical guidance document for CIP-010-2, Requirement R1, Part 1.2 does not require the authorizer to first verify the authenticity of a patch. Similarly, the testing of patches in a test environment under Requirement R1.5 would likely provide insufficient protection as many malware variants are programmed to execute only after the system is rebooted several times. Regarding patch source monitoring, the guidelines and technical basis section for Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 suggests that responsible entities should obtain security patches from original sources, where possible, and indicates that patches should be approved or certified by another source before being assessed and applied.110 The Reliability Standard, however, does not require the use of these techniques. Implementing controls that verify integrity and authenticity of software and its publishers may help mitigate security gaps listed above.

    110 Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 (Cyber Security—Systems Security Management), Guidelines and Technical Basis at 42-43.

    75. In sum, the current CIP Reliability Standards do contain certain controls addressing the risks posed by malware, as stated by commenters. Verifying software integrity and authenticity, however, is a reasonable and appropriate complement to these controls, is not required by the current Standards, and is supported by the principle of defense-in-depth. In fact, this verification can be viewed as the first line of defense against malware-infected software.

    Vendor Remote Access to BES Cyber Systems

    76. On the subject of vendor remote access, which includes vendor user-initiated Interactive Remote Access and vendor machine-to-machine remote access, existing CIP Reliability Standards contain system access requirements, including a requirement for security event monitoring. However, the CIP Reliability Standards do not require remote access session logging for machine-to-machine remote access, nor do they address the ability to monitor or close unsafe remote connections for both vendor Interactive Remote Access and vendor machine-to-machine remote access.111 The CIP Reliability Standards should address enhanced session logging requirements for vendor remote access in order to improve visibility of activity on BES Cyber Systems and give responsible entities the ability to rapidly disable remote access sessions in the event of a system breach.

    111See Trade Association NOPR Comments at 43 (indicating that mechanisms for monitoring for unauthorized personnel, connections, devices, and software found in the NIST SP-800-161 System and Information Integrity (SI) control family are not addressed in the CIP version 5 Reliability Standards).

    77. The existing requirements referenced by NERC, the Trade Associations, and other commenters do not adequately address access restrictions for vendors. For example, while Reliability Standard CIP-004-6, Requirements R4 and R5 provide controls that must be applied to vendors such as restricting access to individuals “based on need,” these Requirements do not include post-authorization logging or control of remote access. The existing CIP Reliability Standards do not require a responsible entity to monitor data traffic that traverses remote communication to their BES Cyber Systems. The absence of post-authorization monitoring and logging presents an opportunity for unmonitored malicious or otherwise inappropriate remote communication to or from a BES Cyber System. The inability of a responsible entity to rapidly terminate a connection may allow malicious or otherwise inappropriate communication to propagate, contributing to a degradation of a BES Cyber Asset's function. Enhanced visibility into remote communications and the ability to rapidly terminate a remote communication could mitigate such a vulnerability.

    78. Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R1 provides controls for vendor machine-to-machine and vendor user-initiated Interactive Remote Access sessions by restricting all inbound and outbound communications through an identified Electronic Access Point for bi-directional routable protocol connections. Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R2 provides controls for vendor interactive remote access sessions by requiring the use of encryption and requiring multi-factor authentication. However, the provisions of Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R2 addressing interactive remote access management do not apply to vendor machine-to-machine remote access. The Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R2 controls addressing interactive remote access management only apply to remote connections that are user-initiated (i.e., initiated by a person). Machine-to-machine connections are not user-initiated and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements of Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R2. When the interactive remote access management controls of Reliability Standard CIP-005-5, Requirement R2 do not apply, a machine-to-machine remote communication may access a BES Cyber System without any access credentials, over an unencrypted channel, and without going through an Intermediate System.

    79. For both Interactive Remote Access and machine-to-machine remote access, Reliability Standard CIP-007-6, Requirement R3 requires monitoring for malicious code and Requirement R4 requires logging of successful and unsuccessful login attempts, as well as logging detected malicious code. However, Reliability Standard CIP-007-6 does not address the risks posed by inappropriate activity that could occur during a remote communication. The lack of a requirement addressing the detection of inappropriate activity represents a risk because the responsible entity may not be aware if an authorized user is performing inappropriate activity on a BES Cyber Asset via a remote connection. This risk is higher for machine-to-machine communication due to the lack of authentication and encryption requirements in the existing CIP Reliability Standards, lowering the threshold for a malicious actor to execute a man-in-the-middle attack to gain access to a BES Cyber System and conduct inappropriate activity such as reconnaissance or code modification.

    80. Therefore, we recognize that the current CIP Reliability Standards do contain certain controls addressing the risks posed by vendor remote access, as noted by commenters. However, the current CIP Reliability Standards do not require monitoring remote access sessions or closing unsafe remote connections for either vendor Interactive Remote Access and vendor machine-to-machine remote access. Accordingly, we determine that vendor remote access is not adequately addressed in the approved CIP Reliability Standards and, therefore, is an objective that must be addressed in the supply chain management plans directed in this final rule.

    Information System Planning and Procurement

    81. The existing CIP Reliability Standards do not address information system planning. Recent cybersecurity incidents 112 have made it apparent that overall system planning is as important to overall BES Cyber System security and reliability as any other component of security architecture. In general, the CIP Reliability Standards do not provide a framework for maintaining ongoing awareness of information security, vulnerabilities, and threats to support organization risk management decisions; 113 nor do they address the concept of integrating continuous improvement of organizational security posture with supply chain risk management as recommended by NIST SP 800-161.114 Based on the threats evidenced by recent cybersecurity incidents, the absence of security considerations in system lifecycle processes constitutes a gap in the CIP Reliability Standards that could contribute to pervasive and systemic vulnerabilities that threaten bulk electric system reliability.

    112See E-ISAC, Analysis of the Cyber Attack on the Ukrainian Power Grid at 3 (March 18, 2016); see also Dell, Dell Security Annual Threat Report (2015) at 7, https://software.dell.com/docs/2015-dell-security-annual-threat-report-white-paper-15657.pdf; Olcott Technical Conference Comments at 2.

    113See NIST Special Publication 800-137, Information Security Continuous Monitoring (ISCM) for Federal Information Systems and Organizations at vi, http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-137.pdf.

    114 NIST Special Publication 800-161 at 46.

    82. The existing CIP Reliability Standards also do not provide for procurement controls for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services. As discussed above, procurement controls are intended to address the threat that responsible entities could enter into contracts with vendors who pose significant risks to their information systems or procure products that fail to meet minimum security criteria, as well as the risk that a compromised vendor would not provide adequate notice and related incident response to responsible entities with whom that vendor is connected.

    83. With regard to commenters' suggestion that the Commission direct NERC to develop cybersecurity procurement guidance documents as opposed to a mandatory Reliability Standard, we agree that the voluntary efforts identified by commenters could provide guidance or otherwise inform NERC's standard development process. We conclude, however, that relying on voluntary guidelines to address the supply chain risks described above is not sufficient to fulfill the Commission's responsibilities under FPA section 215.

    4. Vendor Risk Management and Procurement Controls Comments

    84. NERC, G&T Cooperatives, Arkansas and others state that responsible entities have limited influence over vendors and contractors, and, therefore, a limited ability to affect the supply chain for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations.115 NERC contends that any supply chain management Reliability Standard “must balance the reliability need to implement supply chain management security controls with entities' business need to obtain products and services at a reasonable cost.” 116 NERC maintains that responsible entities lack bargaining power to persuade vendors or suppliers to implement cybersecurity controls without significantly increasing the cost of their products or services. NERC points to NIST SP 800-161 to highlight that implementing supply chain security management controls “will require financial and human resources, not just from the [acquirer] directly but also potentially from their system integrators, suppliers, and external service providers that would also result in increased cost to the acquirer.” 117

    115 NERC NOPR Comments at 11-12; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9; Arkansas NOPR Comments at 5.

    116 NERC NOPR Comments at 11-12.

    117Id. (citing NIST Special Publication 800-161 at 3).

    85. G&T Cooperatives contend that they “have minimal control over their suppliers and are not able to identify all potential vulnerabilities associated with each and every supplier and their products/parts.” 118 G&T Cooperatives and Arkansas maintain that responsible entities do not have the ability to force a vendor to address all potential vulnerabilities. G&T Cooperatives assert that even if a contract between a responsible entity and a supplier “could include” language requiring the supplier to implement security controls, “it is not feasible for contractual terms . . . to address all potential vulnerabilities related to supply chain management.” 119

    118 G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9.

    119Id. at 9.

    86. NERC, Trade Associations, G&T Cooperatives and Arkansas also raise a concern that the Commission's proposal could place compliance risk on responsible entities for actions beyond their control and, ultimately, incent responsible entities to avoid upgrades that could trigger such compliance risk.120 NERC states that any supply chain management Reliability Standard should be drafted so that it “creates affirmative obligations to implement supply chain management security controls without holding entities strictly liable for any failure of those controls to eliminate all supply chain threats and vulnerabilities.” 121 NERC explains that if a supply chain management Reliability Standard is not reasonably scoped to avoid unreasonable compliance risk, it could create a disincentive for responsible entities to purchase and install new technologies and equipment.

    120 NERC NOPR Comments at 13; Trade Associations NOPR Comments at 24-25; G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9-10; Arkansas NOPR Comments at 6.

    121 NERC NOPR Comments at 13.

    87. G&T Cooperatives state that “placing the compliance risk of vendor and supplier security vulnerability on Responsible Entities could incent Responsible Entities to avoid upgrades to their industrial control system hardware, software, and other services.” G&T Cooperatives explain that there are three primary incentives for a responsible entity to avoid upgrades if faced with compliance risks: (1) New regulations would result in additional costs for vendors and suppliers that would be passed on to the end-user; (2) since security patches are not issued by vendors for unsupported hardware and software, there is less security patch management responsibility for the responsible entity; and (3) avoiding new hardware and software reduces the risk of introducing undetected security threats.122

    122 G&T Cooperatives NOPR Comments at 9.

    Discussion

    88. Our directive to NERC to develop a new or modified Reliability Standard that addresses the objectives outlined above balances the supply chain risks facing the bulk electric system against any potential challenges raised by vendor relationships. We believe that the concerns raised in comments with respect to responsible entities' relationships with vendors in relation to supply chain risks are valid. Our directive is informed by this concern and reflects a reasonable balance between the risks facing bulk electric system reliability from the supply chain and concerns over vendor relationships. The directive strikes this balance by addressing supply chain risks that are within responsible entities' control, and we do not expect a new or modified supply chain Reliability Standard to impose obligations directly on vendors. Moreover, entities will not be responsible for vendor errors beyond the scope of the controls implemented to comply with the Reliability Standards.

    89. With respect to concerns that the Commission's proposal could place compliance risk on responsible entities for actions beyond their control, which some commenters argue would prompt responsible entities to avoid upgrades that could trigger such compliance risk, we reiterate that the intent of the directive is to address supply chain risks that are within the responsible entities' control. As part of NERC's standard development process, we expect NERC to establish provisions addressing compliance obligations in a manner that avoids shifting liability from a vendor for its mistakes to a responsible entity. Finally, we view the argument that a new or modified Reliability Standard will result in a substantial increase in costs to be speculative because, beyond requiring NERC to address the four objectives discussed above, or some equally effective and efficient alternatives, our directive does not require NERC to develop a Reliability Standard that mandates any particular controls or actions.

    III. Information Collection Statement

    90. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 123 requires each federal agency to seek and obtain Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval before undertaking a collection of information directed to ten or more persons or contained in a rule of general applicability. OMB regulations 124 require approval of certain information collection requirements imposed by agency rules. Upon approval of a collection of information, OMB will assign an OMB control number and an expiration date. Respondents subject to the filing requirements of an agency rule will not be penalized for failing to respond to the collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.

    123 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).

    124 5 CFR 1320.

    91. The Commission will submit the information collection requirements to OMB for its review and approval. The Commission solicits public comments on its need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of burden and cost estimates, ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected or retained, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques.

    92. The information collection requirements in this Final Rule in Docket No. RM15-14-002 for NERC to develop a new or to modify a Reliability Standard for supply chain risk management, should be part of FERC-725 (Certification of Electric Reliability Organization; Procedures for Electric Reliability Standards (OMB Control No. 1902-0225)). However, there is an unrelated item which is currently pending OMB review under FERC-725, and only one item per OMB Control No. can be pending OMB review at a time. Therefore, the requirements in this Final Rule in RM15-14-002 are being submitted under a new temporary or interim collection number FERC-725(1A) to ensure timely submittal to OMB. In the long-term, Commission staff plans to administratively move the requirements and associated burden of FERC-725(1A) to FERC-725.

    93. Burden Estimate and Information Collection Costs: The requirements for the ERO to develop Reliability Standards and to provide data to the Commission are included in the existing FERC-725. FERC-725 includes information used by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of section 215 of the FPA. FERC-725 includes the burden, reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with: (a) Self-Assessment and ERO Application, (b) Reliability Assessments, (c) Reliability Standards Development, (d) Reliability Compliance, (e) Stakeholder Survey, and (f) Other Reporting. In addition, the Final Rule will not result in a substantive increase in burden because this requirement to develop standards is covered under FERC-725. However because FERC is using the temporary information collection number, FERC-725(1A), FERC will use “placeholder” estimates of 1 response and 1 burden hour for the burden calculation.

    IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    94. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA) 125 generally requires a description and analysis of final rules that will have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Small Business Administration (SBA) revised its size standard (effective January 22, 2014) for electric utilities from a standard based on megawatt hours to a standard based on the number of employees, including affiliates.126 The entities subject to the Reliability Standards developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) include users, owners, and operators of the Bulk-Power System, which serves more than 334 million people. In addition, NERC's current responsibilities include the development of Reliability Standards. Accordingly, the Commission certifies that the requirements in this Final Rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.

    125 5 U.S.C. 601-612.

    126 SBA Final Rule on “Small Business Size Standards: Utilities,” 78 FR 77,343 (Dec. 23, 2013).

    V. Environmental Analysis

    95. The Commission is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement for any action that may have a significant adverse effect on the human environment.127 The Commission has categorically excluded certain actions from this requirement as not having a significant effect on the human environment. Included in the exclusion are rules that are clarifying, corrective, or procedural or that do not substantially change the effect of the regulations being amended.128 The actions proposed herein fall within this categorical exclusion in the Commission's regulations.

    127Regulations Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Order No. 486, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 30,783 (1987).

    128 18 CFR 380.4(a)(2)(ii).

    VI. Effective Date and Congressional Notification

    96. This Final Rule is effective September 27, 2016. The Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB, that this rule is not a “major rule” as defined in section 351 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This Final Rule is being submitted to the Senate, House, and Government Accountability Office.

    VII. Document Availability

    97. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the Internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) and in the Commission's Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern time) at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.

    98. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document, excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.

    User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's Web site during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at (202) 502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at [email protected], or the Public Reference Room at (202) 502-8371, TTY (202) 502-8659. Email the Public Reference Room at [email protected]

    By the Commission.

    Issued: July 21, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    Note:

    The following Appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.

    Appendix—Commenters Abbreviation Commenter AEP American Electric Power Service Corporation. ACS Applied Control Solutions, LLC. APS Arizona Public Service Company. Arkansas Arkansas Electric Cooperative. BPA Bonneville Power Administration. CEA Canadian Electricity Association. Consumers Energy Consumers Energy Company. CyberArk CyberArk. EnergySec Energy Sector Security Consortium, Inc. Ericsson Ericsson. Resilient Societies Foundation for Resilient Societies. G&T Cooperatives Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., Basin Electric Power Cooperative, and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. Gridwise Gridwise Alliance. Idaho Power Idaho Power Company. Indegy Indegy. IESO Independent Electricity System Operator. IRC ISO/RTO Council. ISO New England ISO New England Inc. ITC ITC Companies. Isologic Isologic, LLC. KCP&L Kansas City Power & Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company. Luminant Luminant Generation Company, LLC. NEMA National Electrical Manufacturers Association. NERC North American Electric Reliability Corporation. NextEra NextEra Energy, Inc. NIPSCO Northern Indiana Public Service Co. NWPPA Northwest Public Power Association. Peak Peak Reliability. PNM PNM Resources. Reclamation Department of Interior Bureau of Reclamation. SIA Security Industry Association. SCE Southern California Edison Company. Southern Southern Company Services. SPP RE Southwest Power Pool Regional Entity. SWP California Department of Water Resources State Water Project. TVA Tennessee Valley Authority. Trade Associations Edison Electric Institute, American Public Power Association, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Electric Power Supply Association, Transmission Access Policy Study Group, and Large Public Power Council. UTC Utilities Telecom Council. Waterfall Waterfall Security Solutions, Ltd. Wisconsin Wisconsin Electric Power Company. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection, Reliability Standards Docket No. RM15-14-002

    (Issued July 21, 2016)

    LaFLEUR, Commissioner dissenting:

    In today's order, the Commission elects to proceed directly to a Final Rule and require the development of a new reliability standard on supply chain risk management for industrial control system hardware, software, and computing and networking services associated with bulk electric system operations. I fully support the Commission's continued attention to the threat of inadequate supply chain risk management procedures, which pose a very real threat to grid reliability.

    However, in my view, the importance and complexity of this issue should guide the Commission to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully in directing the development of a reliability standard to address these threats. I am concerned that the Commission has not adequately considered or vetted the Final Rule, which could hamper the development and implementation of an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard. I believe that the more prudent course of action would be to issue today's Final Rule as a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Supplemental NOPR), which would provide NERC, industry, and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on the Commission's proposed directives. Accordingly, and as discussed below, I dissent from today's order.1

    1 I do agree with one holding in the order: That the Commission has authority under section 215 of the Federal Power Act to promulgate a standard on this issue.

    I. The Commission's Decision To Proceed Directly to Final Rule Is Flawed and Could Delay Protection of the Grid Against Supply Chain Risks

    Last July, as part of its NOPR addressing revisions to its cybersecurity critical infrastructure protection (CIP) standards, the Commission raised for the first time the prospect of directing the development of a standard to address risks posed by lack of controls for supply chain management.2 The Commission indicated that new threats might warrant directing NERC to develop a standard to address those risks. While the Commission noted a variety of considerations that might shape the standard, including, among others, jurisdictional limits and the individualized nature of companies' supply chain management procedures, the Commission notably did not propose a specific standard for comment. Instead, the Commission sought comment on (1) the general proposal to require a standard, (2) the anticipated features of, and requirements that should be included in, such a standard, and (3) a reasonable timeframe for development of a standard.3

    2Revised Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 80 FR 43,354 (July 22, 2015), 152 FERC ¶ 61,054 (2015). I will refer to the section of that order addressing supply chain issues as the “Supply Chain NOPR,” and the remainder of the order as the “CIP NOPR.”

    3Id. P 66.

    The record developed in comments responding to the Supply Chain NOPR and through the January 28, 2016 technical conference reflects a wide diversity of views regarding the need for, and possible content of, a reliability standard addressing supply chain management. Notwithstanding these diverse views, there was broad consensus on one point: That effectively addressing cybersecurity threats in supply chain management is tremendously complicated, due to a host of jurisdictional, technical, economic, and business relationship issues. Indeed, in the Supply Chain NOPR, the Commission recognized “that developing a supply chain management standard would likely be a significant undertaking and require extensive engagement with stakeholders to define the scope, content, and timing of the standard.” 4

    4Id.

    Yet, the Commission is proceeding straight to a Final Rule without in my view engaging in sufficient outreach regarding, or adequately vetting, the contents of the Final Rule. As to those contents, it is worth noting that the four objectives that will define the scope and content of the standard were not identified in the Supply Chain NOPR. Therefore, even though the Final Rule reflects feedback received on the Supply Chain NOPR, and is not obviously inconsistent with the Supply Chain NOPR, no party has yet had an opportunity to comment on those objectives or consider how they could be translated into an effective and enforceable standard.5 This is a consequence of: (1) The lack of outreach on supply chain threats prior to issuing the Supply Chain NOPR; (2) the lack of detail in the Supply Chain NOPR regarding what a standard might look like; and (3) the decision today to proceed straight to a Final Rule rather than provide additional opportunities for public feedback.

    5 To be clear, I am less concerned about whether the Final Rule satisfies minimal notice requirements than whether the Final Rule represents reasoned decision making by the Commission.

    A. The Commission and the Public's Consideration of Supply Chain Risks Would Benefit From Additional Stakeholder Engagement

    First, I believe that meaningful stakeholder input on the content of any proposed rule is essential to the Commission's deliberative process. This is especially important in our reliability work, as any standard developed by NERC must be approved by stakeholder consensus before it may be filed at the Commission. I do not believe that the record developed to date establishes that the Final Rule will lead to an appropriate solution to address supply chain risks. I note that much of the feedback we received in response to the Supply Chain NOPR was not focused on the merits of particular approaches to address supply chain threats. Yet, in this order, the Commission directs the development of a standard based on objectives not reflected in the Supply Chain NOPR, depriving the public of the ability to comment, and the Commission of the benefit of that public comment.

    In retrospect, given both the preliminary nature of the consideration of the issue and the lack of a concrete idea regarding what a proposed standard would look like, I believe that the Supply Chain NOPR was, in substance, a de facto Notice of Inquiry and should have been issued as such, rather than as a subsection of the broader CIP NOPR on changes to the CIP standards. For example, it is instructive to compare the Supply Chain NOPR with two other documents: (1) The Notice of Inquiry being issued today on cybersecurity issues arising from the recent incident in Ukraine,6 and (2) the NOPR concerning the proposed development of a reliability standard to address geomagnetic disturbances.7 The level of detail and consideration of the issues presented in the Supply Chain NOPR are much more consistent with that in a Notice of Inquiry than a traditional NOPR. As a result, I am concerned that the Commission, by styling its prior action as a NOPR, has skipped a critical step in the rulemaking process: The opportunity for public comment on its directive to develop a standard and the objectives that will frame the design and development of that standard. As explained below, I believe this procedural decision actually makes it less likely that an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard will be implemented on a reasonable schedule, particularly given the acknowledged complexity of this issue.8

    6Cyber Systems in Control Centers, Notice of Inquiry, Docket No. RM16-18-000.

    7Reliability Standards for Geomagnetic Disturbances, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 77 FR 64,935 (Oct. 24, 2012), 141 FERC 61,045 (2012).

    8 I believe that Reliability Standards for Physical Security Measures, 146 FERC ¶ 61,166 (2014) (Physical Security Directive Order), which is cited in the Final Rule as support for today's action, is primarily relevant to demonstrate a different point than the order indicates. The Physical Security Directive Order followed focused outreach with NERC and other stakeholders to discuss how a physical security standard could be designed and implemented within the parameters of section 215 of the Federal Power Act. As a result of that outreach, the directives in the Physical Security Directive Order were clear, targeted, and reflected shared priorities between the Commission and NERC. Physical Security Directive Order, 146 FERC ¶ 61,166 at PP 6-9. Consequently, NERC was able to develop and file a physical security standard with the Commission in less than three months, and the Commission ultimately approved that standard in November 2014, only roughly eight months after directing its development. Physical Security Reliability Standard, 149 FERC ¶ 61,140 (2014). In my view, this example demonstrates how essential outreach is to the timely and effective development of NERC standards.

    B. The Lack of Adequate Stakeholder Engagement Will Have Negative Consequences for the Standards Development Process

    I am also concerned about the consequences for the standards development process of the Commission's decision to proceed straight to a Final Rule. In particular, I am concerned that the combination of insufficient process and discussion to develop the record and inadequate time for standards development (since the Commission substantially truncated NERC's suggested timeline) 9 will handicap NERC's ability to develop an effective and enforceable proposed standard for the Commission to consider. As noted above, NERC, industry, and other stakeholders will have no meaningful opportunity before initiating their work to provide feedback on the contents of the rule, to seek clarification from the Commission, or to propose revisions to the rule. Yet, this type of feedback is a critical component of the rulemaking process, to ensure that the entities tasked with implementing the Commission's directive have been heard and understand what they are supposed to do. I believe that the Commission is essentially giving the standards development team a homework assignment without adequately explaining what it expects them to hand in.

    9 In its comments responding to the Supply Chain NOPR, NERC requested that, if the Commission decides to direct the development of a standard, the Commission provide a minimum of two years for the standards development process. However, the Commission disregards that request and directs NERC to develop a standard in just one year, apparently based solely on the Trade Associations' request that the Commission allow at least one year for the standards development process. I believe this timeline is inconsistent with the Commission's own recognition of the complexity of this issue, and, as discussed herein, likely to delay rather than expedite the implementation of an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard.

    I do not believe that the Final Rule's flexibility is a justification for proceeding straight to a Final Rule. Indeed, given the inadequate process to date, I fear that the flexibility is in fact a lack of guidance and will therefore be a double-edged sword. The Commission is issuing a general directive in the Final Rule, in the hope that the standards team will do what the Commission clearly could not do: translate general supply chain concerns into a clear, auditable, and enforceable standard within the framework of section 215 of the Federal Power Act. While the Commission need not be prescriptive in its standards directives, the Commission's order assumes that the standards development team will be able to take the “objectives” of the Final Rule and translate them into a standard that the Commission will ultimately find acceptable. I believe that issuing a Supplemental NOPR would benefit the standards development process by enabling additional discussion and feedback regarding the design of a workable standard.

    C. By Failing To Engage in Adequate Stakeholder Outreach Before Directing Development of a Standard, the Commission Increases the Likelihood That Implementation of a Standard Will Be Delayed

    A compressed and possibly compromised standards development process also has real consequences for the Commission's consideration of that proposed standard, whenever it is filed for our review. Unlike our authority under section 206 of the FPA, the Commission lacks authority under section 215 to directly modify a flawed reliability standard. Instead, to correct any flaws, the statute requires that we remand the standard to NERC and the standards development process.10 Thus, notwithstanding the majority's desire to quickly proceed to Final Rule, the statutory construct constrains our ability to timely address a flawed standard, which could actually delay implementation of the protections the Commission seeks to put in place.

    10 18 U.S.C. 824o(d)(4).

    Given the realities of the standards development and approval process, we are likely years away from a supply chain standard being implemented, even under the aggressive schedule contemplated in the order. I believe that the Commission should endeavor to provide as much advance guidance as possible before mandating the development of a standard, to increase the likelihood that NERC develops a standard that will be satisfactory to the Commission and reduce the need for a remand. I worry that the limited process that preceded the Final Rule and the expedited timetable will make it extremely difficult for NERC to file a standard that the Commission can cleanly approve. Had the Commission committed itself to conducting adequate outreach, I believe we could have mitigated the likelihood of that outcome, and more effectively and promptly addressed the supply chain threat in the long term. “Delaying” action for a few months thus would, in the long run, lead to prompter and stronger protection for the grid.

    II. Conclusion

    The choice the Commission faces today on supply chain risk management is not between action and inaction. Rather, given the importance of this issue, I believe that more considered action and a more developed Commission order, even if delayed by a few months, is better than a quick decision to “do something.” Ultimately, an effective, auditable, and enforceable standard on supply chain management will require thoughtful consideration of the complex challenges of addressing cybersecurity threats posed through the supply chain within the structure of the FERC/NERC reliability process. In my view, the Commission gains very little and does not meaningfully advance the security of the grid by proceeding straight to a Final Rule, rather than taking the time to build a record to support a workable standard.

    Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

    Cheryl A. LaFleur, Commissioner.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17842 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0011] 21 CFR Chapter I Change of Address; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Final rule; technical amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending our regulations to reflect a change in the address for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). This action is editorial in nature and is intended to improve the accuracy of our regulations.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John Reilly, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    We are amending our regulations in 21 CFR parts 1, 5, 70, 71, 73, 80, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 130, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 184, 189, 190, 211, 507, 701, 710, 720, and 1250 to reflect a change in the address for CFSAN. The street address listed currently in our regulations for CFSAN is 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. The street has been renamed and the street number has been changed; the new street address is 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Consequently, we are amending our regulations to reflect the new street address.

    Publication of this document constitutes final action on these changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Notice and public procedure are unnecessary because we are merely updating the street address for CFSAN.

    List of Subjects 21 CFR Part 1

    Cosmetics, Drugs, Exports, Food labeling, Imports, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 5

    Authority delegations (Government agencies), Imports, Organization and functions (Government agencies).

    21 CFR Part 70

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Labeling, Packaging and containers.

    21 CFR Part 71

    Administrative practice and procedure, Color additives, Confidential business information, Cosmetics, Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 73

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Medical devices.

    21 CFR Part 80

    Color additives, Cosmetics, Drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 100

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food labeling, Food packaging, Foods, Intergovernmental relations.

    21 CFR Part 101

    Food labeling, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 102

    Beverages, Food grades and standards, Food labeling, Frozen foods, Oils and fats, Onions, Potatoes, Seafood.

    21 CFR Part 106

    Food grades and standards, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 107

    Food labeling, Infants and children, Nutrition, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Signs and symbols.

    21 CFR Part 108

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

    21 CFR Part 109

    Food packaging, Foods, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's).

    21 CFR Part 110

    Food packaging, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 112

    Foods, Fruits and vegetables, Incorporation by reference, Packaging and containers, Recordkeeping requirements, Safety.

    21 CFR Part 117

    Food packaging, Foods.

    21 CFR Part 118

    Eggs and egg products, Incorporation by reference, Recordkeeping requirements, Safety.

    21 CFR Part 130

    Food additives, Food grades and standards.

    21 CFR Part 161

    Food grades and standards, Frozen foods, Seafood.

    21 CFR Part 170

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food additives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 171

    Administrative practice and procedure, Food additives.

    21 CFR Part 172

    Food additives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 173

    Food additives.

    21 CFR Part 175

    Adhesives, Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 176

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 177

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 178

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 180

    Food additives.

    21 CFR Part 181

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 184

    Food additives.

    21 CFR Part 189

    Food additives, Food packaging.

    21 CFR Part 190

    Dietary foods, Foods, Food additives, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 211

    Drugs, Labeling, Laboratories, Packaging and containers, Prescription drugs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Warehouses.

    21 CFR Part 507

    Animal foods, Labeling, Packaging and containers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 701

    Cosmetics, Labeling, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    21 CFR Part 710

    Cosmetics.

    21 CFR Part 720

    Confidential business information, Cosmetics.

    21 CFR Part 1250

    Air carriers, Foods, Maritime carriers, Motor carriers, Public health, Railroads, Water supply.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR parts 1, 5, 70, 71, 73, 80, 100, 101, 102, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 130, 161, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 184, 189, 190, 211, 507, 701, 710, 720, and 1250 are amended as follows:

    PART 1—GENERAL ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1333, 1453, 1454, 1455, 4402; 19 U.S.C. 1490, 1491; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335a, 342i, 343, 350c, 350d, 350e, 352, 355, 360b, 360ccc, 360ccc-1, 360ccc-2, 362, 371, 373, 374, 381, 382, 387, 387a, 387c, 393; 42 U.S.C. 216, 241, 243, 262, 264.

    2. In part 1, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 5—ORGANIZATION 3. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552; 21 U.S.C. 301-397.

    4. In part 5, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 70—COLOR ADDITIVES 5. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 360b, 361, 371, 379e.

    6. In part 70, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 71—COLOR ADDITIVE PETITIONS 7. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 351, 355, 360, 360b-360f, 360h-360j, 361, 371, 379e, 381; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262.

    8. In part 71, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 73—LISTING OF COLOR ADDITIVES EXEMPT FROM CERTIFICATION 9. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 343, 348, 351, 352, 355, 361, 362, 371, 379e.

    10. In part 73, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 80—COLOR ADDITIVE CERTIFICATION 11. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 371, 379e.

    12. In part 80, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 100—GENERAL 13. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 337, 342, 343, 348, 371.

    14. In part 100, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 101—FOOD LABELING 15. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    15 U.S.C. 1453, 1454, 1455; 21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    16. In part 101, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 102—COMMON OR USUAL NAME FOR NONSTANDARDIZED FOODS 17. The authority citation for part 102 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 371.

    18. In part 102, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 106—INFANT FORMULA REQUIREMENTS PERTAINING TO CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, QUALITY CONTROL PROCEDURES, QUALITY FACTORS, RECORDS AND REPORTS, AND NOTIFICATIONS 19. The authority citation for part 106 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 350a, 371.

    20. In part 106, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 107—INFANT FORMULA 21. The authority citation for part 107 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 343, 350a, 371.

    22. In part 107, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 108—EMERGENCY PERMIT CONTROL 23. The authority citation for part 108 continues to read as follows: Authority:

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

    24. In part 108, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 109—UNAVOIDABLE CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION AND FOOD-PACKAGING MATERIAL 25. The authority citation for part 109 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 336, 342, 346, 346a, 348, 371.

    26. In part 109, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 110—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE IN MANUFACTURING, PACKING, OR HOLDING HUMAN FOOD 27. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 342, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 264.

    28. In part 110, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 112—STANDARDS FOR THE GROWING, HARVESTING, PACKING, AND HOLDING OF PRODUCE FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 29. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 342, 350h, 371; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    30. In part 112, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 117—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, HAZARD ANALYSIS, AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE CONTROLS FOR HUMAN FOOD 31. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 331, 342, 343, 350d note, 350g, 350g note, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    32. In part 117, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 118—PRODUCTION, STORAGE, AND TRANSPORTATION OF SHELL EGGS 33. The authority citation for part 118 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331-334, 342, 371, 381, 393; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    34. In part 118, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 130—FOOD STANDARDS: GENERAL 35. The authority citation for part 130 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 336, 341, 343, 371.

    36. In part 130, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 161—FISH AND SHELLFISH 37. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 343, 348, 371, 379e.

    38. In part 161, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 170—FOOD ADDITIVES 39. The authority citation for part 170 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 346a, 348, 371.

    40. In part 170, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 171—FOOD ADDITIVE PETITIONS 41. The authority citation for part 171 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371.

    42. In part 171, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 172—FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED FOR DIRECT ADDITION TO FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 43. The authority citation for part 172 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 341, 342, 348, 371, 379e.

    44. In part 172, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”.
    PART 173—SECONDARY DIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION 45. The authority citation for part 173 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348.

    46. In part 173, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 175—INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADHESIVES AND COMPONENTS OF COATINGS 47. The authority citation for part 175 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

    48. In part 175, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 176—INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: PAPER AND PAPERBOARD COMPONENTS 49. The authority citation for part 176 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 346, 348, 379e.

    50. In part 176, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 177—INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: POLYMERS 51. The authority citation for part 177 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

    52. In part 177, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 178—INDIRECT FOOD ADDITIVES: ADJUVANTS, PRODUCTION AIDS, AND SANITIZERS 53. The authority citation for part 178 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 379e.

    54. In part 178, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 180—FOOD ADDITIVES PERMITTED IN FOOD OR IN CONTACT WITH FOOD ON AN INTERIM BASIS PENDING ADDITIONAL STUDY 55. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 343, 348, 371; 42 U.S.C. 241.

    56. In part 180, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 181—PRIOR-SANCTIONED FOOD INGREDIENTS 57. The authority citation for part 181 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371.

    58. In part 181, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 184—DIRECT FOOD SUBSTANCES AFFIRMED AS GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE 59. The authority citation for part 184 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371.

    60. In part 184, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 189—SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED FROM USE IN HUMAN FOOD 61. The authority citation for part 189 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 342, 348, 371, 381.

    62. In part 189, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 190—DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS 63. The authority citation for part 190 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Secs. 201(ff), 301, 402, 413, 701 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321(ff), 331, 342, 350b, 371).

    64. In part 190, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 211—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE FOR FINISHED PHARMACEUTICALS 65. The authority citation for part 211 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 351, 352, 355, 360b, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 216, 262, 263a, 264.

    66. In part 211, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 507—CURRENT GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICE, HAZARD ANALYSIS, AND RISK-BASED PREVENTIVE CONTROLS FOR FOOD FOR ANIMALS 67. The authority citation for part 507 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 331, 342, 343, 350d note, 350g, 350g note, 371, 374; 42 U.S.C. 243, 264, 271.

    68. In part 507, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 701—COSMETIC LABELING 69. The authority citation for part 701 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 352, 361, 362, 363, 371, 374; 15 U.S.C. 1454, 1455.

    70. In part 701, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 710—VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF COSMETIC PRODUCT ESTABLISHMENTS 71. The authority citation for part 710 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 361, 362, 371, 374.

    72. In part 710, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 720—VOLUNTARY FILING OF COSMETIC PRODUCT INGREDIENT COMPOSITION STATEMENTS 73. The authority citation for part 720 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 361, 362, 371, 374.

    74. In part 720, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. PART 1250—INTERSTATE CONVEYANCE SANITATION 75. The authority citation for part 1250 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 216, 243, 264, 271.

    76. In part 1250, revise all references to “5100 Paint Branch Pkwy.” to read “5001 Campus Dr.”. Dated: July 21, 2016. Leslie Kux, Associate Commissioner for Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17658 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Office of Natural Resources Revenue 30 CFR Parts 1206 and 1210 [Docket No. ONRR-2014-0001; DS63642000 DR2PS0000.CH7000167D0102R2] Amendments to Designated Areas AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    ONRR convened two technical conferences on November 20, 2015 to discuss amending the boundaries of four of the designated areas it uses to calculate the index-based major portion prices in its regulations. At the technical conferences, the participants discussed issues regarding the appropriate boundary line between the North Fort Berthold and South Fort Berthold Designated Areas and adding additional counties to one or both of the two designated areas in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

    DATES:

    Effective: September 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Dawson, ONRR, telephone at (303) 231-3653, or email to [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    With this final rule, ONRR amends the four designated areas to define them as follows:

    1. North Fort Berthold—all lands within the Fort Berthold Reservation boundary north of the Missouri River, including the Turtle Mountain public domain lease lands north of the Missouri River that the Fort Berthold Agency of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) administers, with the dividing line of the Missouri River being the county lines that follow the Missouri River.

    2. South Fort Berthold—all lands within the Fort Berthold Reservation boundary south of the Missouri River, including the Turtle Mountain public domain lease lands south of the Missouri River that the Fort Berthold Agency of the BIA administers, with the dividing line of the Missouri River being the county lines that follow the Missouri River.

    3. Uintah & Ouray—Emery, Uintah, and Grand Counties.

    4. Uintah & Ouray—Duchesne, Wasatch, and Carbon Counties.

    Under the new Indian Oil Valuation Amendments to 30 CFR 1206.54 (80 FR 24794 dated May 1, 2015), ONRR uses designated areas to calculate index-based major portion prices for lessees to comply with the major portion provisions in their leases. Designated areas are those areas ONRR identifies as unique based on their location and the crude type produced from their respective Indian lands.

    When ONRR proposed the new Indian Oil Valuation Amendments, it proposed sixteen initial designated areas. Generally, these designated areas were the Indian reservation boundaries. However, there were five designated areas which were not the reservation boundaries: Oklahoma; North Fort Berthold; South Fort Berthold; Uintah & Ouray: Uintah and Grand Counties; and Uintah and Ouray: Duchesne County.

    Under the new Indian Oil Valuation Amendments, to modify or change an existing designated area, ONRR must convene a technical conference. In implementing the new Indian Oil Valuation Amendments, ONRR discovered two potential issues. First, the preamble describes the dividing line between the North Fort Berthold Designated Area and the South Fort Berthold Designated Area as the Little Missouri River. Second, ONRR found at least one producing Indian lease that is in Wasatch County in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, which is outside of both of the designated areas listed in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. ONRR also identified two other counties—Carbon and Emery Counties—in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation that were not in the listed designated areas that do not currently have Indian leases but could in the future.

    To address these issues, ONRR held two technical conferences. ONRR published notice of the technical conferences in the Federal Register on October 29, 2015. 80 FR 66417. The first technical conference was held in person on November 20, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., Mountain Time in Denver, Colorado, at the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, Denver Federal Center, 6th Avenue and Kipling Street, Building 85, Auditoriums A-D, Denver, Colorado 80226. The second technical conference was a teleconference on November 20, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time. Fifteen people attended the technical conferences, of which seven were from ONRR, three from Tribes, and five from industry.

    ONRR also solicited comments on the proposed changes through November 30, 2015. On February 17, 2016, ONRR consulted with the Ute Indian Tribe on adding the Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery Counties to the two Uintah and Ouray Designated Areas. Also, on March 4, 2016, ONRR consulted with representatives of the Three Affiliated Tribes on changing the boundary line between the North Fort Berthold and South Fort Berthold Designated Areas.

    Public Comments: Generally, the parties attending the technical conference and consultations agreed with ONRR's proposal to modify the definition of the (1) Uintah and Ouray Designated Areas to include Wasatch, Carbon, and Emery Counties; and (2) North Fort Berthold and South Fort Berthold Designated Areas to use the Missouri River as the boundary line between the two designated areas rather than the Little Missouri River. ONRR received three additional comments: One from industry, one from an individual Indian mineral owner, and one from a Tribe.

    Public Comment: The individual Indian mineral owner sent a comment stating he did not support dividing the Fort Berthold Reservation into two designated areas for five reasons: (1) The idea of selling price by field is an anachronism; (2) the price must be the highest in the world wherever that may be because industry uses the tax code, hedging, swaps, etc. in order to obtain the highest price; (3) this attempt to reduce price is a taking under Hodel because this regulation denies the beneficiary the difference between the market rate and major portion; (4) there is no basis for allowing a transportation deduction because typical carriers charge consumers for transportation rather than the mineral owner; and (5) North Dakota recovered millions because deductions were not in their leases and, likewise, Indian leases do not authorize this illegality.

    ONRR Response: The technical conference was simply to discuss amending the Fort Berthold designated areas to use the Missouri River rather than the Little Missouri River to divide the two designated areas. These comments apply to the Indian Oil Valuation Amendments as a whole and do not directly relate to the appropriate boundary for the two Fort Berthold designated areas. ONRR addressed comments similar to the one above in the preamble of the final rule, which can be found at 80 FR 24,794 (May 1, 2015).

    Public Comment: The industry commenter suggested that ONRR take this opportunity to divide the Fort Berthold Reservation into three designated areas: The first designated area would include lands north of the Missouri River, the second would include the lands south of the Missouri River and north of the Little Missouri River, and the third would include the lands south of the Little Missouri River. The commenter believes the available transportation infrastructures support dividing the Fort Berthold Reservation into three designated areas because the lands north of the Little Missouri River have evolving pipeline facilities that can transport production from the lease, whereas leases south of the Little Missouri River do not have the same available infrastructure.

    ONRR Response: Dividing the Fort Berthold into two designated areas was a compromise negotiated by the Indian Oil Negotiated Rulemaking Committee (Committee). Generally, industry advocated using specific fields as designated areas. Alternatively, Tribes and individual Indian mineral owners promoted a broader area. Ultimately, the Committee agreed to divide Fort Berthold into two designated areas as a compromise. To date, ONRR has found no reason to ignore the conclusions of the Committee.

    The final rule and the preamble of the proposed rule specifically allow lessees/operators, Tribes, and Indian mineral owners to petition ONRR to convene a technical conference to review, modify, or add designated areas where there is a significant change that affects the location and quality differentials. The rule has not yet been in effect for a period of time sufficient to demonstrate that there has been a significant change in the market on the Fort Berthold Reservation. Should the markets change in the future, the lessees/operators, Tribes, or individual Indian mineral owners can petition ONRR to change the designated areas in the future. The purpose of this technical conference was to change the boundary between the two Fort Berthold designated areas, not to add another designated area. Therefore, adding a designated area was outside the scope of this technical conference.

    Public Comment: The Ute Indian Tribe indicated it would prefer to have Wasatch and Carbon Counties added to the Uintah & Ouray-Duchesne County Designated Area and Emery County added to the Uintah & Ouray-Grand and Uintah Counties Designated Area. The Tribe indicated the infrastructure on the Uintah & Ouray Reservation supported this configuration.

    ONRR Response: ONRR agrees with this comment and has modified the definition of the two designated areas in the Uintah and Ouray Reservation by adding Wasatch and Carbon Counties to the Uintah & Ouray-Duchesne County Designated Area and Emery County the Uintah & Ouray-Grand and Uintah Counties Designated Area.

    Dated: June 28, 2016. Gregory J. Gould, Director, Office of Natural Resources Revenue.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17599 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4335-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0668] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; James River, Hopewell, VA 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 SR 156/Benjamin Harrison Memorial Bridge across the James River, mile 65.0, at Hopewell, VA. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge maintenance and repairs. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 29, 2016 through 6 a.m. on Friday, September 30, 2016. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 8 p.m. on Monday, July 25, 2016, until July 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0668] 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 Virginia Department of Transportation, who owns and operates the SR 156/Benjamin Harrison Memorial Bridge across the James River, mile 65.0, at Hopewell, VA, has requested a temporary deviation from the current operating regulations set out in 33 CFR 117.5, to facilitate replacement of the service elevators for both lift towers, install new electrical wiring, bird screens, and structural steel of the bridge. Under this temporary deviation, the bridge will be in the closed-to-navigation position from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m.; Monday through Thursday; July 25, 2016 to July 29, 2016; August 1, 2016 to August 5, 2016; September 5, 2016 to September 9, 2016; September 12, 2016 to September 16, 2016; and alternative dates from September 19, 2016 to September 23, 2016; and September 26, 2016 to September 30, 2016. The bridge will open for vessels on signal during scheduled closure periods, if at least 24 hours notice is given. The bridge is a vertical lift bridge has a vertical clearance of 50 feet in the closed-to-navigation position above mean water.

    The James River is used by a variety of vessels including deep-draft vessels, tug and barge traffic, and recreational vessels. The Coast Guard has carefully coordinated the restrictions with waterway users in publishing this temporary deviation.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed-to-navigation position may do so at anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies during scheduled closure periods, if at least 30 minutes notice is given. The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterway through our Local Notice and Broadcast Notices 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 25, 2016. Hal R. Pitts, Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17976 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0129; FRL-9949-65-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on October 26, 2015. The revision modifies the definition of “volatile organic compounds” (VOC). Specifically, the revision adds three compounds to the list of those excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

    DATES:

    This direct final rule is effective September 27, 2016 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 29, 2016. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0129 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:

    Richard Wong, 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. The telephone number is (404) 562-8726. Mr. Wong can also be reached via electronic mail at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, occurs when VOC and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight. Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state governments limit the amount of VOCs and NOX that can be released into the atmosphere. VOC are those compounds of carbon (excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate) that form ozone through atmospheric photochemical reactions. Compounds of carbon (or organic compounds) have different levels of reactivity; they do not react at the same speed or do not form ozone to the same extent.

    Section 302(s) of the CAA specifies that EPA has the authority to define the meaning of “VOC,” and hence what compounds shall be treated as VOC for regulatory purposes. It has been EPA's policy that compounds of carbon with negligible reactivity need not be regulated to reduce ozone and should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC. See 42 FR 35314 (July 8, 1977), 70 FR 54046 (September 13, 2005). EPA determines whether a given carbon compound has “negligible” reactivity by comparing the compound's reactivity to the reactivity of ethane. EPA lists these compounds in its regulations at 40 CFR 51.100(s) and excludes them from the definition of VOC. The chemicals on this list are often called “negligibly reactive.” EPA may periodically revise the list of negligibly reactive compounds to add or delete compounds.

    EPA issued final rules approving the addition of three compounds to the list of those compounds excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC. The three compounds are: trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)), 78 FR 53029 (August 28, 2013); 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene, 78 FR 62451 (October 22, 2013); and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP), 79 FR 17037 (March 27, 2014). Alabama is updating its SIP to be consistent with those changes to federal regulations.

    II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    On October 26, 2015, ADEM submitted a SIP revision 1 to EPA for review and approval. The revision modifies the definition of VOC found at Alabama Administrative Code section 335-3-1-.02(gggg). Specifically, the revision adds three compounds—trans 1-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoroprop-1-ene (SolsticeTM 1233zd(E)); 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene; and 2-amino-2-methyl-1-propanol (AMP)—to the list of those excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that each of these compounds makes a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation.

    1 Alabama's October 26, 2015, submission to EPA also included changes to Alabama Administrative Code Chapters 335-3-5 and 335-3-8 to implement EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and changes to the State's Regional Haze Plan. EPA is not taking action on those changes at this time. In addition, Alabama's October 26, 2015, submission included changes to Chapters 335-3-10 (New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)) and 335-3-11 (National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)). The NSPS and NESHAP are not part of the federally approved Alabama SIP, thus EPA is not taking any action regarding Chapters 335-3-10 and 335-3-11 in today's rulemaking.

    These changes are consistent with section 110 of the CAA and meet the regulatory requirements pertaining to SIPs. Pursuant to CAA section 110(l), 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 CAA section 171), or any other applicable requirement of the Act. The revision to Rule 335-3-1-.02(gggg) is approvable under section 110(l) because it reflects changes to federal regulations based on findings that the three aforementioned compounds are negligibly reactive.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Alabama Regulation section 335-3-1-.02 “Definitions,” effective November 24, 2015, which revised the definition of VOC. Therefore, this material has been approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, has been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, is fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.2 EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the “For Further Information Contact” section of this preamble for more information).

    2 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).

    IV. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is approving the revision to the Alabama SIP changing the VOC definition. EPA has evaluated Alabama's October 26, 2015, submittal and has determined that it meets the applicable requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and is consistent with EPA policy.

    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective September 27, 2016 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by August 29, 2016.

    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on September 27, 2016 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

    V. 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 action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 27, 2016. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart B—Alabama 2. Section 52.50(c) is amended by revising the entry for “Section 335-3-1-.02” to read as follows:
    § 52.50 Identification of plan.

    (c) * * *

    EPA Approved Alabama Regulations State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Explanation Chapter 335-3-1—General Provisions *         *         *         *         *         *         * Section 335-3-1-.02 Definitions 11/24/2015 7/29/2016 [Insert Federal Register citation] Revised paragraph (gggg) (definition of “VOC”) *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    [FR Doc. 2016-17815 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    81 146 Friday, July 29, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-6271; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-15] Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Iron Mountain, MI AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    This action proposes to amend Class E en route airspace around the Iron Mountain VHF omnidirectional range/distance measuring equipment, Iron Mountain, MI. This action would add additional airspace to facilitate the vectoring of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft under control of the Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) in the Great Lakes area located north and northwest of the Iron Mountain, MI, VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. This proposed action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations within the National Airspace System (NAS).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2016-6271; Docket No. 16-AGL-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

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

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Raul Garza Jr., Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone: 817-222-5874.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Authority for This Rulemaking

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

    Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-6271/Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-15.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

    Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Central Service Center, Operation Support Group, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

    Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by Reference

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

    The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by amending Class E en route airspace in the Iron Mountain, MI, area, for the Iron Mountain VOR/DME. The FAA is proposing to add additional controlled airspace to the southern and northern boundaries of the Iron Mountain en route airspace area, and remove exclusionary information from the regulatory text. This proposed action would provide controlled airspace enabling Minneapolis ARTCC greater latitude to use radar vectors and altitude changes within the entire area north and northwest of the Iron Mountain, MI, VOR/DME and remove unnecessary exclusion language for clarity.

    The FAA also would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Iron Mountain, MI, to reflect the name change of the navigation aid from Iron Mountain VORTAC to Iron Mountain VOR/DME.

    Class E airspace areas are published in Sections 6005 and 6006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

    Environmental Review

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

    The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

    § 71.1 [Amended]
    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6006 En Route Domestic Airspace Areas. AGL MI E6 Iron Mountain, MI [Amended] Iron Mountain VOR/DME, MI (Lat. 45°48′58″ N., long. 088°06′44″ W.) Thunder Bay Airport, ON, Canada (Lat. 48°22′19″ N., long. 089°19′26″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within an area bounded by lat. 47°05′00″ N., long. 086°40′39″ W.; to lat. 47°05′00″ N., long. 088°27′44″ W.; to the Iron Mountain VOR/DME; to lat. 46°16′21″ N., long. 089°47′13″ W.; to lat. 46°52′34″ N., long. 090°13′09″ W. on the eastern boundary of the Wisconsin E5 airspace area; then northeast along the boundary of the Wisconsin and Minnesota E5 airspace areas to the intersection of the 35 NM radius of the Thunder Bay Airport; then counterclockwise along the 35 NM radius of the Thunder Bay Airport to the intersection of the southern boundary of the Upper Peninsula E6 airspace area; then southeast along the boundary of the Upper Peninsula E6 airspace area to the point of beginning.

    Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MI E5 Iron Mountain, MI [Amended] Iron Mountain/Kingsford, Ford Airport, MI (Lat. 45°49′06″ N., long. 88°06′52″ W.) Iron Mountain VOR/DME (Lat. 45°48′58″ N., long. 88°06′44″ W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within an 8.7-mile radius of Iron Mountain VOR/DME, and within 5.2 miles west and 8.3 miles east of the Iron Mountain ILS localizer south course extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 21 miles south of the Iron Mountain/Kingsford, Ford Airport, and within 4.4 miles each side of the Iron Mountain ILS localizer north course extending from the 8.7-mile radius to 16 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 18, 2016. Vonnie L. Royal, Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17893 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 382 [Docket No. DOT-OST-2015-0246] RIN 2105-AE12 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel: Negotiated Rulemaking Committee Fourth Meeting AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

    ACTION:

    Notice of fourth public meeting of advisory committee.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the fourth meeting of the Advisory Committee on Accessible Air Transportation (ACCESS Advisory Committee).

    DATES:

    The fourth meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on August 16 and 17, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, Virginia 22202. Attendance is open to the public up to the room's capacity of 150 attendees. Since space is limited, any member of the general public who plans to attend this meeting must notify the registration contact identified below no later than August 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To register to attend the meeting, please contact Kyle Ilgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128). For other information, please contact Livaughn Chapman or Vinh Nguyen, Office of the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, by email at [email protected] or [email protected] or by telephone at 202-366-9342.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Fourth Public Meeting of the ACCESS Committee

    The fourth meeting of the ACCESS Advisory Committee will be held on August 16 and 17, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. The meeting will be held at the Crystal City Marriott at Reagan National Airport, 1999 Jefferson Davis Highway Arlington, Virginia 22202. At the meeting, the ACCESS Advisory Committee will continue to address whether to require accessible inflight entertainment (IFE) and strengthen accessibility requirements for other in-flight communications, whether to require an accessible lavatory on new single-aisle aircraft over a certain size, and whether to amend the definition of “service animals” that may accompany passengers with a disability on a flight. This meeting will include reports from the working groups formed to address the three issues listed above. We expect that the working groups may present proposals to amend the Department's disability regulation on one or more of these issues. Prior to the meeting, the agenda will be available on the ACCESS Advisory Committee's Web site, www.transportation.gov/access-advisory-committee. Information on how to access advisory committee documents via the FDMC is contained in Section III, below.

    The meeting will be open to the public. Attendance will be limited by the size of the meeting room (maximum 150 attendees). Because space is limited, we ask that any member of the public who plans to attend the meeting notify the registration contact, Kyle Ilgenfritz ([email protected]; 703-442-4575 extension 128) at Linkvisum, no later than August 9, 2016. At the discretion of the facilitator and the Committee and time permitting, members of the public are invited to contribute to the discussion and provide oral comments.

    II. Submitting Written Comments

    Members of the public may submit written comments on the topics to be considered during the meeting by August 9, 2016, to FDMC, Docket Number DOT-OST-2015-0246. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. DOT 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 DOT 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, DOT-OST-2015-0246, 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.

    III. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments and any documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov. Enter the docket number, DOT-OST-2015-0246, in the keyword box, and click “Search.” Next, click the link to “Open Docket Folder” 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.

    IV. ACCESS Advisory Committee Charter

    The ACCESS Advisory Committee is established by charter in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx approved the ACCESS Advisory Committee charter on April 6, 2016. The committee's charter sets forth policies for the operation of the advisory committee and is available on the Department's Web site at www.transportation.gov/office-general-counsel/negotiated-regulations/charter.

    V. Privacy Act

    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.

    VI. Future Committee Meetings

    DOT anticipates that the ACCESS Advisory Committee will have two additional two-day meetings in Washington, DC The meetings are tentatively scheduled for following dates: fifth meeting, September 22-23, and the sixth and final meeting, October 13-14. Notices of all future meetings will be published in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days prior to each meeting.

    Notice of this meeting is being provided in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration regulations covering management of Federal advisory committees. See 41 CFR part 102-3.

    Issued under the authority of delegation in 49 CFR 1.27(n).

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Molly J. Moran, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17967 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration 15 CFR Chapter III [Docket No.: 160606489-6489-01] RIN 0625-AB07 Clarification and Update of the Trade Fair Certification Program AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is intending to update the Trade Fair Certification Program, which recognizes and endorses U.S. participation in selected, privately organized, foreign trade fairs, in the coming months. Proposed changes will be announced through the Federal Register and comments will be solicited and reviewed before a final rule is issued. This ANPRM solicits feedback on some of the concepts Commerce is considering for the update, and reiterates the requirements, procedures, and application review criteria of the current Trade Fair Certification Program, originally published April 30, 1993. The purpose of this document is to reiterate existing terms in the 1993 document in order to inform the public of proposed guidelines. The concepts being considered for updating the program can be found in the last section of the Supplementary Information section of this document.

    DATES:

    Comments on the proposed changes to the Program are due 20 days upon the date of publication in the Federal Register.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by the regulations.gov docket number ITA-2016-0005, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ITA-2016-0005 click the “Comment Now” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Vidya Desai, Senior Advisor, Trade Promotion Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave NW., Mezzanine Level Suite 800, Washington, DC 20004.

    Instructions: You must submit comments by one of the above methods to ensure that Commerce Department receives the comments and considers them. Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.

    Commerce Department will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Vidya Desai, Senior Advisor, Trade Promotion Programs, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Ronald Reagan Building, Suite 800M—Mezzanine Level—Atrium North, Washington, DC 20004; Telephone (202) 482-2311; Facsimile: (202) 482-7800; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A summary of the points from the 1993 document (58 FR 26116, April 30, 1993) in this document are below in Section I. However, comments are specifically being requested on Potential Concepts for Program Changes found in Section II.

    Section I: Summary

    • A $2,000 non-refundable participation fee 1 is required within 10 days of notification of Certification. This fee covers support from the local U.S. & Foreign Commercial Service (USFCS) office in the location of the fair, logistical and organizational services from the Trade Fair Certification staff at headquarters, and support provided by Commerce staff and resources generally. Additional value added services, such as coordination of business to government meetings, will be assessed an additional fee determined based on the costs attributed to coordinating such services and having the appropriate Commerce staff present to fulfill such activities.

    1 While the level of this fee is not reflected in the TFC document, 58 FR 26116 of April 30, 1993, it has continually been announced to the public on the Web page Trade Fair Certification Program Description & Benefits at http://export.gov/tradefairs/eg_main_018560.asp.

    • Applications must be received no later than 9 months prior to the commencement of the fair for which Certification is sought, but no earlier than the conclusion of the prior event.

    • Overseas trade fairs must commit to recruiting a minimum of 10 U.S. exhibitors for Trade Fair Certification consideration.

    • The USFCS logo will be authorized for use by a Certified Trade Fair to aid in recruitment of U.S. exhibitors.

    • For fairs occurring in cities or locales where there is no USFCS Office, or where the Commerce staff responsible for the industry theme of such if fair is not local, the presence of Commerce staff at the fair may be considered a value added service and incur additional fees for the organizer.

    • First time and horizontal fairs are not eligible for Certification.

    • Applicants applying for Certification of an existing trade fair must have experience in recruiting U.S. exhibitors for that show or another show with the same industry theme.

    • Applications for Certification must include satisfactory documentation, in English, of the commitment of necessary exhibit space by the owner or lessor of the facility in which the fair will be held. Documentation should consist of: (1) A lease or letter from the owner or lessor stating that the applicant holds the necessary exhibition space, or (2) a letter demonstrating an offer of specific exhibition space by the owner or lessor of the facility; and a letter indicating the applicant's acceptance of the terms.

    • Only applications submitted by U.S. persons or entities will be considered. For this purpose, the U.S. subsidiary, branch or agent of a foreign firm is considered a U.S. person or entity. Applications for fairs in which the applicant does not lease exhibit space directly, but relies on their parent foreign fair organizer to obtain exhibit space, must be submitted by the foreign fair organizer and co-signed by the U.S. subsidiary, branch or agent.

    • Certified fair organizers must provide a list of recruited U.S. exhibitors to the Commerce Project Officer. The list should include the exhibitor's name, address, products displayed and the name, email address and phone number of the exhibitor's international sales contact.2 The list must be received 45 days prior to the event.

    2 If disclosure of this information is in violation of an organization's written privacy policy agreement with its members, the Show Organizer may opt out of providing this information.

    • In order for the fair organizer to consider a participant a U.S. exhibitor, the participant must be (1) a U.S. citizen, U.S. corporation, or a foreign corporation that is more than 95% U.S.-owned and (2) the products it exhibits at the fair must be: (a) manufactured or produced in the United States, or (b) if manufactured or produced outside of the United States, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least fifty-one percent of the value of the finished good or service.

    The following reiterates the Trade Fair Certification (TFC) Program as set out in 58 FR 26116 of April 30, 1993:

    The Department of Commerce established the TFC Program in 1983 to encourage qualified private sector fair organizers to recruit U.S. exhibitors for overseas trade fairs. The Program provides the private sector with greater opportunities to work with Commerce in support of U.S. participation in overseas trade fairs. Private sector organizers of a Certified Trade Fair assume the responsibilities of organizing the fair, or U.S. participation in it. Certification assures the private sector organizer of Commerce recognition and support of its efforts to recruit U.S. exporters.

    Certification provides a means for U.S. exporters to verify that a particular trade fair will be a good promotional medium providing good export opportunities. Prospective U.S. exhibitors at Certified Trade Fairs know that Commerce personnel will be available to assist them and to counsel them about export matters that may arise before, during or after the show. Certification thus indirectly serves the U.S. manufacturer or service provider seeking export opportunities.

    Certification is for one fair only; fairs that have been certified previously must apply for certification again for any future anticipated event. This allows Commerce to evaluate the latest market conditions in determining whether to certify each fair. Commerce does not provide any financial assistance to organizers or to exhibitors at Certified Trade Fairs.

    There is no fee required to submit an application. If Certification is approved, a participation fee of $2,000 is required. The participation fee is due within 10 days of notification of acceptance into the program.

    Certification indicates that Commerce has found the applicable fair to be a good export opportunity warranting participation by U.S. exporters. Certification indicates that the fair and the organizer have met basic criteria and that the organizer is qualified to perform in a manner supportive of Commerce's objectives. However, Certification does not constitute a guarantee of the fair's success or of the organizer's or exhibitor's performance. Commerce limits Certification to fairs that in its judgment, most clearly meet the program objectives and selection criteria set out herein.

    Eligibility: All international/overseas trade events are eligible to apply for Trade Fair Certification, through a U.S. agent (person or entity).

    Exclusions: Trade shows that are either first-time or horizontal (non-industry specific) events generally will not be considered. For the purposes of the TFC program, a first-time fair is a distinct, separate trade fair that has not been held before in the relevant country. The term “first-time event” does not refer to a fair different in name only from a previous, identical fair. A fair developed for the first time as a “breakout” from an existing trade fair will be considered a first-time fair. Applications for a fair that occurs in different countries on a rotating basis under the same title will be considered provided the fair has occurred in the relevant country during the preceding five years.

    General Evaluation Criteria: Commerce will evaluate shows for Trade Fair Certification using the following criteria:

    (a) The fair must be a good export opportunity for the featured industry or industries. The fair must have good potential for U.S. export promotion. In applying this criterion, Commerce will consider such factors as: Whether the fair's industry theme is included in Commerce's Top Market reports, Country Commercial Guides, and input from US&FCS offices in the relevant region;

    (b) The degree to which the fair provides promise of foreign market exposure for the latest technology or techniques in an industry or in a commercially recognized category of goods or services in the sector or field promoted by the fair;

    (c) Whether the fair provides a unique opportunity for export promotion within a particular market;

    (d) The appropriateness of the fair for a minimum of 10 U.S. exhibitors, ideally located in an identifiable U.S. pavilion within the show; and

    (e) Whether U.S. exhibitors are likely to exhibit goods or services representing U.S. industry in the particular field involved.

    (f) The theme, timing and location of the fair; previous exhibitors' experience with the organizer; the USFCS office's familiarity with the fair (and if applicable, its recommendation in its end-of-show report for the previous event); and whether Commerce's support would contribute to the enhancement of the U.S. exhibitor's export potential.

    In order for a fair organizer to consider a participant a U.S. exhibitor, the participant must be (1) a U.S. citizen, U.S. corporation, or a foreign corporation that is more than 95% U.S.-owned and (2) the products it exhibits at the fair must be: (a) Manufactured or produced in the United States, or (b) if manufactured or produced outside of the United States, marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least fifty-one percent of the value of the finished good or service.

    Application Requirements: Applicants submitting applications for Trade Fair Certification must submit: (1) A narrative statement addressing each question in the application, Form ITA 4100P (found at www.export.gov/tradefairs); (2) a signed statement that “The information submitted in this application is correct and the applicant will abide by the terms set forth in the Participation Agreement and Conditions of Participation;” (3) any other relevant information. All application materials must be submitted via email to [email protected] no later than 270 days (9 months) prior to the first day of the fair, and no earlier than the conclusion of the prior occurrence of the event. There is no fee required to apply.

    Certified Trade Fair Organizer Responsibilities:

    Applicants will be notified via email 4-6 weeks from the date of application submission as to their selection status.

    A Certified Trade Fair Organizer is expected to:

    (a) Pay the $2,000 non-refundable participation fee for Trade Fair Certification to Commerce within 10 business days of notice that the fair has been certified;

    (b) Designate an individual on the organizer's staff to act as the point-of-contact for Commerce staff on all aspects of the show with Commerce personnel;

    (c) Provide the following exhibition services:

    • Display space comparable with industry standards for similar trade events;

    • Freight forwarding and exhibit set-up services including, but not limited to, the unloading of participants' equipment at the exhibition site, delivery to the participants' booths, unpacking, placement in display area, storing packing crates, repacking and loading for onward shipment, customs clearance, and any other services required to assure the prompt and orderly receipt and dispatch of material in and out of the exhibition site;

    • Installation of a display system, chairs, tables, standard company identification and standard opening identification signs;

    • Utilities and hook-up services; and

    • Assistance in hiring interpreters, clerical personnel or booth attendants as required by participants.

    All fees to be charged to participants for standard and supplementary services must be stated in the organizer's application and be within reasonable range of such charges in the market as can be verified by Commerce's post in-country.

    (d) Undertaking, as appropriate, a comprehensive promotional campaign, such as in-country pre-show press conferences and meetings to reach importers, distributors, agents, buyers and end-users;

    (e) Provide, at no cost to the Post, space and a furnished booth for use as the Business Information Office (BIO). If a U.S. pavilion is utilized, the BIO should be co-located with the exhibitors in the U.S. pavilion.

    (f) In keeping with Commerce's mandate, show evidence of efforts to target infrequent exporters (new-to-market firms) and small and medium sized firms in its recruitment efforts.

    (g) If the fair is located at a site where there is no US&FCS office or where the Commerce staff responsible for the show's industry theme is not local, pay the per-diem and travel-related expenses that exceed the allocation for such expenses in the participation fee, subject to Commerce's guidelines.

    (h) Provide a list of recruited U.S. exhibitors to the Commerce project officer 45 days prior to the commencement of the fair.

    (i) Certify that the products and services the recruited U.S. exhibitors seek to market at the fair:

    1. Are manufactured or produced in the United States, or

    2. If manufactured or produced outside of the United States, are marketed under the name of a U.S. firm and have U.S. content representing at least 51 percent of the value of the finished good or service.

    (j) Prominently display the US&FCS logo or International Trade Administration (ITA) emblem on event promotional materials, exhibition booth fascia, and throughout the U.S. pavilion, if one is organized, in accordance with applicable Commerce Department logo use policies.

    The Trade Fair Certification Program is the principal program Commerce uses to support private sector recruitment and organization of overseas trade fairs. As a condition of using the US&FCS logo or ITA emblem for a Certified Trade Fair, it must be the dominant logo used to promote the fair to U.S. exhibitors;

    • If other U.S. Government or non-government logos are used, they must appear smaller than the US&FCS logo or ITA emblem and may not be co-mingled with the US&FCS logo or ITA emblem.

    • Documentation of the use of the US&FCS logo or ITA emblem should be sent to Commerce for recordkeeping. Advance review of the use is not required. Fair organizers are encouraged to ask Commerce for guidance on the proper use of its logos/emblems.

    • Failure to abide by Commerce policies on the proper use of its logos/emblems may result in the fair being de-certified.

    Commerce reserves the right to “decertify” a fair at any time after Certification is granted if the organizer has not or is not likely to fulfill its responsibilities as a Certified Trade Fair organizer. In such an event, the organizer shall remain solely responsible for its obligations to the recruited U.S. exhibitors. Commerce may withdraw all assistance and support, including the right of the organizer to use the US&FCS logo or ITA emblem.

    Department of Commerce Services and Responsibilities:

    Commerce support provided for Certified Trade Fairs will generally be the same for all certified fairs, but minor variances may exist, depending on the circumstances of the fair, and the specific needs of the organizer and of Commerce.

    For a Certified Trade Fair, Commerce is expected to:

    (a) Provide a certificate designating that the fair as being certified by the U.S. Department of Commerce;

    (b) Authorize the use of the US&FCS logo and the ITA emblem on appropriate fair publicity materials, in accordance with applicable Commerce Department logo use policies;

    (c) Provide authorization for the use of other Commerce-approved references that indicate the Department recognizes and supports the fair, in accordance with Commerce policies;

    (d) Provide a designated project officer to assist the organizer and act as a Commerce point-of-contact;

    (e) Provide the organizer, upon request, with relevant public Commerce reports and publications;

    (f) Encourage potential U.S. exhibitors, through Commerce's normal course of export counseling or through contacts with business and trade associations, to consider participation in the Certified Trade Fair and refer inquiries to the show organizer; and

    (j) Upon request and to the extent available, arrange counseling for U.S. exhibitors by U.S. Export Assistance Center Trade Specialists and Industry and Analysis Industry Analysts in advance of the fair.

    Local US&FCS Office Services and Responsibilities:

    In addition to the general Commerce support listed above, the designated US&FCS office for the Certified Trade Fair is expected to:

    (a) Furnish the organizer with a list of key local associations, distributors, agents, government entities, and other relevant information;

    (b) Promote the fair locally by including an announcement of the event in its commercial newsletter or the equivalent;

    (c) Upon request and subject to the availability of resources, provide staff at a Business Information Office to counsel U.S. exhibitors, facilitate contacts between exhibitors and visitors, and promote US&FCS services. The BIO cannot be used for any other purpose, unless agreed to by the US&FCS office; and

    (d) Upon request and subject to the availability of resources, provide additional services, such as: A U.S. exhibitor briefing; reception; promotional mailing; ribbon-cutting ceremony; press conference; etc. If the costs of these additional services exceed the allocation of the participation fee for the US&FCS Office, the organizer will incur an additional fee. Such costs will be determined by the Senior Commercial Officer at the designated US&FCS Office.

    Legal Authority:

    Authority for the Trade Fair Certification Program is provided by 15 U.S.C. 4721, which authorizes US&FCS to promote U.S. exports and support U.S. commercial interests abroad, and the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act (MECEA) of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2455(f) and 2458(c)), as incorporated into ITA's annual appropriations act, Public Law 114-113, 129 Stat. 2287.

    Section II. Potential Concepts for Program Changes

    The Department of Commerce intends to make significant changes to the Trade Fair Certification Program in the future. Some of the potential concepts under consideration may include, but are not limited to, the bulleted list below. We welcome public comments on these concepts.

    • The Department is considering changing the application timeframe from rolling applications to an annual application period, meaning applications will be collected during a 45-60 day application period held once a year.

    • The Department is considering increasing the price of the Program.

    • The Department is considering offering Trade Show Organizers an a la carte menu of services instead of one standard service. Prices will be associated with each service option.

    • The Department is considering tiers of service with different levels of Departmental engagement priced at different levels.

    • The Department is considering raising the minimum number of U.S. exhibitors from 10 to 25 or more.

    • The Department is considering changing the minimum number of U.S. exhibitors from 10 exhibitors to a set percentage of the total number of exhibitors.

    • The Department is considering issuing a formal Memorandum of Agreement, outlining the responsibilities of both parties and signed by both parties, for selected shows.

    Electronic Submission of Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this advance notice of proposed rulemaking according to these instructions. Commenters should make online submissions using http://www.regulations.gov. Comments should be submitted under ITA-2016-0005. To find this docket, enter the docket number in the “Enter Keyword or ID” Window at the http://www.regulations.gov home page and click “Search.” The site will provide a search-results page listing all documents associated with the docket number. Find a reference to this document by selecting “Proposed Rule” under “Document Type” on the search-results page, and click on the link entitled “Submit a Comment.” The http:// www.regulations.gov Web site provides the option of making submissions by filling in a comments field, or by attaching a document. ITA prefers submissions to be provided in an attached document. (For further information on using http://www.regulations.gov, please consult the resources provided on the Web site by clicking on the “Help” tab.) Please do not attach separate cover letters to electronic submissions; rather, include any information that might appear in a cover letter in the comments themselves. Similarly, to the extent possible, please include any exhibits, annexes, or other attachments in the same file as the submission itself, not as separate files.

    All comments submitted in response to this document will be made available to the public so should not include any privileged or confidential business information. The file name should begin with the character “P” (signifying that the comments contain no privileged or confidential business information and can be posted publicly), followed by the name of the person or entity submitting the comments.

    Frank Spector, Senior Advisor for Trade Missions, Trade Promotion Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17414 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 28 CFR Part 35 [CRT Docket No. 128] RIN 1190-AA65 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Government Entities AGENCY:

    Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    On May 9, 2016, the Department of Justice (Department) published a Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM) in the Federal Register addressing the potential application of technical accessibility requirements to the Web sites of title II entities. The comment period is scheduled to close on August 8, 2016. The Department is extending the comment period by 60 days until October 7, 2016, in order to provide additional time for the public to prepare comments.

    DATES:

    The comment period for the SANPRM, published on May 9, 2016 (81 FR 28657), is extended. All comments must be received by October 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by RIN 1190-AA65 (or Docket ID No. 128), by any one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Web site: www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site's instructions for submitting comments.

    Regular U.S. mail: Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 2885, Fairfax, VA 22031-0885.

    Overnight, courier, or hand delivery: Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Suite 4039, Washington, DC 20005.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rebecca Bond, Chief, Disability Rights Section, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, at (202) 307-0663 (voice or TTY). This is not a toll-free number. Information may also be obtained from the Department's toll-free ADA Information Line at (800) 514-0301 (voice) or (800) 514-0383 (TTY). This document is available in alternate formats for people with disabilities.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of Justice published a Supplemental Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SANPRM) in the Federal Register on May 9, 2016, addressing the potential application of technical accessibility requirements to the Web sites of title II entities. 81 FR 28657 (May 9, 2016). The SANPRM asks 123 multipart questions, seeking public comment on a wide range of complex issues related to the potential technical accessibility requirements as well as any proposed title II Web rule's costs and benefits. Following the SANPRM's publication, the Department received three comments requesting that the public comment period be extended by 90 days. The requests indicated that more time is needed to provide meaningful, comprehensive responses to the SANPRM because of the complexity of issues discussed, the number of questions posed, and the amount of data and information requested.

    The Department has decided to grant a 60-day extension of the comment period until October 7, 2016. Given the importance of both providing title II entities with clear guidance regarding their ADA obligations for Web access and providing persons with disabilities equal access to State and local government programs, services, and activities, the Department seeks to continue moving the rulemaking process forward. Additionally, a title II Web accessibility rule is likely to facilitate the creation of an infrastructure for Web accessibility that will be very important in the Department's preparation of the title III Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Web site accessibility for public accommodations. Further delays in this title II rulemaking, therefore, will have the effect of hindering the title III Web rulemaking's timeline as well. The Department believes that this 60-day extension provides sufficient time to allow interested parties to provide comments on this SANPRM. Comments on the SANPRM may be provided by October 7, 2016, via the methods described above.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Vanita Gupta, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18003 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Parts 140, 143, and 146 46 CFR Parts 61 and 62 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0063] RIN 1625-AC16 Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems; Training Certification Programs AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of dynamic positioning training certification programs.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is providing the following information on dynamic positioning training certification programs.

    DATES:

    July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information about this document, call Ms. Mayte Medina, U.S. Coast Guard, 202-372-1492

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On November 28, 2014, the Coast Guard published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on Requirements for MODUs and Other Vessels Conducting Outer Continental Shelf Activities With Dynamic Positioning Systems (Docket No. USCG-2014-0063, RIN 1625-AC16) (79 FR 70943). The NPRM proposes to establish minimum design, operation, training, and manning standards for mobile offshore drilling units and other vessels using dynamic positioning systems to engage in Outer Continental Shelf activities. The Coast Guard has not yet published a final rule on this subject.

    Since the comment period closed, the Coast Guard has received inquiries regarding availability of dynamic positioning training certification programs. We are aware of three industry accepted training certification programs for dynamic positioning:

    • The Offshore Service Vessel Dynamic Positioning Authority's (OSVDPA) MPP-1-001, the OSVDPA's Manual of Policies and Procedures (Version 1) (January 2016);

    • The Nautical Institute's Dynamic Positioning Operator's Training and Certification Scheme Version 1.1 (January 2015); and,

    • Det Norske Veritas/Germanischer Lloyd's Recommended Practice for Certification Scheme for Dynamic Positioning Operators (DNVGL-RP-0007).

    The Coast Guard is providing this information to assist the public in locating dynamic positioning training certification programs, and does not endorse or recommend any such program. To the extent that programs not listed above may exist, their absence from the list is due entirely to the fact that the Coast Guard is unaware of them, and does not constitute or imply a determination that programs on the list are preferable to any that may exist and are not included on the list.

    This document is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: July 26, 2016. J.G. Lantz, Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, United States Coast Guard.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18036 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket Number USCG-2016-0288] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone, Banks Channel; Wrightsville Beach, NC AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters adjacent to Harbor Island and Wrightsville Beach, NC. This proposed safety zone would restrict vessel movement on portions of Masonboro Inlet, Banks Channel, and Motts Channel during the PPD Ironman NC event on October 22, 2016. This action is necessary for the safety of life on the surrounding navigable waters during this event. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

    DATES:

    Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 15, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2016-0288 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 Petty Officer Ryan Phillips, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina, Coast Guard; telephone (910)772-2212, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On October 22, 2016, PPD Ironman NC notified the Coast Guard that as part of the PPD Ironman NC event approximately 2500 swimmers will compete along a course starting at Masonboro Inlet from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 22, 2016. The course begins at approximate location latitude 34°11′13″ N. longitude 077°48′53″ W., continuing north in Banks Channel crossing at the approximate location latitude 34°12′14″ N. longitude 077°48′04″ W. into Motts channel heading west stopping at Sea Path Marina where swimmers will exit the water approximately at latitude 34°12′44″ N. longitude 077°48′25″ W. in Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of swimmers and rescue crews from hazards associated with vessel traffic and other hazards. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP proposes to establish a safety zone from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 22, 2016. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters starting at the approximate position latitude 34°11′13″ N., longitude 077°48′53″ W., heading north to approximate position latitude 34°12′14″ N., longitude 077°48′04″ W., traveling west and ending at approximate position latitude 34°12′44″ N., longitude 077°48′25″ W. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of swimmers during the scheduled 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. swimming event. Except for vessels authorized by the COTP North Carolina or her designated representative, no person or vessel except safety crew designated by PPD Ironman NC may enter or remain in the safety zone. All persons and vessels granted permission to enter the zone must comply with the instructions of the COTP North Carolina or her designed representative.

    Notification of the temporary safety zone will be provided to the public via marine information broadcasts. 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 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, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

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

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

    C. Collection of Information

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

    D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rulemaking 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: a safety zone lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry into the proposed safety zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. 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 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add, under the undesignated center heading Fifth Coast Guard District, temporary § 165.T05-0437 to read as follows:
    § 165.T05-0437 Safety Zone, Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section, Captain of the Port means the Commander, Sector North Carolina. Representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.

    (b) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters at Masonboro Inlet starting at approximate location latitude 34°11′13″ N. longitude 077°48′53″ W., heading north in Banks Channel at approximate location latitude 34°12′14″ N. longitude 077°48′04″ W., heading west into Motts channel and stopping at Sea Path Marina approximately at latitude 34°12′44″ N. longitude 077°48′25″ W. in Wrightsville Beach, NC.

    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in § 165.23 apply to the area described in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (2) Persons or vessels requesting entry into or passage through any portion of the safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of the Port, or a designated representative. The Captain of the Port or his designated representative can be contacted at telephone number (910) 343-3882 or by radio on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16.

    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.

    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 22, 2016, unless cancelled earlier by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: July 14, 2016. P.J. Hill, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port North Carolina.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17927 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0129; FRL-9949-64-Region 4] Air Plan Approval; Alabama: Volatile Organic Compounds AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the Alabama State Implementation Plan submitted by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management on October 26, 2015. The revision modifies the definition of “volatile organic compounds” (VOC). Specifically, the revision adds three compounds to the list of those excluded from the VOC definition on the basis that these compounds make a negligible contribution to tropospheric ozone formation. This action is being taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2016-0129 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:

    Richard Wong, 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. Wong can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-8726 or via electronic mail at [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's implementation plan revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: July 15, 2016. Heather McTeer Toney, Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17813 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0407; FRL-9949-67-Region 7] Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove elements of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from the State of Iowa for the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Infrastructure SIPs address the applicable requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) section 110, which requires that each state adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each new or revised NAAQS promulgated by the EPA. These SIPs are commonly referred to as “infrastructure” SIPs. 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.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0407, to 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:

    Heather Hamilton, Air Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219; telephone number: (913) 551-7039; email address: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to EPA. A detailed technical support document (TSD) is included in this rulemaking docket to address the following: A description of Clean Air Act section 110(a)(1) and (2) infrastructure SIPs; the applicable elements under sections 110(a)(1) and (2); EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submissions, and EPA's evaluation of how Iowa addressed the relevant elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). This section provides additional information by addressing the following questions:

    I. What is being addressed in this document? II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met? III. What action is EPA taking? I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa received on January 17, 2013. Specifically, EPA proposes to approve the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3 only, (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA proposes to disapprove element (D)(i)(II)—prong 4. EPA will not be acting on sections (D)(i)(I)—prongs 1 and 2, and (I).

    A Technical Support Document (TSD) is included as part of the docket to discuss the details of this proposal, including analysis of how the SIP meets the applicable 110 requirements for infrastructure SIPs.

    II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more detail in the TSD which is part of this document, the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing regulations.

    III. What action is EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the January 17, 2013 infrastructure SIP submission from the State of Iowa, which addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As stated above, EPA proposes to approve the following elements of section 110(a)(2): (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3 only, (E) through (H), and (J) through (M). EPA proposes to disapprove element (D)(i)(II)—prong 4. Details of the submission are addressed in a TSD as part of the docket to discuss the proposal.

    We are processing this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any comments.

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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 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 and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

    V. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by section 110 of the CAA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410).

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Prevention of significant deterioration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 18, 2016. Mark Hague, Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

    PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Subpart Q—Iowa 2. In § 52.820, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding the entry “(43) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2008 Ozone NAAQS” in numerical order to read as follows:
    § 52.820 Identification of plan.

    (e) * * *

    EPA-Approved Iowa Nonregulatory Provisions Name of nonregulatory SIP provision Applicable
  • geographic or
  • nonattainment area
  • State submittal date EPA approval date Explanation
    *         *         *         *         *         *         * (43) Sections 110(a)(1) and (2) Infrastructure Requirements 2008 Ozone NAAQS Statewide 1/17/13 7/29/16 [Insert Federal Register citation] This action addresses the following CAA elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II)—prong 3 only, (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). 110(a)(2)(I) is not applicable. [EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0407; FRL-9949-67-Region 7].
    [FR Doc. 2016-17787 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management 43 CFR Part 3160 [WO-300-L13100000.PP0000] RIN 1004-AE37 Onshore Oil and Gas Operations; Federal and Indian Oil and Gas Leases; Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1, Approval of Operations AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed order.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is proposing to amend its existing Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 (Onshore Order 1) to require the electronic filing (or e-filing) of all Applications for Permit to Drill (APD) and Notices of Staking (NOS). Currently, Onshore Order 1 states that an “operator must file an APD or any other required documents in the BLM Field Office having jurisdiction over the lands described in the application,” but allows for e-filing of such documents in the alternative. This proposal would change that structure to make e-filing the required method of submission, subject to limited exceptions. The BLM is making this change to improve the efficiency and transparency of the APD and NOS processes.

    DATES:

    Send your comments on this proposal to the BLM on or before August 29, 2016. The BLM need not consider, nor include in the administrative record for the final order, comments received after this date. If you wish to comment on the information collection requirements in this proposed order, please note that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this proposed order between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the proposed order to the BLM by any of the following methods:

    Mail: Director (630) Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Room 2134 LM, Washington, DC 20240, Attention: 1004-AE37.

    Personal or messenger delivery: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, 20 M Street SE., Room 2134 LM, Attention: Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20003.

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at this Web site.

    You may submit comments on the proposed collection of information by fax or electronic mail to OMB by any of the following methods:

    Fax: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior, 202-395-5806.

    Electronic mail: [email protected]

    On all submissions to OMB, please indicate “Attention: Approval of Operations, OMB Control Number 1004-XXXX,” regardless of the method used. If you submit comments on the proposed collection of information, please provide the BLM with a courtesy copy of your comments at one of the addresses shown above.

    Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask in your comment for the BLM to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steven Wells, Division Chief, Fluid Minerals Division, 202-912-7143 for information regarding the substance of the order or information about the BLM's Fluid Minerals Program. For information on procedural matters or the rulemaking process, please contact Mark Purdy, Regulatory Affairs Division, 202-912-7635. 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 individuals during normal business hours. FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to leave a message or question with the above individuals. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Public Comment Procedures II. Background III. Discussion of the Proposed Order IV. Procedural Matters I. Public Comment Procedures

    This proposed order is administrative in nature and would not change the content of what must be submitted in an APD or NOS, only the method of submission; therefore, this proposed order has a 30-day public comment period. Please make your comments as specific as possible by confining them to issues directly related to the content of this proposed rule, and explain the basis for your comments. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are:

    1. Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and

    2. Those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.

    The BLM is not obligated to consider or include in the Administrative Record for the final order comments received after the close of the comment period (see DATES) or comments delivered to an address other than those listed above (see ADDRESSES). Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the address listed under ADDRESSES during regular hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday through Friday, except holidays.

    II. Background

    The BLM regulations governing onshore oil and gas operations are found at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 3160, Onshore Oil and Gas Operations. Section 3164.1 provides for the issuance of Onshore Oil and Gas Orders to implement and supplement the regulations found in part 3160. Onshore Order 1 has been in effect since October 21, 1983, and was most recently amended in 2007 (see 72 FR 10308 (March 7, 2007)).

    Through this proposal, the BLM is proposing to modify Onshore Order 1 to require operators to submit NOSs and APDs through the BLM's electronic permitting (e-permitting) system, as opposed to the current system, which allows either hardcopy or electronic submission. Under the proposed order, the BLM would consider granting waivers to the e-filing requirement for individuals who request a waiver because they would experience hardship if required to e-file (e.g., if an operator is prevented from e-filing or is in a situation that would make e-filing so difficult to perform that it would significantly delay an operator's APD submission).

    An APD is a request to drill an oil or gas well on Federal or Indian lands. An operator must have an approved APD prior to drilling.1 Prior to submitting an APD, an applicant may file an NOS requesting the BLM to conduct an onsite review of an operator's proposed oil and gas drilling project. The purpose of an NOS is to provide the operator with an opportunity to gather information and better address site-specific resource concerns associated with a project while preparing their APD package. Operators are not required to submit an NOS prior to filing an APD.

    1 In some cases, operators are companies owned by individual Indian tribes. Such companies are usually established to produce the minerals owned by the tribe and, thus, are operated for the benefit of the tribe.

    The BLM has recently experienced a decrease in the number of APDs received due to current market conditions. Historically, the BLM received an average of about 5,000 APDs per year for wells on Federal and Indian lands, of which Indian lands account for about 16%. In FY 2015, the BLM received approximately 4,500 APDs. In FY 2016 to date, through the end of June 2016, BLM has received 1,010 APDs. In coming years, due to the recent drop in oil prices and persistently low natural gas prices, the BLM conservatively estimates that an average of 3,000 APDs will be submitted per year. The BLM anticipates these market conditions to continue for the near term.

    Over the last few years, roughly half of the APDs submitted to the BLM were submitted using the e-permitting system (Well Information System, or WIS). The other half of the APDs were submitted in hard copy. The available data show that use of the BLM's e-permitting system for APDs and NOSs is common and broad-based among operators, and therefore is not a novel concept. More importantly, the data show that the use of e-filing has increased over time, with the rate nearly doubling from 26 percent in FY 2010 to 51 percent in FY 2014. As of 2014, approximately 411 operators had used the BLM's legacy WIS to e-file NOSs, APDs, well completion reports, sundry notices, and other application materials. Those operators represent an estimated 85 percent of the operators that conduct drilling and completion operations on Federal and Indian leases nationwide.

    The BLM's legacy WIS system is a web-based application that operators can use to submit permit applications and other types of information electronically over the Internet. The WIS system was an extension of the BLM's current Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS). AFMSS is a database used to track various types of oil and gas information on Federal and Indian lands, including the processing of APDs.

    Automated Fluid Minerals Support System II

    The BLM has developed and deployed an update to its Automated Fluid Minerals Support System called AFMSS II. The APD module within AFMSS II replaces the legacy WIS system. In December 2015, the BLM began phasing in AFMSS II's APD module and conducting training for staff and operators. As of the date of this proposal, the APD module is fully operational, and the BLM anticipates that WIS will be phased out in the third quarter of calendar year 2016. Therefore, the BLM anticipates that the number of operators who use the APD module will continue to increase.

    Efficiency and Transparency

    The goal of the AFMSS II system and the proposed amendments to Onshore Order 1 is to improve operational efficiency and transparency in the processing of APDs and NOSs by requiring operators to use BLM's updated e-permitting system as the default approach to APD filing. Although data show that voluntary use of the e-permitting system has increased over time, the proposal is necessary to move towards 100 percent electronic APD submission.

    This shift presents potential advantages to operators, including operators owned by individual Indian tribes, because the new AFMSS II system is expected to streamline the application process. The system will expedite processing and enhance transparency resulting in savings to both operators and the U.S. Government by:

    • Reducing the number of applications with deficiencies by providing users the ability to identify and correct errors through error notifications during the submission process;

    • Utilizing the auto-fill function to automatically populate data fields based on users' previously submitted information;

    • Allowing operators to track the progress of their application throughout the BLM review process;

    • Facilitating the use of pre-approved plans, such as Master Development Plans and Master Leasing Plans; and

    • Allowing users to directly interface with BLM applications.

    The AFMSS II system was developed in response to the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) and the Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General's (OIG) recommendations in GAO report 13-572 (GAO-13-572) and OIG report CR-EV-MOA-0003-2013 (Report No. CR-EV-MOA-0003-2013). Both reports recommended that the BLM ensure that all key dates associated with the processing of APDs are completely and accurately entered and retained in AFMSS, and in any new system that replaces AFMSS, to help assess compliance with deadlines and identify ways to improve the efficiency of the APD review process. Additionally, the OIG report recommends that the BLM: (1) Develop, implement, enforce, and report performance timelines for APD processing; (2) Develop outcome-based performance measures for the APD process that help enable management to improve productivity; and (3) Ensure that the modifications to AFMSS enable accurate and consistent data entry, effective workflow management, efficient APD processing, and APD tracking at the BLM Field Office level. The APD module developed for AFMSS II addresses these recommendations from the OIG and the GAO.

    III. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    This proposal would revise existing Onshore Order 1, which primarily supplements 43 CFR 3162.3 and 3162.5. Section 3162.3 covers conduct of operations, applications to drill on a lease, subsequent well operations, other miscellaneous lease operations, and abandonment. Section 3162.5 covers environmental and safety obligations.

    Section-by-Section Discussion of Proposed Changes

    This section of the preamble explains the handful of changes that the BLM is proposing to make to the existing provisions of Order 1. However, in order to provide context for the proposed changes, we have included the subsections where BLM's proposed changes are being made in their entirety—Where To File an APD, Where To File an NOS, and APD Posting. No other changes beyond the modifications proposed here are being made to those sections.

    Where To File an APD

    The proposed revision to section III.A. would require operators to file APDs using the BLM's electronic commerce application, AFMSS II, for oil and gas permitting and reporting. The BLM hopes to move towards an electronic submission rate of 100 percent. Receiving a portion of the APDs electronically and a portion in hard copy introduces a number of inefficiencies and necessitates multiple records management systems. In addition, the BLM anticipates that submission through the e-permitting system will improve processing times, public participation, and transparency.

    Where To File an NOS

    Similarly, the proposed revision to section III.C. would require operators to file NOSs using the BLM's e-permitting system for oil and gas permitting and reporting. As for APDs, the BLM hopes to move towards an electronic submission rate for NOSs of 100 percent. As with APDs, receiving a portion of the NOSs electronically and a portion in hard copy introduces a number of inefficiencies and necessitates multiple records management systems. In addition, we expect that submission through the e-permitting system will improve processing times, transparency, and public participation.

    APD Posting

    Section III.E.1. currently requires the BLM to post information about the APD or NOS in an area of the local BLM Field Office that is readily accessible to the public. Section III.E.1. also calls for this information to be posted on the Internet when possible, though this is not required. Currently, some offices are posting information about an APD or an NOS on their local Field Office Web site. Under the proposed revision to section III.E.1., the BLM would still post hardcopy information about the APD or NOS in the applicable BLM Field Office, but it would also post the information on the Internet in all cases. The BLM is making this change to increase consistency, transparency, and efficiency for both operators who file APD submissions and the public. In addition to revising section III.E.1. to require the BLM to post information about APDs and NOSs online in all cases, the BLM has also clarified that section to ensure consistency with 43 CFR 3162.3-1(g), which requires the BLM to post certain information about an APD or NOS at least 30 days before approval for publication inspection. In addition to consistency with the regulations, this change is also consistent with the BLM's statutory obligations to protect confidential business obligation.

    Although this proposed revision would update how the BLM posts APD and NOS information, it would not change the type of information that would be posted, which is specified in 43 CFR 3162.3-1(g). This section already identifies what information should be posted: The company/operator name; the well name/number; and the well location described to the nearest quarter-quarter section (40 acres), or similar land description in the case of lands described by metes and bounds, or maps showing the affected lands and the location of all tracts to be leased, and of all leases already issued in the general area. Where the inclusion of maps in such posting is not practicable, the BLM provides maps of the affected lands available to the public for review. In addition, as under the current order, this posting requirement would apply only to APDs or NOSs proposing to drill into and produce Federal minerals. The posting requirement would not apply to APDs or NOSs for Indian minerals, which are not made publicly available.

    Waiver From Electronic Submissions

    Proposed section III.I. is a new section that would allow operators to request a waiver from the requirements in proposed sections III.A. and III.C. This section would be different from section X., which addresses the requirements for requesting a variance from this Order. Unlike a variance from the substantive requirements of Order 1, a waiver under this proposed order is limited to the means of submission of an APD (electronic or hardcopy). A waiver under section III. would also be different from a waiver under section XI., which addresses lease stipulations. Unlike a waiver from the requirement(s) of a lease stipulation, a waiver under this proposed order is not a permanent exemption from the BLM's requirement to file applications electronically. The BLM's approval of a waiver request under this proposed order would apply specifically to those applications identified in the waiver request. In connection with any request for a waiver under section III.I., the operator would need to explain the reason(s) that prevents it from using the e-permitting system. The waiver would be subject to BLM approval.

    Under the proposed order, the BLM would not consider an APD or NOS that the operator did not submit through the e-permitting system, unless the BLM approves a waiver from the e-permitting filing requirement under proposed section III.I. The BLM understands that under certain circumstances the operator may experience a hardship that prevents use of the e-permitting system. When considering a waiver request, the BLM will evaluate each circumstance that serves as a basis for claiming a hardship. While the BLM cannot conceive of every scenario that may qualify as a hardship, for purposes of illustrating the waiver process, hardships are those conditions or circumstances that may prevent an operator from e-filing or would make e-filing so difficult to perform that it would significantly delay an operator's APD submission. In those exceptional cases, the BLM will review the operator's request and determine whether a waiver allowing the operator to submit hard copies is warranted.

    IV. Procedural Matters Considerations

    While the order would require that all operators e-file NOSs and APDs, as a practical matter, it would likely have a greater impact on operators that do not currently use the BLM's e-permitting system. Operators that already use the e-permitting system would likely continue to use the system, regardless of the proposed order, and therefore will not be impacted by the proposed changes.

    The proposed requirements are estimated to pose relatively small compliance costs (see discussion in the Affected Entities section) associated with administrative compliance and access to the BLM's e-filing system, if an impacted operator has not used the BLM's e-permitting system due to a limiting factor, e.g., if the operator has not purchased access to the Internet or if access is not available due to the remoteness of its location. These operators are likely to hire a permit agent to e-file the APD, acquire Internet access depending on the coverage and the availability of service providers, or find another work-around solution. While the proposed order places requirements on the mechanism by which the operators submit APDs or NOSs, it does not change the content required for either submission.

    The requirements may also result in cost savings to the impacted operators by reducing the amount of time spent correcting deficiencies in APDs. The filing of APDs through the modernized AFMSS II is expected to reduce the number of APD submissions that have deficiencies and, for APDs where deficiencies exist, reduce the time it takes for the operator to correct those deficiencies. Reduced APD processing times would benefit impacted operators in that they would be able to commence drilling and develop the mineral resources sooner. On Indian lands, this would be very beneficial to the tribes and Indian allottees since they are the direct recipients of the royalties generated from the minerals that they own.

    There will also be improved transparency during the application and review process for APDs that are e-filed. With the transition to AFMSS II, the operator is able to check the status of the APD, and the public is able to find and access information online, in one location. In the interim, the BLM continues to maintain hard copy records for APDs submitted in hard copy consistent with records management and retention requirements.

    Affected Entities

    All entities involved in the exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas resources on Federal and Indian leases and that submit APDs or NOSs after the effective date of the final rule would be subject to its requirements.

    We estimate that the proposed amendments would impact about 484 operators,2 and that these operators might experience a small increase in administrative costs associated with submitting an APD and NOS to the BLM through the new APD module, due to the newness of the system. Operators that comply by submitting a waiver request that is accepted by the BLM might also experience a small increase in costs associated with preparing the waiver request. We estimate the annual average costs per operator to be approximately $3,920 per operator during the rule's initial implementation period; however, we expect those costs to decrease quickly over time as operators become familiar with the new AFMSS II submission system. In total, we estimate that the proposed amendments might pose annual administrative costs of $2.2 million (about $1.9 million per year to the industry and $315,000 per year to the BLM) during the initial phases. We believe this is a conservative estimate of costs given the relatively high proportion of APDs already submitted using BLM's existing e-filing systems.

    2 We examined AFMSS data over a 5-year period (from 2008 to 2012) and found that there were 484 operators that completed wells on Federal and Indian leases. We believe that this pool of operators is a good basis for an estimate about the entities that are likely to file APDs in the future, and therefore be subject to the requirements.

    In addition, we estimate that the proposed amendments would pose additional costs for those operators that currently do not use the BLM's e-permitting system. Specifically, those 73 entities 3 might face additional compliance costs of $1,200 per operator per year for Internet access, using the conservative assumption that they do not already have such access. In total, these compliance costs could be about $90,000 per year for all 73 affected operators. The increased e-filing rates that the BLM has observed during the rollout of the AFMSS II APD module suggest, however, that fewer than 73 operators would face these compliance costs.

    3 According to BLM records, as of 2014, there were approximately 411 WIS users, representing 85 percent of the operators that would be subject to the proposed requirements. By extension, we can estimate that there are 73 entities that did not use WIS, representing 15 percent of the operators that would be subject to the requirements. These 73 entities were not users of the e-permitting system and will be most impacted by the rule.

    We estimate that the proposed amendments would also benefit operators, since operators are expected to receive cost savings from more expedited APD processing. We estimate that receiving an APD via the e-permitting system rather than in hard-copy would reduce processing time by 27 percent or 60 days. Further, we estimate the cost savings to the operator of that increased efficiency to be $6,195 per APD. Given that the order would impact about 1,500 APDs per year, we estimate that the total cost savings could be about $9.3 million per year.

    Together, the total benefits are expected to exceed the total costs, and the rule is expected to result in total cost savings of about $7 million per year on aggregate. We expect these aggregate benefits to translate to individual operators. For purposes of illustration, even if we assume an individual operator incurs costs as result of the proposed amendments because they do not currently use BLM's existing e-filing system and have to learn the new system, such an operator would still be expected to receive a net cost savings on a per-APD basis, given that the cost savings will exceed the combined administrative and other compliance costs. On a per APD basis, we expect increased costs of $1,716 per year—$516 in administrative burden/compliance costs, plus $1,200 in other compliance costs. Those costs are expected to be offset, however, by cost savings of $6,195 per APD. Therefore, on net, an operator submitting one APD per year would be expected to realize a net reduction in costs of $4,479 ($6,195 minus $1,716). That expected net benefit would increase as an operator's familiarity with the new e-filing system increases, as administrative costs would be reduced by such familiarity.

    As noted elsewhere in the preamble, some operators are owned by individual Indian tribes. Those operators typically develop the minerals owned by and for the benefit of the tribe. We expect the impacts and benefits of this proposal to apply to these operators to the same extent and in the same manner as to other entities operating on Federal or Indian lands. On net, we anticipate that the benefits of permitting-time efficiencies associated with 100% e-filing, will significantly outweigh any costs, especially as operators become more familiar with the AFMSS II system.

    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The proposed order does not meet the criteria for economic significance under Executive Order 12866. The proposed order would not 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. The proposed order would not create inconsistencies or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency. In addition, the proposed order would not materially affect the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (see 5 U.S.C. 601-612). Congress enacted the RFA to ensure that government regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small not-for-profit enterprises.

    The Small Business Administration (SBA) has developed size standards to carry out the purposes of the Small Business Act and those size standards can be found in 13 CFR 121.201. The BLM reviewed the SBA classifications and found that the SBA specifies different size standards for potentially affected industries. The SBA defines a small business in the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction industry (North American Industry Classification System or NAICS code 211111) as one with 1,250 or fewer employees. However, for the natural gas liquid extraction industry (NAICS code 211112), it defines a small business as one with 750 or fewer employees.

    The BLM reviewed the SBA size standards for small businesses and the number of entities fitting those size standards as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in the 2012 Economic Census. The data show the number of firms with fewer than 100 employees and those with 100 employees or more (well below the SBA size standards for the respective industries). According to the available data, over 95% and 91% of firms in the crude petroleum and natural gas extraction industry and the natural gas liquid extraction industry, respectively, have fewer than 100 employees. Therefore, we would expect that an even higher percentage of firms would be considered small according to the SBA size standards. Thus, based on the available information, the BLM believes that the vast majority of potentially affected entities would meet the SBA small business definition.

    We examined the potential impacts of the proposed order and determined that up to 484 small entities would be subject to the proposed order's requirements and could face administrative burdens of about $3,920 per entity per year. In addition, up to 73 small entities could face other compliance costs of $1,200 per entity per year. However, we estimate that the administrative and other compliance costs would be offset as a result of improved APD processing times. We estimate that cost savings from faster APD processing could be $6,195 per APD. Moreover, we expect that the administrative burdens of the rule will lessen over time as operators become more familiar with the BLM's new e-permitting system.

    Based on this review, we have determined that, although the proposal would impact a substantial number of small entities, it would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

    This proposed order is also not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2) of the RFA, as amended by the SBREFA. This proposed order will not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. In fact, the BLM estimates that the benefits would exceed the costs, and that the rulemaking could result in net savings of $7 million per year. Similarly, this proposed order will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, tribal, or local government agencies, or geographic regions, nor does this proposed order have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This proposed order is administrative in nature and only affects the method for submitting APDs and NOSs. The BLM prepared a preliminary economic threshold analysis as part of the record, which is available for review.

    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), agencies must prepare a written statement about benefits and costs before issuing a proposed or final rule that may result in aggregate expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.

    The proposed order does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in any one year. Thus, the proposed order is also not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This proposed order is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because it contains no requirements that apply to such governments, nor does it impose obligations on them.

    Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference With Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (Takings)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the BLM has determined that the proposed order would not have significant takings implications. The proposed order would not be a governmental action capable of interfering with constitutionally protected property rights. Therefore, the proposed order will not cause a taking of private property or require a takings implication assessment under the Executive order.

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    This proposed order would not have federalism implications. The proposed order would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132, a Federalism Assessment is not required.

    Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    The BLM evaluated possible effects of the proposed order on federally recognized Indian tribes. Since the BLM approves proposed operations on all Indian onshore oil and gas leases (other than those of the Osage Tribe), the proposed order has the potential to affect Indian tribes, particularly those tribes with tribally-owned and -operated oil and gas drilling or exploration companies, which currently submit APDs and/or NOSs. In conformance with the Secretary's policy on tribal consultation, the BLM has extended an invitation to consult on the proposed rule to affected tribes, including tribes that either: (i) Own an oil and gas company; or (ii) own minerals for which the BLM has recently received an APD. Over the years, oil and gas development on Indian and allotted lands has been focused in the States of Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas, and Utah. Based on BLM records, the BLM anticipates that there are nearly 40 tribes for which the BLM has received or will foreseeably receive APDs or NOSs in connection with the development of tribal or allotted mineral resources.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform

    This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this proposed order does not unduly burden the Federal court system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Executive Order. The BLM has reviewed the proposed order to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity and the proposed order has been written to minimize litigation and provide clear legal standards.

    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a valid OMB control number. Relevant authorities (44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and (k)) provide that collections of information include any request or requirement that persons obtain, maintain, retain, or report information to an agency, or disclose information to a third party or to the public. This proposed order contains information collection requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. OMB has approved the existing collection of information associated with onshore oil and gas operations under control number 1004-0137 (expiration date: January 31, 2018). In accordance with the PRA, the BLM has asked OMB for a new control number for the information-collection provisions in this proposed order and is inviting public comment on that request. When this proposed order is finalized and becomes effective, the BLM intends to ask OMB to combine the requirements and burdens of this proposed order with existing control number 1004-0137. For reference, the current burdens for control number 1004-0137 (920,464 hours and $32.5 million in non-hour costs) can be viewed at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/. Those burdens for the existing control number are unaffected by this proposed rule.

    A copy of the information collection request may be obtained from the BLM by electronic mail request to Steven Wells at [email protected] or by telephone request to 202-912-7143.

    Completion of the new collection of information request would be required to obtain or retain a benefit for the operators of Federal and Indian onshore oil and gas leases, or units or communitization agreements that include Federal and Indian leases (except on the Osage Reservation or the Crow Reservation, or in certain other areas). The frequency of the collection would be “on occasion.” The BLM has requested a 3-year term of approval for the new control number.

    The BLM 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.

    If you would like to comment on the information collection requirements of this proposed rule, please send your comments directly to OMB, with a copy to the BLM, as directed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. Please identify your comments with “Approval of Operations, OMB Control Number 1004-XXXX.” OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in this proposed order between 30 to 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by August 29, 2016.

    Summary of Proposed Information Collection Activities

    Title: Approval of Operations (43 CFR part 3160).

    Forms:

    • Application for Permit to Drill or Re-Enter (Form 3160-3).

    • Sample Format for Notice of Staking (Attachment 1 to 2007 Onshore Order 1, 72 FR at 10338).

    OMB Control Number: This is a request for a new control number.

    Description of Respondents: Private sector oil and gas operators.

    Abstract: The BLM proposes to require e-filing of APDs and NOSs, and proposes a provision that would authorize applicants to seek a waiver from that requirement.

    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Obligation to Respond: APDs and waiver requests are required to obtain or retain benefits. NOSs are voluntary.

    Estimated Annual Responses: 3,450.

    Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: 29,400.

    Discussion of the Proposed Collection Activities

    APDs: As revised here, section III.A. of Onshore Order 1 would require an operator to file an APD and associated documents using the BLM's electronic commerce application for oil and gas permitting and reporting. In addition to amending Onshore Order 1, this would have the effect of revising OMB control number 1004-0137. As discussed above, the BLM plans to seek OMB approval to incorporate the burdens of this proposed order into control number 1004-0137 after this proposed order is finalized and effective.

    NOSs: As revised here, section III.C. of Onshore Order 1 would continue to provide that an NOS may be submitted voluntarily. Section III.C. would also require an operator who chooses to file an NOS to use the BLM's electronic commerce application for oil and gas permitting and reporting. Except for the new e-filing requirement, this is an existing collection in use without a control number. The purpose of submitting an NOS is to provide an operator an opportunity to gather information and better address site-specific resource concerns associated with a project while preparing an APD package.

    Waiver Requests: Proposed section III.I. is a new section that would allow operators to request a waiver from the requirements in proposed sections III.A. and III.C. The request would have to be supported by an explanation of why the operator is not able to use the e-permitting system. In those exceptional cases, the BLM would review the operator's request and determine whether a waiver allowing the operator to submit hard copies is warranted.

    Although the proposed order would direct the method by which operators must submit an APD or an NOS, it does not direct operators to obtain, maintain, retain, or report any more information than what is already required by the existing Onshore Order 1. The BLM recognizes operators may encounter a learning curve as they familiarize themselves with the database system, like any new software system to which users must adapt. However, that learning curve is expected to be temporary.

    Furthermore, the BLM has sponsored multiple outreach strategies and training forums for its AFMSS clients, which should further mitigate the extent of industry's learning curve. These outreach efforts include:

    • Easily accessible internet-based resources, including user-guides, audiovisual modules, user toolkits, and FAQs, that are available to operators or their agents, and

    • Live trainings provided to users to allow for a more robust discussion with the BLM on how to use the system. The following table outlines the locations where the BLM has sponsored these trainings:

    Training location Dates Operator/agent participation BLM Offices Jan-May 2016 Over 230 BLM Employees Trained. Online Operator Training at the BLM's National Training Center, Phoenix, Arizona Dec 2015 Over 110 Operators Trained/47 Companies. Online Operator Training and Individual Sessions at the BLM's National Operations Center, Denver, Colorado Mar-May 2016 Over 150 Operators trained.

    Nonetheless, the BLM provides an estimate of the incremental burdens of e-filing and waiver submittal, which are itemized in the following table. These burdens would apply to both tribally and non-tribally-owned operators. In the case of APDs, these burdens are in addition to those estimated under OMB control number 1004-0137.

    A.
  • Type of response
  • B.
  • Number of
  • responses
  • C.
  • Hours per
  • response
  • D.
  • Total hours
  • Application to Drill or Re-Enter
  • 43 CFR 3162.3-1 and Section III.A. of Onshore Order 1
  • Form 3160-3
  • 4 3,000 8 24,000
    Notice of Staking
  • Section III.C. of Onshore Order 1
  • 5 300 16 4,800
    Waiver Request
  • Section III.I. of Onshore Order 1
  • 6 150 4 600
    Totals 3,450 28 29,400
    National Environmental Policy Act

    4 The estimated number of APDs submitted in a given year, based on historic data.

    5 Estimated as 10 percent of the roughly 3,000 APDs filed annually.

    6 Estimated as 10 percent of the 1,500 APDs likely to be impacted by the proposed order. BLM data show that half of APDs were already e-filed through the legacy WIS.

    This proposed order does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The BLM has analyzed this proposed order and determined it meets the criteria set forth in 43 CFR 46.210(i) for a Departmental Categorical Exclusion in that this proposed order is “. . . of an administrative, financial, legal, technical or procedural nature . . . .” Therefore, it is categorically excluded from environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act, pursuant to 43 CFR 46.205 and 46.210(c) and (i). The BLM also has analyzed this proposed order to determine if it involves any of the extraordinary circumstances that would require an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, as set forth in 43 CFR 46.215, and concluded that this proposed order does not involve any extraordinary circumstances.

    Data Quality Act

    In developing this proposed order, we did not conduct or use a study, experiment, or survey requiring peer review under the Data Quality Act (Pub. L. 106-554, app. C 515, 114 Stat. 2763, 2763A-153 to 154).

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

    Under Executive Order 13211, agencies are required to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for significant energy actions. This Statement is to include a detailed statement of “any adverse effects of energy supply, distribution, or use (including a shortfall in supply, price increases, and increase use of foreign supplies)” for the action and reasonable alternatives and their effects.

    Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines a “significant energy action” as “any action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking: (1)(i) That is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) as a significant energy action.” The proposed order would not be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 as it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The proposed order has also not been designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action.

    Executive Order 13352, Facilitation of Cooperative Conservation

    The BLM determined that this proposed order involves changes to BLM processes. In accordance with Executive Order 13352, this proposed order would not impede facilitating cooperative conservation. The proposed order takes appropriate account of and respects the interests of persons with ownership or other legally recognized interests in land or other natural resources; properly accommodates local participation in the Federal decision-making process; and provides that the programs, projects, and activities are consistent with protecting public health and safety.

    Authors

    The principal author of this proposed rule is Catherine Cook of the BLM, Division of Fluid Minerals, assisted by Mark Purdy, BLM, Division of Regulatory Affairs, and the Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor.

    List of Subjects in 43 CFR Part 3160

    Administrative practice and procedure, Government contracts, Indian-lands, Mineral royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Public lands—mineral resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Janice M. Schneider, Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the Bureau of Land Management proposes to amend the appendix following the regulatory text of the final rule published in the Federal Register at 72 FR 10308 at 10328 (March 7, 2007), corrected on March 9, 2007 (72 FR 10608), effective March 7, 2007, as follows:

    Note:

    This appendix does not appear in the BLM regulations in 43 CFR part 3160.

    Appendix—Text of Oil and Gas Onshore Order

    Amend the Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 by revising sections III.A, III.C, and III.E, and adding section III.I to read as follows:

    Onshore Oil and Gas Order Number 1 III. Application for Permit To Drill A. Where To File

    The operator must file an APD and associated documents using the BLM's electronic commerce application for oil and gas permitting and reporting. The operator may contact the local BLM Field Office for information on how to gain access to the electronic commerce application.

    C. Notice of Staking Option

    Before filing an APD or Master Development Plan, the operator may file a Notice of Staking with the BLM. The purpose of the Notice of Staking is to provide the operator with an opportunity to gather information to better address site-specific resource concerns while preparing the APD package. This may expedite approval of the APD. An operator must file a Notice of Staking using the BLM's electronic commerce application for oil and gas permitting and reporting. Attachment I, Sample Format for Notice of Staking, provides the information required for the Notice of Staking option.

    For Federal lands managed by other Surface Managing Agencies, the BLM will provide a copy of the Notice of Staking to the appropriate Surface Managing Agency office. In Alaska, when a subsistence stipulation is part of the lease, the operator must also send a copy of the Notice of Staking to the appropriate Borough and/or Native Regional or Village Corporation.

    Within 10 days of receiving the Notice of Staking, the BLM or the FS will review it for required information and schedule a date for the onsite inspection. The onsite inspection will be conducted as soon as weather and other conditions permit. The operator must stake the proposed drill pad and ancillary facilities, and flag new or reconstructed access routes, before the onsite inspection. The staking must include a center stake for the proposed well, two reference stakes, and a flagged access road centerline. Staking activities are considered casual use unless the particular activity is likely to cause more than negligible disturbance or damage. Off-road vehicular use for the purposes of staking is casual use unless, in a particular case, it is likely to cause more than negligible disturbance or damage, or otherwise prohibited.

    On non-NFS lands, the BLM will invite the Surface Managing Agency and private surface owner, if applicable, to participate in the onsite inspection. If the surface is privately owned, the operator must furnish to the BLM the name, address, and telephone number of the surface owner if known. All parties who attend the onsite inspection will jointly develop a list of resource concerns that the operator must address in the APD. The operator will be provided a list of these concerns either during the onsite inspection or within 7 days of the onsite inspection. Surface owner concerns will be considered to the extent practical within the law. Failure to submit an APD within 60 days of the onsite inspection will result in the Notice of Staking being returned to the operator.

    E. APD Posting and Processing 1. Posting

    The BLM and the Federal Surface Managing Agency, if other than the BLM, must provide at least 30 days public notice before the BLM may approve an APD or Master Development Plan on a Federal oil and gas lease. Posting is not required for an APD for an Indian oil and gas lease or agreement. The BLM will post information about the APD or Notice of Staking for Federal oil and gas leases to the Internet and in an area of the BLM Field Office having jurisdiction that is readily accessible to the public. If the surface is managed by a Federal agency other than the BLM, that agency also is required to post the notice for at least 30 days. This would include the BIA where the surface is held in trust but the mineral estate is federally owned. The posting is for informational purposes only and is not an appealable decision. The purpose of the posting is to give any interested party notification that a Federal approval of mineral operations has been requested. The BLM or the FS will not post confidential information.

    Reposting of the proposal may be necessary if the posted location of the proposed well is:

    a. Moved to a different quarter-quarter section;

    b. Moved more than 660 feet for lands that are not covered by a Public Land Survey; or

    c. If the BLM or the FS determine that the move is substantial.

    2. Processing

    The timeframes established in this subsection apply to both individual APDs and to the multiple APDs included in Master Development Plans and to leases of Indian minerals as well as leases of Federal minerals.

    If there is enough information to begin processing the application, the BLM (and the FS if applicable) will process it up to the point that missing information or uncorrected deficiencies render further processing impractical or impossible.

    a. Within 10 days of receiving an application, the BLM (in consultation with the FS if the application concerns NFS lands) will notify the operator as to whether or not the application is complete. The BLM will request additional information and correction of any material submitted, if necessary, in the 10-day notification. If an onsite inspection has not been performed, the applicant will be notified that the application is not complete. Within 10 days of receiving the application, the BLM, in coordination with the operator and Surface Managing Agency, including the private surface owner in the case of split estate minerals, will schedule a date for the onsite inspection (unless the onsite inspection has already been conducted as part of a Notice of Staking). The onsite inspection will be held as soon as practicable based on participants' schedules and weather conditions. The operator will be notified at the onsite inspection of any additional deficiencies that are discovered during the inspection. The operator has 45 days after receiving notice from the BLM to provide any additional information necessary to complete the APD, or the APD may be returned to the operator.

    b. Within 30 days after the operator has submitted a complete application, including incorporating any changes that resulted from the onsite inspection, the BLM will:

    1. Approve the application, subject to reasonable Conditions of Approval, if the appropriate requirements of the NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and other applicable law have been met and, if on NFS lands, the FS has approved the Surface Use Plan of Operations;

    2. Notify the operator that it is deferring action on the permit; or

    3. Deny the permit if it cannot be approved and the BLM cannot identify any actions that the operator could take that would enable the BLM to issue the permit or the FS to approve the Surface Use Plan of Operations, if applicable.

    c. The notice of deferral in paragraph (b)(2) of this section must specify:

    1. Any action the operator could take that would enable the BLM (in consultation with the FS if applicable) to issue a final decision on the application. The FS will notify the applicant of any action the applicant could take that would enable the FS to issue a final decision on the Surface Use Plan of Operations on NFS lands. Actions may include, but are not limited to, assistance with:

    (A) Data gathering; and

    (B) Preparing analyses and documents.

    2. If applicable, a list of actions that the BLM or the FS need to take before making a final decision on the application, including appropriate analysis under NEPA or other applicable law and a schedule for completing these actions.

    d. The operator has 2 years from the date of the notice under paragraph (c)(1) of this section to take the action specified in the notice. If the appropriate analyses required by NEPA, National Historic Preservation Act, Endangered Species Act, and other applicable laws have been completed, the BLM (and the FS if applicable), will make a decision on the permit and the Surface Use Plan of Operations within 10 days of receiving a report from the operator addressing all of the issues or actions specified in the notice under paragraph (c)(1) of this section and certifying that all required actions have been taken. If the operator has not completed the actions specified in the notice within 2 years from the operator's receipt of the paragraph (c)(1) notice, the BLM will deny the permit.

    e. For APDs on NFS lands, the decision to approve a Surface Use Plan of Operations or Master Development Plan may be subject to FS appeal procedures. The BLM cannot approve an APD until the appeal of the Surface Use Plan of Operations is resolved.

    I. Waiver From Electronic Submission Requirements

    The operator may request a waiver from the electronic submission requirement for an APD or Notice of Staking if compliance would cause hardship or the operator is unable to file these documents electronically. In the request, the operator must explain the reason(s) that prevents it from using the electronic system. The waiver request is subject to BLM approval. The BLM will not consider an APD or Notice of Staking that the operator did not submit through the electronic system, unless the BLM approves a waiver.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17400 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-84-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58 and CC Docket No. 01-92; Report No. 3047] Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification.

    SUMMARY:

    Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification (Petitions) have been filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Mary J. Sisak on behalf of Custer Telephone Cooperative, Inc., et al, Michael R. Romano on behalf of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, Robert W. Schwartz on behalf of Madison Telephone Company, Derrick B. Owens on behalf of WTA-Advocates For Rural Broadband.

    DATES:

    Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before August 15, 2016. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 8, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Suzanne Yelen, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400, email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This is a summary of Commission's document, Report No. 3047, released July 11, 2016. The full text of the Petitions is available for viewing and copying at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554 or may be accessed online via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. The Commission will not send a copy of this Notice pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because this Notice does not have an impact on any rules of particular applicability.

    Subject: Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and Certifications; Developing an Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime, FCC 16-33, published at 81 FR 24282, April 25, 2016, in WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92. This Notice is being published pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). See also 47 CFR 1.4(b)(1) and 1.429(f), (g).

    Number of Petitions Filed: 4.

    Federal Communications Commission. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17900 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    81 146 Friday, July 29, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Office of the Secretary Request for Nominations of Members for the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and Specialty Crop Committee AGENCY:

    Research, Education, and Economics, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Solicitation for membership.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., the United States Department of Agriculture announces the solicitation for nominations to fill vacancies on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and its subcommittees. There are 7 vacancies on the NAREEE Advisory Board, 3 vacancies on the Specialty Crop Committee, 4 vacancies on the National Genetics Advisory Council, and 6 vacancies on the Citrus Disease Committee.

    DATES:

    All nomination materials should be mailed in a single, complete package and postmarked by July 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The nominee's name, resume or CV, completed Form AD-755, and any letters of support must be submitted via one of the following methods:

    (1) Email to [email protected]; or

    (2) By mail delivery service to Thomas Vilsack, Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250, Attn: NAREEE Advisory Board, Room 332A, Whitten Building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michele Esch, Director, National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Room 332A, The Whitten Building, Washington, DC 20250-2255, telephone: 202-720-3684; fax: 202-720-6199; email: [email protected] Committee Web site: www.nareeeab.ree.usda.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Instructions for Nominations

    Nominations are solicited from organizations, associations, societies, councils, federations, groups, and companies that represent a wide variety of food and agricultural interests throughout the country. Nominations for one individual who fits several of the categories listed above, or for more than one person who fits one category, will be accepted.

    In your nomination letter, please indicate the specific membership category for each nomine if applying for the NAREEE Advisory Committee and also specify what committee(s) you are sending your nomination is for. Each nominee must submit form AD-755, “Advisory Committee Membership Background Information” (which can be obtained from the contact person below or from: http://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/AD-755_Master_2012_508%20Ver.pdf). All nominees will be vetted before selection.

    Nominations are open to all individuals without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, mental or physical handicap, marital status, or sexual orientation. To ensure the recommendation of the Advisory Board take into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the USDA, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent the needs of all racial and ethnic groups, women and men, and persons with disabilities.

    Please note that registered lobbyist and individuals already serving another USDA Federal Advisory Committee, are ineligible for nomination.

    All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance. All nominees will be vetted before selection.

    Appointments to the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and its subcommittees will be made by the Secretary of Agriculture.

    National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board

    The National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board was established in 1996 via Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3123) to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture and land-grant colleges and universities on top priorities and policies for food and agricultural research, education, extension, and economics. Section 1408 of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 was amended by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to reduce the number of members on the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board to 25 members and required the Board to also provide advice to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate, the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate.

    Since the Advisory Boards inception by congressional legislation in 1996, each member has represented a specific category related to farming or ranching, food production and processing, forestry research, crop and animal science, land-grant institutions, non-land grant college or university with a historic commitment to research in the food and agricultural sciences, food retailing and marketing, rural economic development, and natural resource and consumer interest groups, among many others. The Board was first appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture in September 1996 and one-third of its members were appointed for a one, two, and three-year term, respectively. The terms for 7 members who represent specific categories will expire September 30, 2016. Nominations for a 3-year appointment for these 7 vacant categories are sought. All nominees will be carefully reviewed for their expertise, leadership, and relevance to a category.

    The 7 slots to be filled are:

    Category F. National Food Animal Science Society Category G. National Crop, Soil, Agronomy, Horticulture, or Weed Science Society Category L. 1890 Land-Grant Colleges and Universities Category M. 1994 Equity in Education-Land Grant Institutions Category P. American Colleges of Veterinary Medicine Category T. Rural Economic Development Category U. National Consumer Interest Group Specialty Crop Committee

    The Specialty Crop Committee was created as a subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board in 2004 in accordance with the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 under Title III, Section 303 of Public Law 108-465. The committee was formulated to study the scope and effectiveness of research, extension, and economics programs affecting the specialty crop industry. The legislation defines “specialty crops” as fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops (including floriculture). The Agricultural Act of 2014 further expanded the scope of the Specialty Crop Committee to provide advice to the Secretary of Agriculture on the relevancy review process of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

    Members should represent the breadth of the specialty crop industry. 6 members of the Specialty Crop Committee are also members of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board and 6 members represent various disciplines of the specialty crop industry.

    The terms of 3 members will expire on September 30, 2015. The Specialty Crop Committee is soliciting nominations to fill 3 vacant positions. Appointed members will serve 2-3 years with their terms expiring in September 2017 or 2018.

    National Genetic Resources Advisory Council

    The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council was re-established in 2012 as a permanent subcommittee of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board to formulate recommendations on actions and policies for the collection, maintenance, and utilization of genetic resources; to make recommendations for coordination of genetic resources plans of several domestic and international organizations; and to advise the Secretary of Agriculture and the National Genetic Resources Program of new and innovative approaches to genetic resources conservation. The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council will also advise the department on developing a broad strategy for maintaining plant biodiversity available to agriculture, and strengthening public sector plant breeding capacities.

    The National Genetic Resources Advisory Council membership is required to have two-thirds of the appointed members from scientific disciplines relevant to the National Genetic Resources Program including agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, natural resource sciences, health sciences, and nutritional sciences; and one-third of the appointed members from the general public including leaders in fields of public policy, trade, international development, law, or management.

    The terms of 4 members of the National Genetic Resources Advisory Council will expire on September 30, 2016. We are seeking nominations for a 4-year appointment effective October 1, 2016 through September 30, 2020. The 4 slots to be filled are to be composed of 3 scientific members and 1 general public member.

    Citrus Disease Subcommittee

    The Citrus Disease Subcommittee was established by the Agricultural Act of 2014 (Sec. 7103) to advise the Secretary of Agriculture on citrus research, extension, and development needs, engage in regular consultation and collaboration with USDA and other organizations involved in citrus, and provide recommendations for research and extension activities related to citrus disease. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee will also advise the Department on the research and extension agenda of the Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program, a granting program of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

    The subcommittee is composed of 9 members who must be a producer of citrus with representation from the following States: Three members from Arizona or California, five members from Florida, and one member from Texas.

    The terms of 6 Citrus Disease Subcommittee will expire on September 30, 2015. The Citrus Disease Subcommittee is soliciting nominations to fill 6 vacant positons for membership; 4 positions are to represent Florida and 2 positions are to represent California. Appointed members will serve 2-3 years with their terms expiring in September 2017 or 2018.

    Done at Washington, DC, this 22nd day of July 2016. Ann Bartuska, Deputy Under Secretary, Research, Education, and Economics.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17971 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Hemphill, Texas. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvCAAS.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 18, 2016, at 3:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at Sabine Ranger District, 5050 State Highway 21 East, Hemphill, Texas.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under Supplementary Information. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Sabine Ranger District. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Becky Nix, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 409-625-1940 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Approve Minutes from July 14, 2016 Meeting;

    2. Discuss/Recommend/Approve new projects;

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by Friday, August 12, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Becky Nix, RAC Coordinator, Sabine-Angelina Resource Advisory Committee, 5050 State Highway 21 E, Hemphill, Texas 75948; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 409-625-1953.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled For Further Information Contact. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Kimpton M. Cooper, Designated Federal Officer, Sabine-Angelina RAC.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17964 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Information Collection; Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice; request for comment.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Forest Service is seeking comments from all interested individuals and organizations on the renewal of a currently approved information collection, Forest Industries and Residential Fuelwood and Post Data Collection Systems with a revision adding a Logging Operations Data Collection System.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received in writing on or before September 27, 2016 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments concerning this notice should be addressed to: USDA, Forest Service, Attn: Consuelo Brandeis, Southern Research Station, Forest Inventory and Analysis, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN 37919.

    Comments also may be submitted via facsimile to 865-862-0262 or by email to: [email protected]

    The public may inspect comments received at the Southern Research Station, 4700 Old Kingston Pike, Knoxville, TN during normal business hours. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 865-862-2000 to facilitate entry to the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Consuelo Brandeis, Southern Research Station, at 865-862-2028. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339 twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Forest Industries and Logging Operations Data Collection Systems.

    OMB Number: 0596-0010.

    Expiration Date of Approval: September 30, 2016.

    Type of Request: Extension with Revision.

    Abstract: The Forest and Range Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 require the Forest Service to evaluate trends in the use of logs and wood chips, to forecast anticipated levels of logs and wood chips, and to analyze changes in the harvest of these resources from the Nation's forest resource. To collect this information, Forest Service or State natural resource agency personnel use three questionnaires, two of which are collected by personal mill visits or phone calls, or which respondents return in self-addressed, postage pre-paid envelopes, or by email. The logging operations questionnaire will be delivered in person by field personnel collecting tree utilization data at sampled logging sites.

    Pulpwood Received Questionnaire: Forest Service personnel use this questionnaire to collect and evaluate information from pulp and composite panel mills in order to monitor the volume, types, species, sources, and prices of timber products harvested throughout the Nation. The data collected will be used to provide essential information about the current use of the Nation's timber resources for pulpwood industrial products and is not available from other sources.

    Logs and Other Roundwood Received Questionnaire: This questionnaire is used by Forest Service or State natural resource agency personnel to collect and evaluate information from the other, non-pulp or composite panel, primary wood-using mills, including small, part-time mills, as well as large corporate entities. Primary wood-using mills are facilities that use harvested wood in log or chip form, such as sawlogs, veneer logs, posts, and poles, to manufacture a secondary product, such as lumber or veneer. Forest Service personnel evaluate the information collected and use it to monitor the volume types, species, sources, and prices of timber products harvested throughout the Nation.

    Logging Operations Questionnaire: This questionnaire is used by Forest Service or State natural resource agency personnel to collect and evaluate information from logging operations, to help characterize the logging industry and its response to outside influences. The information will be used to measure the health of the logging industry as well as to provide background information for decision-making.

    Pulpwood received
  • questionnaire
  • Logs and other roundwood received questionnaire Logging operations questionnaire
    Estimate of Annual Burden Hours 35 minutes (0.58) 38 minutes (0.64) 12 minutes (0.2). Type of Respondents Primary users of industrial pulpwood Primary users of industrial roundwood products Loggers. Estimated Annual Average Number of Respondents 183 1,788 435. Estimated Annual Average Number of Responses per Respondent 1 1 1. Estimated Total Annual Average Burden Hours on Respondents 106 hours 1,144 hours 87 hours.
    Comment Is Invited

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

    All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission request toward Office of Management and Budget approval.

    Carlos Rodriguez Franco, Acting Associate Deputy Chief, Research & Development.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17862 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Ontonagon Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Ontonagon Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Ewen, Michigan. The Committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://cloudapps-usda-gov.force.com/FSSRS/RAC_Page?id=001t0000002JcvqAAC.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 30, 2016, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Ewen-Trout Creek School, 14312 Airport Road, Ewen, Michigan.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa Klaus, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 906-932-1330 ext. 328 or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and

    8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to:

    1. Identify new RAC committee members,

    2. Review and approve the RAC's operating guidelines,

    3. Elect a new chairperson, and

    4. Review and recommend projects for Title II funding.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by August 16, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Attention: Lisa Klaus, RAC Coordinator, Ottawa National Forest Supervisor's Office, E6248 US Hwy. 2, Ironwood, Michigan 49938; by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 906-932-0122.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Linda L. Jackson, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17966 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Assessment Report of Ecological, Social and Economic Conditions, Trends and Sustainability for the Manti-La Sal National Forest AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiating the Assessment phase of the Forest Plan revision for the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

    SUMMARY:

    The Manti-La Sal National Forest (Forest), located in central and southeastern Utah and southwestern Colorado, is initiating the first phase of the Forest Planning process pursuant to the 2012 National Forest System Land Management Planning rule (36 CFR part 219). This process will result in a revised forest land management plan (Forest Plan) which provides strategic direction for management of resources on the Manti-La Sal National Forest for the next fifteen years. The first phase of the planning process involves assessing ecological, social and economic conditions and trends in the planning area and documenting the findings in an Assessment report.

    The Assessment phase is just beginning on the Manti-La Sal National Forest and interested parties are invited to contribute to the development of the Assessment. The Forest will be hosting public meetings to explain the revision process and invite the public to share information relevant to the Assessment. At the public meetings the Forest will seek sources of existing information and local knowledge of current conditions and trends in the natural resources, social values, and goods and services produced by lands within the Manti-La Sal National Forest.

    DATES:

    Public meetings to discuss development of the Assessment will be held in September 2016. Dates and locations will be posted on the Forest Web site (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mantilasal/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd509713) and mailed to individuals and organizations on the mailing list. A draft of the Assessment report is anticipated to be posted at the Web site cited above in early 2017. Following completion of the Assessment, the Forest will initiate procedures pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to prepare and evaluate a revised Forest Plan.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written correspondence can be sent to: Manti-La Sal National Forest, Attn: Forest Plan Revision, 599 West Price River Drive, Ste. A, Price, UT 84501; or emailed to [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Blake Bassett, Forest Plan Revision Partnership Coordinator, at the mailing address above; or call 435-636-3508. Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday. More information on our plan revision process is available on the Forest's planning Web site at http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mantilasal/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd509713. You may also contact us by email at: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 requires that every National Forest System (NFS) unit develop and periodically revise a Forest Plan. The procedures for doing this are in federal regulation (“Planning Rule,” 36 CFR 219) and in Forest Service directives. Forest Plans provide strategic direction for managing forest resources for around fifteen years, and are adaptive and amendable as conditions change over time.

    Under the Planning Rule, an Assessment of ecological, social, and economic conditions and trends in the planning area is the first phase of a 3-phase planning process (36 CFR 219.6). The second phase is guided, in part, by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). It includes preparation of a draft revised Forest Plan, one or more alternatives to the draft plan, and a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for public review and comment. This is followed by a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and draft decision. The draft decision is subject to the objection procedures of 36 CFR part 219, subpart B, before it can be finalized. The third phase of the process is implementation and monitoring, which is ongoing over the life of the revised Forest Plan.

    This notice announces the start of the Manti-La Sal National Forest's Assessment process. The Assessment will rapidly evaluate existing information about relevant ecological, economic, cultural and social conditions, trends and sustainability and their relationship to the current Forest Plan within the context of the broader landscape. The Assessment does not include any decisions or require any actions on the ground. Its purpose is to provide a solid base of information that will be used to identify preliminary needs for change in the current Forest Plan, and to inform development of a revised plan.

    With this notice, the Manti-La Sal National Forest invites other governments, non-governmental parties, and the public to contribute to Assessment development. The intent of public participation during this phase is to identify as much relevant information as possible to inform the plan revision process. We also encourage contributors to share their concerns and perceptions of risk to social, economic, and ecological systems in or connected to the planning area.

    As public engagement opportunities are scheduled, public announcements will be made and information will be posted on the Forest's Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mantilasal/landmanagement/planning/?cid=fseprd509713. To contribute information or ask to be added to our mailing list, please call 435-636-3508 or email [email protected]

    Responsible Official

    The responsible official for the revision of the land management plan for the Manti-La Sal National Forest is the Forest Supervisor, Mark Pentecost, Manti-La Sal National Forest, 599 West Price River Drive, Ste. A, Price, Utah 84501.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Brian M. Pentecost, Forest Supervisor.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17949 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Natural Resources Conservation Service [Docket No. NRCS-2016-0005] Mountain Run Watershed Dam No. 50, Culpeper County, Virginia AGENCY:

    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Section 102[2][c] of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service Regulations, NRCS gives notice that an environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the rehabilitation of Mountain Run Watershed Dam No. 50, Culpeper County, Virginia.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 1606 Santa Rosa Road, Suite 209, Richmond, Virginia 23229. Telephone (804) 287-1691, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The environmental assessment of this federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. As a result of these findings, John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, has determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement is not needed for this project.

    The project purpose is continued flood prevention. The planned works of improvement include upgrading an existing multi-purpose flood control and water supply structure.

    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been forwarded to the various Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. A limited number of the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are on file and may be reviewed by contacting John A. Bricker at the above number.

    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed this 18th day of July, 2016, in Richmond, Virginia. John A. Bricker, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Richmond, Virginia.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17975 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

    Agency: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

    Title: Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) Team Leader Consensus and Team Leader Site Visit Information Collections.

    OMB Control Number: #0693-XXXX. This is a new collection.

    Form Number(s): None.

    Type of Request: Regular submission.

    Number of Respondents: 480.

    Average Hours per Response: 10 minutes.

    Burden Hours: 80 Hours (480 X 10 minutes per response = 80 Hours).

    Needs and Uses: The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (BPEP) staff members need to survey the Baldrige Examiners to understand what roles they are willing and able to take on, what travel assignments they can handle, and what input they have on the skills of other examiners and improvements to the processes in which they participate. This evaluative data is the way the program decides which examiner should be elevated to team leadership responsibility and which skills need to be taught at examiner training in the next year.

    The purpose of the information is to help staff collect data on the skills of the examiners, including alumni examiners, in order to best manage training and selection. Because the examiner selection process is so competitive, examiners need to demonstrate competencies such as understanding the Baldrige Criteria, team skills, and writing skills. The program also needs to collect peer-based information to understand an examiner's skill level in order to make decisions on whether the examiner should be elevated to “senior examiner” and therefore team leader. The blinded data will be shared with the team leader for improvement purposes, and for future assignments.

    Affected Public: Individual or Households.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

    This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to view Department of Commerce collections currently under review by OMB.

    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to [email protected] or fax to (202) 395-5806.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18037 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-48-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 38—Spartanburg, South Carolina; Notification of Proposed Production Activity; Benteler Automotive Corporation (Automotive Suspension and Body Components); Duncan, South Carolina

    The South Carolina State Ports Authority, grantee of FTZ 38, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Benteler Automotive Corporation (Benteler), located in Duncan, South Carolina. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on June 28, 2016.

    Benteler already has authority to produce automotive suspension and body components within Subzone 38F. The current request would add one finished product to the existing scope of authority. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), additional FTZ authority would be limited to the specific finished product described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Benteler from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials/components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Benteler would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to instrument panel supports (duty rate 2.5%) for the foreign-status materials/components in the existing scope of authority. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 7, 2016.

    A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Christopher Kemp at [email protected] or (202) 482-0862.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18019 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-103-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone 24—Pittston, Pennsylvania; Application for Subzone; Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc.; Hazleton, Pennsylvania

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Eastern Distribution Center, Inc., grantee of FTZ 24, requesting subzone status for the facility of Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc., located in Hazleton, Pennsylvania. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 26, 2016.

    The proposed subzone (77.8 acres) is located at 60 Green Mountain Road, Hazleton. No authorization for production activity has been requested at this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 24.

    In accordance with the Board's regulations, Elizabeth Whiteman of the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make recommendations to the Executive Secretary.

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 7, 2016. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period to September 22, 2016.

    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the “Reading Room” section of the Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at [email protected] or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18024 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Donald V. Bernardo, a/k/a Don Bernardo, 8930 Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte, NC 28277; Order

    On December 6, 2013, the then-Acting Director of the Office of Exporter Services, Eileen M. Albanese, entered an Order 1 denying Donald V. Bernardo (“Bernardo”) all U.S. export privileges until November 16, 2016, pursuant to Section 11(h) of the Export Administration Act 2 and Section 766.25 of the Export Administration Regulations,3 and based on a criminal conviction of violating Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 (2012)) (“AECA”).

    1 78 FR 76103 (Dec. 16, 2013).

    2 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (Supp. III 2015) (available at http://uscode.house.gov). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 7, 2015 (80 FR 48,233 (Aug. 11, 2015)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    3 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016).

    Whereas, the December 6, 2013 Order identified Bernardo's address as “701 Fredericksburg Road, Mathews, NC 28105”;

    Whereas, the Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“Department”), has confirmed that the address is no longer correct, and that Bernardo's current address is “8930 Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte, NC 28277”; and

    Whereas, as a result of the information the Department obtained regarding Bernardo's current address, the Department has requested that an order be issued amending the December 6, 2013 Order to reflect that new address for Bernardo;

    Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that the December 6, 2013 Order denying all U.S. export privileges to Donald V. Bernando is amended by deleting the address “701 Fredericksburg Road, Mathews, NC 28105,” and by adding the address “8930 Houston Ridge Road, Charlotte, NC 28277”. In all other aspects, the December 6, 2013 Order remains in full force and effect.

    This Order, which is effective immediately, shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 19, 2016. Karen H. Nies-Vogel, Director, Office of Exporter Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17681 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security Proposed Information Collection; Comment Request; Application for NATO International Competitive Bidding AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Direct all written comments to Jennifer Jessup, Departmental Paperwork Clearance Officer, Department of Commerce, Room 6616, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at [email protected]).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Mark Crace, BIS Liaison, (202) 482-8093, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Abstract

    Opportunities to bid for contracts under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program (NSIP) are only open to firms of member NATO countries. NSIP procedures for international competitive bidding (AC/4-D/2261) require that each NATO country certify that their respective firms are eligible to bid on such contracts. This is done through the issuance of a “Declaration of Eligibility.” The U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is the executive agency responsible for certifying U.S. firms. The BIS-4023P is the application form used to collect information needed to ascertain the eligibility of a U.S. firm. BIS will review applications for completeness and accuracy, and determine a company's eligibility based on its financial viability, technical capability, and security clearances with the U.S. Department of Defense.

    II. Method of Collection

    Submitted electronically or on paper.

    III. Data

    OMB Control Number: 0694-0128.

    Form Number(s): BIS-4023P

    Type of Review: Regular submission.

    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50.

    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 50.

    Estimated Total Annual Cost to Public: $2,000.

    IV. Request for Comments

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden (including hours and cost) of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Glenna Mickelson, Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17947 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-412-824] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the United Kingdom: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the United Kingdom is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas Schauer, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0410.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 7, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (AD) investigation.1 The following events occurred since the Preliminary Determination was issued.

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the United Kingdom: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 81 FR 11744 (March 7, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    In March 2016, the Department received supplemental cost responses from Tata Steel UK Ltd. (TSUK), one of the mandatory respondents in this investigation.2

    2See Letter from TSUK, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: TSUK's Section D Second Supplemental Questionnaire Response” (March 11, 2016).

    In June 2016, AK Steel (one of the petitioners),3 Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd. (Caparo), and TSUK submitted case briefs 4 and rebuttal briefs.5 A hearing was held on June 21, 2016.

    3 AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel), ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).

    4See Letter from the petitioners, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From The United Kingdom/Petitioner's Case Brief” (June 8, 2016); Letter from Caparo, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Case Brief of Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd.” (June 8, 2016); and Letter from TSUK, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Case Brief of Tata Steel UK Ltd. and Tata Steel International (Americas) Inc.” (June 8, 2016).

    5See Letter from the petitioners, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From The United Kingdom/Petitioner's Rebuttal Brief” (June 13, 2016); Letter from Caparo, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd. Rebuttal Brief” (June 13, 2016); and Letter from TSUK, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Rebuttal Brief of Tata Steel UK Ltd. and Tata Steel International (Americas) Inc.” (June 13, 2016).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from the United Kingdom. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,6 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    6See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations” dated February 29, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.7 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: “Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.8 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom” (July 20, 2016) (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in March and April 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the mandatory respondents, pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondents.9

    9See Memorandum to the File entitled “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Home-Market and Export-Price Sales Verification of Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd.,” dated April 1, 2016, Memorandum to the File entitled “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Home-Market and Export-Price Sales Verification of Tata Steel UK Ltd.,” dated April 4, 2016, Memorandum to the File entitled “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Constructed-Export-Price Sales Verification of Tata Steel UK Ltd.,” dated May 4, 2016, Memorandum to the File entitled “Certain Cold-Ro11ed Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom: Constructed-Export-Price Sales Verification of Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd.,” dated May 5, 2016, Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd., in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom,” dated May 31, 2016, and Memorandum to the File entitled “Verification of the Cost Response of Tata Steel UK Ltd. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the United Kingdom,” dated May 31, 2016.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Caparo and TSUK. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” and “Comparisons to Fair Value” sections of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, we calculated the all-others rate based on a weighted average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration.10

    10 We followed our normal practice, which is, with two respondents, we calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We then compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010).

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average margin
  • (percent)
  • Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd./Liberty Performance Steels Ltd.11 5.40 Tata Steel UK Ltd 25.56 All-Others 22.92
    Disclosure

    11 We determined that Liberty Performance Steels Ltd. is the successor-in-interest to Caparo Precision Strip, Ltd. See Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 7.

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-rolled steel from the United Kingdom, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, CBP shall require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price, as follows: (1) For the exporters/producers listed in the table above, the cash deposit rates will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation but the producer is, the rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; (3) the rate for all other producers or exporters will be 22.92 percent, as discussed in the “All Others Rate” section, above. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cold-rolled steel from the United Kingdom no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels;12

    12 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels;13

    13 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel;14

    14 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.15

    15See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42501, 42503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.16

    16See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Margin Calculations V. Comparisons to Fair Value VI. Discussion of Issues Comment 1: Level of Trade (TSUK) Comment 2: Home-Market Freight Revenue (TSUK) Comment 3: CEP Credit Expense (TSUK) Comment 4: Home-Market Credit Expense (Caparo) Comment 5: Quality Codes (Caparo) Comment 6: Date of Sale (Caparo) Comment 7: Successor-in-Interest (Caparo) Comment 8: Restructuring and Impairment Costs (TSUK) Comment 9: Raw Materials Costs (TSUK) Comment 10: Energy Costs (TSUK) Comment 11: Verification Corrections (TSUK) Comment 12: Verification Corrections (Caparo) VII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17940 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-533-866] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Final Affirmative Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from India as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erin Kearney, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-0167.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on December 22, 2015.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 79562 (December 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India” (Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from India. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: “Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because JSW Steel Limited (JSWSL) did not act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.5 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties, and the minor corrections presented, and additional items discovered, at verification, we made certain changes to the respondent's subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a subsidy rate for JSWSL (and its cross-owned company JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. (JSCPL)), the exporter/producer of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation.

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents with those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, as well as any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Because the only individually calculated rate is the rate calculated for JSWSL and JSCPL, in accordance with section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the rate calculated for JSWSL and JSCPL is assigned as the “all-others” rate. The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows:

    Company Subsidy rate JSW Steel Limited and JSW Steel Coated Products Limited 10.00 percent ad valorem. All-Others 10.00 percent ad valorem. Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of merchandise under consideration from India that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 22, 2015, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 20, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from December 22, 2015 through April 19, 2016.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APOs)

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation that is subject to sanction.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Application of AFA to JSW Steel (Salav) Ltd. Comment 2: Calculation of Benefits Under the Export Promotion of Capital Goods Scheme Comment 3: JSCPL's Electricity Duty Exemptions Comment 4: Adjustment to Export Sales Denominators Comment 5: Rounding of Program Rates IX. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 1

    1 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 2

    2 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 3

    3 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland. 4

    4Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42501, 42503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 5

    5Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17948 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, et al.; Notice of Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron Microscope

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC.

    Docket Number: 15-047. Applicant: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02210. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: JEOL Ltd., Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016.

    Docket Number: 15-051. Applicant: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, IA 50011-3020. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic and Great Britain. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724, May 24, 2016.

    Docket Number: 15-054. Applicant: University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016.

    Docket Number: 15-056. Applicant: St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN 38105. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016.

    Docket Number: 15-059. Applicant: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 00854. Instrument: Low Temperature Scanning Tunneling Microscope. Manufacturer: Unisoku, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016.

    Docket Number: 15-060. Applicant: Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-003. Applicant: Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR 97239. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724-25, May 24, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-006. Applicant: Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724-25, May 24, 2016.

    Docket Number: 16-009. Applicant: Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-5126. Instrument: Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: FEI Company, the Netherlands. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724, May 24, 2016.

    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such purposes as this instrument is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the United States at the time the instrument was ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18018 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-821-823] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Russian Federation: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and Final Negative Critical Circumstances Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Russian Federation (Russia). For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation (POI) is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kristen Johnson (the NLMK Companies) and Stephanie Moore (the Severstal Companies), AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4793 and (202) 482-3692, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on December 22, 2015.1 On July 1, 2016, the Department issued a Post-Preliminary Decision Memorandum with respect to the Provision of Mining Rights for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) program.2 A complete summary of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.3 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, Preliminary Negative Critical Circumstances Determination, and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 80 FR 79564 (December 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination), and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum To Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, titled “Decision Memorandum for the Post-Preliminary Analysis of Program Which Required More Information at the Preliminary Determination: Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation,” dated July 1, 2016 (Post-Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination,” dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from Russia. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,4 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address the scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: “Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available with regard to specificity of the Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR, to specificity of the Provision of Mining Rights for LTAR program, and to the Severstal Companies' use of the Tax Deduction for Exploration Expenses. Because neither the Government of Russia nor the Severstal Companies acted to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for certain information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.6 For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    6See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties and the minor corrections presented, and additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Negative Determination of Critical Circumstances

    As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, on October 30, 2015, Petitioners 7 filed a timely critical circumstances allegation, pursuant to section 703(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), alleging that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of cold-rolled steel from Russia.8 We continue to determine that critical circumstances do not exist for the NLMK Companies, the Severstal Companies, and all other producers/exporters of subject merchandise in Russia. A discussion of our negative determination of critical circumstances can be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum at the section, “Final Determination of Critical Circumstances.”

    7 Petitioners are ArcelorMittal USA LLC, United States Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., California Steel Industries, and AK Steel Corporation.

    8See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 79565.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for the NLMK Companies and the Severstal Companies, the exporters/producers of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation.

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents with those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, as well as any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this investigation, the only non-de minimis rate is the rate calculated for the NLMK Companies. Consequently, the rate calculated for the NLMK Companies is assigned as the all others rate. On this basis, the estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows:

    Company Subsidy rate Novolipetsk Steel OJSC, Novex Trading (Swiss) S.A., Altai-Koks OJSC, Dolomite OJSC, Stoilensky OJSC, Studenovskaya (Stagdok) OJSC, Trading House LLC, Vtorchermet NLMK LLC, Vtorchermet OJSC, and Vtorchermet NLMK Center LLC (collectively, the NLMK Companies) 6.95 percent ad valorem. PAO Severstal, Severstal Export GmbH, JSC Karelsky Okatysh, AO OLKON, AO Vorkutaugol, and JSC Vtorchermet (collectively, the Severstal Companies) 0.62 percent ad valorem (de minimis). All Others 6.95 percent ad valorem. Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our affirmative Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Russia, other than subject merchandise produced/exported by the Severstal Companies which received a preliminary de minimis countervailing duty rate, that were entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after December 22, 2015, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register.9 In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 20, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from December 22, 2015 through April 19, 2016.

    9See Preliminary Determination, 80 FR at 79565.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information relating to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APOs)

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Subsidies Valuation VI. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VII. Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences VIII. Analysis of Programs IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether Gazprom Is a Government Authority Comment 2: Whether the Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR Is De Facto Specific Comment 3: Whether the Natural Gas Market in Russia Is Distorted Comment 4: Standard Applied to Select a Tier Two Benchmark Comment 5: Availability of Tier Two Natural Gas Prices to Purchasers in Russia Comment 6: Comparability Adjustments to a Tier Two Benchmark Comment 7: Whether the Department Should Use a Tier Three Benchmark Comment 8: Whether to Adjust the Natural Gas Benchmark to Reflect Revised Data Comment 9: Whether the NLMK Companies Benefited from the Provision of Mining Rights Comment 10: Whether Timing of the Post-Preliminary Decision Memorandum Violated Interested Parties Due Process Rights Comment 11: Whether the GOR's Provision of Mining Rights Constitutes General Infrastructure that Is Not Countervailable Comment 12: Whether the GOR Acted to the Best of Its Ability With Regard to Usage Data Provided in Connection with the Provision of Mining Rights for LTAR Program Comment 13: Whether the Provision of Mining Rights Is Specific Comment 14: Whether the Mining Rights for LTAR Program Confers Recurring Benefits Comment 15: Use of Mining Rights—Not Coal—to Measure the Benefit Comment 16: Whether to Deduct Costs from the Coal Benchmark Rather than Adding Costs to the Extraction Price Paid by the Severstal Companies Comment 17: Revisions to Coal Benchmark Price Calculated in Post-Preliminary Decision Memorandum Comment 18: Whether to Countervail the Severstal Companies' Tax Debt Write-Offs Comment 19: Reduction in Extraction Payments Program Comment 20: Whether the Tax Deduction for Exploration Expenses Is Specific Comment 21: Whether to Apply Adverse Facts Available With Regard to the Benefit the Severstal Companies Received Under the Tax Deduction for Exploration Expenses Program Comment 22: Applicable De Minimis Rate for Russian CVD Proceedings Comment 23: Use of the NLMK Companies' Verified Sales Data Comment 24: Calculation of the Severstal Companies' Sales Denominator X. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of these investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of these investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 10

    10 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 11

    11 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 12

    12 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland. 13

    13See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 14

    14See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71,741, 71,741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050.

    The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17937 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-865] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that imports of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (“cold-rolled steel”) from India are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the section entitled “Final Determination Margins.” The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick O'Connor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0989.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary determination on March 7, 2016.1 A summary of the events that have occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From India: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 81 FR 11741 (March 7, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from India: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair-Value,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel from India. For a full description of the scope of the investigation, see Appendix I to this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination,” dated February 29, 2016 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted on the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016 (“Final Scope Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum accompanying this notice, and which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the “Act”), in February and March 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the collapsed entity JSW Steel Limited (“JSWSL”)/JSW Coated Products Limited (“JSCPL”) (collectively “JSW”),the sole mandatory respondent in this investigation, pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by JSW.

    Changes to the Dumping Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculation for JSW. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated “all-others” rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or de minimis dumping margins, and any dumping margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We based our calculation of the “all-others” rate on the dumping margin calculated for JSW, the only mandatory respondent in this investigation.

    Final Determination Margins

    The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margin exists:

    Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-average dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate
  • (percent)
  • JSW Steel Limited/JSW Coated Products Limited 7.60 6.70 All-Others 7.60 6.70
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from India which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination. We also will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price, as indicated in the table above, adjusted, where appropriate, for export subsidies.

    Where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies. Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on cold-rolled steel from India, the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above. Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the weighted-average margin column in the rate chart, above.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the U.S. International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of our final determination. As our final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will determine within 45 days of the final determination whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports, or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation, of the subject merchandise. If the ITC determines that such injury exists, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APOs”)

    This notice will serve as a reminder to parties subject to APOs of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This determination and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 5

    5 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 6

    6 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel;7

    7 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.8

    8Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42501, 42503 (July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.9

    9Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II List of Topics in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Discussion of the Issues: Comment 1: Duty Drawback Program Comment 2: Date of Sale Comment 3: Quality Characteristics Comment 4: Advertising Expenses Comment 5: Overall Cost Reconciliation Comment 6: Affiliated Raw Material Purchases Comment 7: General and Administrative Expenses V. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17950 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-351-844] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Final Affirmative Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel, or CRS) from Brazil. For information on the estimated subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sergio Balbontin, Nicholas Czajkowski, or Lana Nigro, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6478, (202) 482-1395, and (202) 482-1779, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on December 22, 2015.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Preliminary Affirmative Determination and Alignment of Final Determination With Final Antidumping Duty Determination Preliminary Determination, 80 FR 79562 (December 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil,” dated concurrently with this determination (Final Decision Memorandum) and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016.

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: “Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” attached to this notice at Appendix I.

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because the Government of Brazil and the respondent companies did not act to the best of their abilities in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.5 Specifically, we applied facts available, with adverse inferences, for the Reduction of Tax on Industrialized Products for Machines and Equipment, the BNDES FINAME Loan program, and the Ex-Tarifário program, in accordance with section 776(a) and (b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, (the Act). For further information, see the section “Use of Adverse Facts Available” in the accompanying Final Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties, and the minor corrections presented and additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas) and Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (CSN), the exporters/producers of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation.

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as mandatory respondents by those companies' exports of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate excludes zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated as well as any rates based entirely on facts otherwise available, pursuant to section 776 of the Act. Neither of the respondents' rates was zero or de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Notwithstanding the language of section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, we did not not calculate the “all-others” rate by weight averaging the rates of the two individually investigated respondents using their actual export sales data, because doing so risks disclosure of proprietary information. Instead, we calculated the all-others rate using the simple average of the respondents' calculated rates.6 The estimated countervailable subsidy rates are as follows:

    6See Memorandum to Dana S. Mermelstein, Program Manager, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, “Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil; Calculation of the All Others Rate for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (CSN) 11.31 Usinas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas) 11.09 All Others 11.20
    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    As a result of our Preliminary Determination and pursuant to section 703(d) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after December 22, 2015, the date of the publication of the Preliminary Determination in the Federal Register. In accordance with section 703(d) of the Act, we issued instructions to CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation for countervailing duty (CVD) purposes for subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after April 20, 2016, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries from December 22, 2015 through April 19, 2016.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and will reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 706(a) of the Act and will require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    ITC Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

    This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 1

    1 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 2

    2 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 3

    3 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland. 4

    4Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 5

    5Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71,741, 71,741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary Issues II. Background A. Case History B. Period of Investigation III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Use of Adverse Facts Available Subsidies Valuation A. Allocation Period B. Attribution of Subsidies C. Denominators V. Interest Rates Benchmarks and Discount Rates VI. Analysis of Programs A. Programs Determined To Be Countervailable B. Program Determined To Be Not Countervailable C. Programs Determined To Be Not Used, or Not To Confer a Measurable Benefit, During the POI D. Program Determined Not to Exist VII. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether To Apply AFA to both the GOB and Respondents for the Reduction of IPI for Machines and Equipment Program Comment 2: Whether the Reduction of IPI for Machines and Equipment Program is Countervailable Comment 3: Whether To Apply AFA for the Ex-Tarifário Program Comment 4: Whether Ex-Tarifário is De Facto Specific Comment 5: Whether Ex-Tarifário Provides a Financial Contribution Comment 6: Whether the FINAME Loan Program is Specific Comment 7: Whether To Apply AFA to Determine the Benefit of the FINAME Program Comment 8: Whether To Re-Calculate the FINAME Program for Usiminas Comment 9: Whether To Use a Company-Specific Interest Rate Benchmark for the FINAME Loan Program Comment 10: Whether the Integrated Drawback Scheme is Countervailable Comment 11: Whether Usiminas Received a Benefit from the Integrated Drawback Scheme Comment 12: Whether Reintegra is Countervailable Comment 13: Whether To Recalculate the Reintegra Subsidy Rate Comment 14: Whether CSN Applied For/Used the Reintegra Program During the POI Comment 15: Whether the Exemption of Payroll Tax is Countervailable Comment 16: Whether Subsidies Provided to UMSA should be Attributed to Usiminas Comment 17: Whether the Economic Subvention to National Innovation Program is not Countervailable Comment 18: Whether FINEP's Economic Subvention Program has not Conferred a Measurable Benefit Comment 19: Whether the Bahia State Industrial Development and Economic Integration Program (Desenvolve) is De Jure specific Comment 20: Whether the GOB's References to Web sites Constitute a Full Response VIII. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17952 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-580-882] Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Affirmative Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers/exporters of certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) as provided in section 705 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For information on the subsidy rates, see the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation is January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Yasmin Bordas or Emily Maloof, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-3813 or (202) 482-5649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the Preliminary Determination on December 22, 2015.1 A summary of events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic version are identical in content.

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 80 FR 79567 (December 22, 2015) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea,” dated July 20, 2016 (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel flat products from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,3 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    3See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Determination).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying decision and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.4 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Subsidy Programs and Comments Received

    The subsidy programs under investigation and the issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised, and to which we responded in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because POSCO and Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. (Hyundai Steel) did not act to the best of their ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.5 Specifically, we find that the application of adverse facts available is warranted for POSCO for its failure to report certain cross-owned input suppliers and facilities located in a foreign economic zone (FEZ). We are also applying adverse facts available to POSCO's affiliated trading company, Daewoo International Corporation (DWI) for certain loans presented at verification. Further, we find that the application of adverse facts available is warranted for Hyundai Steel for its failure to report its location in an FEZ. For further information, see the section “Use of Facts Otherwise Available and Adverse Inferences” in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    5See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received from parties and the minor corrections presented, and additional items discovered at verification, we made certain changes to the respondents' subsidy rate calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Final Determination

    In accordance with section 705(c)(1)(B)(i) of the Act, we calculated a rate for POSCO and Hyundai Steel, the two exporters/producers of subject merchandise selected for individual examination in this investigation.

    In accordance with sections 705(c)(1)(B)(i)(I) and 705(c)(5)(A) of the Act, for companies not individually investigated, we apply an “all-others” rate, which is normally calculated by weighting the subsidy rates of the individual companies selected as respondents with those companies' export sales of the subject merchandise to the United States. Under section 705(c)(5)(A)(i) of the Act, the all-others rate should exclude zero and de minimis rates calculated for the exporters and producers individually investigated, and any rates determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Therefore, we have excluded the rate calculated for POSCO because it was determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Thus, for the “all-others” rate, we applied the rate calculated for Hyundai Steel.

    Company Subsidy rate
  • (percent)
  • POSCO 58.36 Hyundai Steel Co., Ltd. 3.91 All-Others 3.91
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In the Preliminary Determination, the total net countervailable subsidy rates for the individually examined respondents were de minimis and, therefore, we did not suspend liquidation of entries of certain cold-rolled steel flat products from the Republic of Korea. However, the estimated subsidy rates for the examined companies are above de minimis in this final determination, we are directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of entries of cold-rolled steel from Korea that are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, and to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amounts indicated above. The suspension of liquidation will remain in effect until further notice. In addition, pursuant to section 705(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act, we are directing the CBP to require a cash deposit for such entries of merchandise in the amount indicated above.

    If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue a CVD order and instruct CBP to require a cash deposit of estimated CVDs for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 705(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of our determination. In addition, we are making available to the ITC all non-privileged and non-proprietary information related to this investigation. We will allow the ITC access to all privileged and business proprietary information in our files, provided the ITC confirms that it will not disclose such information, either publicly or under an administrative protective order (APO), without the written consent of the Assistant Secretary of Enforcement and Compliance.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (APOs)

    In the event the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 705(d) and 777(i) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Final Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Subsidies Valuation V. Benchmarks and Discount Rates VI. Use of Facts Otherwise Available And Adverse Inferences VII. Analysis of Programs VIII. Calculation of All-Others Rate IX. Analysis of Comments Comment 1: Whether the Department Should Apply Adverse Facts Available (AFA) to the Provision of Electricity for Less Than Adequate Remuneration (LTAR) Comment 2: Whether the Department Should Find That the Provision of Electricity for LTAR is a Countervailable Subsidy Comment 3: Whether the Department Should Use Other submitted Data to Measure the Adequacy of Remuneration of Electricity Comment 4: Whether the Department Should Find the Provision of Natural Gas for LTAR Countervailable Comment 5: Application of AFA to POSCO and Treatment of POSCO's Unreported Affiliates Comment 6: Whether to Apply AFA to POSCO Global R&D Center Comment 7: Whether to Apply AFA to Certain Loans Submitted at Verification Comment 8: Whether to Apply AFA to Hyundai Steel for Use of Certain Foreign Economic Zones (FEZs) Comment 9: Whether Certain Loans at the Korean Export Import Bank (KEXIM) Were Verified Comment 10: The Department's Treatment of Unalleged Programs and Verification of Non-Use Comment 11: Whether to Apply AFA to the GOK for Restriction of Special Taxation Agreement (RSTA) Article 120 Comment 12: Whether to Apply AFA to the GOK for DWI's Debt Workout Comment 13: Whether the Department Finds Tax Programs de facto Specific Comment 14: Whether the Department Should Determine That the Local Tax Exemption Hyundai Steel Received Under RSTA Article 120 Is Related to the Cold-Rolling Assets Purchased From Hyundai HYSCO and Is, Therefore, Attributable to Subject Merchandise Comment 15: Whether the Department Improperly Countervailed Property Tax Exemptions Received by the Pohang Plant Under RSLTA 78 X. Recommendation Appendix II—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances.6 The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    6 Since the Preliminary Determination, eight interested parties (i.e., JFE Steel Corporation, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Electrolux Home Care Products, Inc., ArcelorMittal USA LLC, AK Steel Corporation, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics Inc., and United States Steel Corporation) commented on the scope of the investigation. The Department reviewed these comments and made no changes. See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Final Scope Comments Decision,” dated concurrently with this final determination.

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 7

    7 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 8

    8 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 9

    9 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland. 10

    10Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 11

    11Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71,741, 71,741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050.

    The products subject to this investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17939 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-843] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (cold-rolled steel) from Brazil is being, or is likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). The period of investigation (POI) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hermes Pinilla, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3477.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 7, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (AD) investigation.1 On April 7, 2016, we amended our Preliminary Determination. 2

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Postponement of Final Determination and Extension of Provisional Measures, 81 FR 11754 (March 7, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    2See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Amended Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 81 FR 20366 (April 7, 2016) (Amended Preliminary Determination).

    The following events occurred since the Amended Preliminary Determination was issued. In June 2016, U.S. Steel and Steel Dynamics, Inc.,3 and CSN submitted case briefs 4 and rebuttal briefs.5

    3 The petitioners in this case are AK Steel Corporation (AK Steel), ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel Corporation (collectively, the petitioners).

    4See Letter from U.S. Steel, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, Antidumping Investigation: Case Brief” (June 17, 2016); Letter from Steel Dynamics, Inc., “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil,: SDI's Case Brief” (June 17, 2016); Letter from CSN, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil and Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: CSN's Case Brief” (June 17, 2016).

    5See Letter from U.S. Steel, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil, Antidumping Investigation: Rebuttal Brief” (June 22, 2016); Letter from CSN, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: CSN's Rebuttal Brief” (June 22, 2016).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel from Brazil. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,6 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    6See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations” dated February 29, 2016 (Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.7 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    7See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations” dated concurrently with this notice.

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.8 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    8See Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil” (July 20, 2016) (Issues and Decision Memorandum).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in April and May 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (CSN), pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by the respondent.9

    9See Memoranda to the File: “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Sales Verification Report for Companhia Siderugica Nacional,” dated May 20, 2016; “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Sales Verification Report for Companhia Siderugica Nacional LLC USA,” dated June 2, 2016; “Verification of the Further Manufacturing Response of Companhia Siderugica Nacional S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil,” dated June 3, 2016; and, “Verification of the Cost of Production Response of Companhia Siderugica Nacional S.A. in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil,” dated June 8, 2016.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    The Department found in the Preliminary Determination that Usiminas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas) withheld requested information, significantly impeded the proceeding, and did not cooperate to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information.10 Therefore, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, 776(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.308(a), the Department preliminarily determined the weighted-average dumping margin for Usiminas based on facts otherwise available with an adverse inference and preliminarily selected 35.43 percent as the adverse facts-available dumping margin for Usiminas, which is the highest margin alleged in the petition.11 This rate was assigned to Usiminas because Usiminas failed to respond to sections B, C, and D of the Department's questionnaire in this investigation.12

    10See Preliminary Determination.

    11See Amended Preliminary Determination. See also, Memorandum to the File entitled, “Corroboration of a Rate Based on Adverse Facts Available,” dated April 1, 2016.

    12Id.

    The Department received no comments regarding its preliminary application of the adverse facts-available dumping margin to Usiminas. For the final determination, the Department has not altered its analysis or decision to apply the adverse facts-available dumping margin to Usiminas.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our findings at verification and our analysis of the comments received, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for CSN. For a discussion of these changes, see the “Margin Calculations” and “Comparisons to Fair Value” sections of the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. For purposes of this final determination, we are assigning 14.43 percent as the “all-others” rate, which is based on the estimated dumping margin calculated for CSN, the only mandatory respondent for which we calculated a dumping margin.13

    13 See Memorandum to the File, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from Brazil: Calculation of All-Others Rate” (All-Others Rate Memorandum), dated July 20, 2016.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/
  • producer
  • Weighted-average dumping margin
  • (percent)
  • Cash
  • deposit
  • rate
  • (percent)
  • Companhia Siderurgica Nacional 14.43 10.34 Usiminas Siderurgicas de Minas Gerais S.A. (Usiminas) 35.43 31.66 All-Others 14.43 10.34
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed to interested parties within five days of the public announcement of this final determination in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-rolled steel from Brazil, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2016, the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register.

    Further, the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated amount by which the normal value exceeds the U.S. price as shown above, adjusted where appropriate for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation. Consistent with our longstanding practice, where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the amount by which the NV exceeds the U.S. price, less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies.14 Therefore, in the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation on cold-rolled steel flat products from Brazil the Department will instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above.15 Until such suspension of liquidation is resumed in the companion countervailing duty investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the weighted-average margin column in the rate chart, above.

    14See, e.g., Welded Line Pipe From the Republic of Turkey: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 80 FR 61362 (October 13, 2015) and Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Negative Critical Circumstances Determination: Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers From the Republic of Korea, 77 FR 17413 (March 26, 2012).

    15See Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From Brazil: Final Affirmative, dated July 20, 2016; see also the All-Others Rate Memorandum dated concurrently with this notice.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (ITC) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cold-rolled steel from Brazil no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to an Administrative Protective Order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 16

    16 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 17

    17 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 18

    18 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.19

    19See Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 Fed. Reg. 42501, 42503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.20

    20See Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Period of Investigation 4. Margin Calculations 5. Comparisons to Fair Value 6. List of Comments 7. Discussion of Comments Comment 1: Duty Drawback Comment 2: Affiliated Party Sales Comment 3: Inventory Carrying Costs Comment 4: Credit Revenue Comment 5: Model Match Comment 6: Whether to Exclude Work-In-Process Quantities from CSN LLC's Per-Unit Cost Calculations Comment 7: Calculation of CSN LLC's G&A Expense Ratio Comment 8: Whether to Use a Consolidated or Non-Consolidated Financial Expense Ratio Comment 9: Financial Expense Ratio to be applied to Further Manufacturing Costs Comment 10: The Market Value for Affiliated Energy Inputs Comment 11: The Market Value for Affiliated Rail Freight Inputs Comment 12: The Market Value for Affiliated Port Management Services Comment 13: Whether to Include Certain Expenses Recorded Directly to Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) Comment 14: Calculation of CSN's G&A Expense Ratio 8. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-17951 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration University of Pittsburgh, et al.; Notice of Decision on Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instruments

    This is a decision pursuant to Section 6(c) of the Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC.

    Docket Number: 15-044. Applicant: University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Instrument: Scios Dual Beam Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope. Manufacturer: Scios, Czech Republic. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to reveal the surface and sub-surface microstructure metrics of structural materials such as steels, Ni-based superalloys, Al-, Ti-, Mn-base and other specialty alloys, functional materials based on ceramic, metal and semiconducting thin films, particulates and composites.

    Docket Number: 15-049. Applicant: University of Maryland College Park, College Park, MD 20742. Instrument: Laser lithography system Photonic Professional GT and accessories. Manufacturer: Nanoscribe GmbH, Hermon Von Hermholtz Platz 1, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 11517, March 4, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The fundamental capabilities of the instrument target the nanoscale fabrication of complex 3-dimensional polymer components and systems. The instrument will be used for the characterization and optimization of fabrication resolution and precision for specific applications and device and system level characterization of components manufactured using the nanoscribe tool. It will be used to perform research into the nanoscale patterning of photoactive polymer materials, including epoxy-based photoresists. Unique features of this instrument include two photon polymerization of various UV-curable photoresists, two photon exposure of common positive tone photoresists, and the highest resolution available for a 3D printer.

    Docket Number: 15-055. Applicant: Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08854. Instrument: Opitcal Floating Zone Furnace. Manufacturer: Crystal Systems Cooperation, Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724, May 24, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to grow high quality bulk single crystals of a variety of complex quantum materials including multiferroics, ferroelectrics and low-symmetry magnets. Research projects will include the duality between FR and PUA states in hexagonal manganites, the duality between Ising triangular antiferromagnetism and improper ferroelectricity in hexagonal systems, the domains and domain walls in other polar or chiral magnets, the domains and domain walls in new hybrid improper ferroelectrics, the domains and domain walls in metastable phases at the phase boundaries, and magnetic skyrmion in non-centrosymmetric magnets. The instrument is equipped with 5 high power (1000 W in total) continuous wavelength laser diodes as a heating source. Five lasers ensure temperature homogeneity along the azimuthal direction around the crystal rod to be greater than 95%. The maximum temperature gradient along the growth direction is greater than 150 degrees Celsius/mm. Crystal growth can go from extremely stable and slow growth to very rapid quenching mode, 0.01 to 300 mm/h. This enables the growth of incongruently melting and highly evaporating materials.

    Docket Number: 15-058. Applicant: UChicago Argonne, Lemont, IL 60439-4873. Instrument: IEX ARPES Cryo-Manipulator. Manufacturer: Omnivac, Hansjoerg Ruppender, Germany. Intended Use: See notice at 81 FR 32724-25, May 24, 2016. Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. We know of no instruments of equivalent scientific value to the foreign instruments described below, for such purposes as this is intended to be used, that was being manufactured in the United States at the time of order. Reasons: The instrument will be used to cool and position single crystal and thin film samples in an angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) chamber. ARPES is used to map the electronic band structure of material. Samples include high-temperature superconductors, graphene, and other low dimensional materials, metals and complex oxides. The instrument's unique features include ultra-high vacuum compatible, six-axes of motion with a specified range x: +/−10mm, 1μm, +/−0.05μm, y: +/−10mm, 1μm, +/−0.05μm, z: 300mm, 1μm, +/−0.05μm, polar rotation: 360 degrees, 0.005 degrees, 0.0001 degrees, flip rotation: −15/+60 degrees, .1 degree, 0.05 degrees, azimuthal rotation: +/−90 degrees, .1 degree, 0.05 degrees, a low base temperature of 5.5K and high vibrational stability (motion at the sample <500 nm).

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Gregory W. Campbell, Director, Subsidies Enforcement Office, Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18016 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-821-822] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Russian Federation: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) determines that cold-rolled steel flat products (“cold-rolled steel”) from the Russian Federation (“Russia”) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 31, 2014, through June 30, 2015. The final dumping margins of sales at LTFV are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laurel LaCivita, Eve Wang or Alex Rosen, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4243, (202) 482-6231 or (202) 482-7814, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On March 8, 2016, the Department published the Preliminary Determination of this antidumping duty (“AD”) investigation and invited parties to comment.1 As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in April and May 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by Severstal Export GmbH and PAO Severstal (collectively “Severstal”) and Novex Trading (Swiss) SA and Novolipetsk Steel OJSC (collectively “NLMK”), the two mandatory respondents in this investigation. In June 2016, ArcelorMittal USA LLC (“ArcelorMittal”), on behalf of Petitioners,2 Severstal, and NLMK submitted case briefs and rebuttal briefs. For a complete discussion of the events that occurred since the Preliminary Determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.3

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 12072 (March 8, 2016) (“Preliminary Determination”).

    2 Petitioners are AK Steel Corporation, ArcelorMittal USA LLC, Nucor Corporation, Steel Dynamics, Inc., and United States Steel Corporation.

    3See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Russian Federation,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”).

    Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are cold-rolled steel from the Russian Federation. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Attachment II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum,4 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Final Determinations,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Final Scope Decision Memorandum”).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is incorporated by reference and hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Attachment I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Changes Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated excluding any zero or de minimis margins, and margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. In this case, because the final dumping margin calculated for NLMK is de minimis, we assigned the rate calculated for Severstal as the “all-others” rate in the final determination, in accordance with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.

    Final Determination

    The Department determines that the final weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:

    Exporter/producer Weighted-average
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • Severstal Export GmbH and PAO Severstal 13.36. Novex Trading (Swiss) SA and Novolipetsk Steel OJSC 1.04 (de minimis). All Others 13.36.
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the publication of this notice to interested parties, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part

    On February 29, 2016 the Department found that critical circumstances existed for merchandise exported by Severstal and NLMK, as well as for “all others.” 6 Based on the final sales data submitted by Severstal and NLMK and further analysis following the Preliminary Determination, we are modifying our findings for the final determination, in part. For the final determination, with respect to NLMK, we have determined that cold-rolled steel is not being, or is not likely to be, sold in the United States at LTFV and, thus, we are issuing a negative critical circumstances determination. With respect to Severstal, our analysis of Severstal revised reported monthly data demonstrates that Severstal's shipments of cold-rolled steel during the comparison period increased less than 15 percent over the respective imports in the base period, and thus, we are issuing a negative critical circumstances determination. For all others, we relied on NLMK's reported shipment data and Severstal's revised shipment data and determined that the imports during the comparison period increased more than 15 percent over the respective imports under the same methodology as in the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, we determine that critical circumstances did not exist with regard to NLMK's or Sevestal's imports of cold-rolled steel, but existed with regard to all others. For a complete discussion of this issue, see the “Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part” section of the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    6See Preliminary Determination.

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of cold-rolled steel from Russia as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, which are entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 8, 2016, the date of publication in the Federal Register of the affirmative Preliminary Determination. Because of our affirmative determination of critical circumstances for “all others,” in accordance with section 735(a)(3) and (c)(4)(C) of the Act, suspension of liquidation of cold-rolled steel from Russia, as described in the “Scope of the Investigation” section, shall apply, for “all others,” to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date which is 90 days before the publication of the Preliminary Determination. Because we find in this final determination that critical circumstances do not exist for Severstal, we will terminate the retroactive suspension of liquidation ordered at the Preliminary Determination and release any cash deposits that were required during that period, consistent with section 735(c)(3) of the Act. For NLMK, which includes Novex Trading (Swiss) SA and Novolipetsk Steel OJSC, because this entity's estimated weighted-average final dumping margin is de minimis, we are directing CBP to terminate suspension of liquidation of entries of cold-rolled steel produced and exported by this entity.

    Further, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(d), the Department will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the weighted-average amount by which normal value exceeds U.S. price as follows: (1) For the mandatory respondent listed above, the cash deposit rate will be equal to the dumping margin which the Department determined in this final determination adjusted, as appropriate, for export subsidies found in the final determination of the companion countervailing duty investigation; 7 (2) if the exporter is not a firm identified in this investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rates for all other producers or exporters will be 13.36 percent, as discussed in the “All-Others Rate” section above. The suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.

    7 In this case, although the product under investigation is also subject to a countervailing duty investigation, the Department found no countervailing duty determined to constitute an export subsidy. Therefore, we did not offset the cash deposit rates shown above for purposes of this determination.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of certain cold-rolled steel from Russia no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APO”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and this notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Attachment I List of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Investigation IV. Final Determination of Critical Circumstances, In Part V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. List of Comments VII. Discussion of the Issues Comment 1: Application of Adverse Facts Available (“AFA”) for Severstal Comment 2: Classification of Severstal Export's Sales through SSE Miami Comment 3: Treatment of SSE Miami's Indirect Selling Expenses in the Determination of U.S. Price Comment 4: The Use of Zeroing in Severstal's Margin Analysis Comment 5: Calculation of Severstal Export's U.S. Customs Clearance Costs Comment 6: Financial Expenses and Foreign Exchange Losses for Severstal Comment 7: Missing Costs for Severstal Comment 8: Cost for Products Sold but not Produced During the POI for Severstal Comment 9: Major Inputs for Severstal Comment 10: Financial Expense Ratio Calculation for Severstal Comment 11: Ministerial Errors for Severstal Comment 12: NLMK's Date of Sale for the U.S. Sales Comment 13: Reserve for Doubtful Debts in NLMK's Indirect Selling Expenses Comment 14: NLMK's Other Income and Expense Items Comment 15: Allocation of the Parent Company's Expenses to NLMK Comment 16: NLMK's Net Financial Expense Ratio Comment 17: Minor Corrections in NLMK's Margin Calculation VIII. Recommendation Attachment II Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (“IF”)) steels, high strength low alloy (“HSLA”) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (“AHSS”), and Ultra High Strength Steels (“UHSS”). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 8

    8 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 9

    9 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 10

    10 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (“GOES”) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Germany, Japan, and Poland. 11

    11Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42,501, 42,503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014) (“Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel from Germany, Japan, and Poland”). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (“NOES”), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan. 12

    12Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71,741, 71,741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014) (“Non-Oriented Electrical Steel from the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan”). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17938 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-881] Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) determines that certain cold-rolled steel flat products (“cold-rolled steel”) from the Republic of Korea (Korea) are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are listed below in the “Final Determination” section of this notice. The period of investigation (“POI”) is July 1, 2014, through June 30, 2015.

    DATES:

    Effective July 29, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Victoria Cho or Robert James, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5075 or (202) 482-0649, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    The Department published the preliminary determination on March 7, 2016.1 A summary of the events that occurred since the Department published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, may be found in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.2

    1See Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Flat Products From the Republic of Korea: Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 81 FR 11757 (March 7, 2016) (Preliminary Determination) and accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Affirmative Determination in the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products from the Republic of Korea,” (Final Issues and Decision Memorandum), dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.

    Also, as explained in the memorandum from the Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department exercised its authority to toll all administrative deadlines due to the recent closure of the Federal Government.3 As a consequence, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by four business days. The revised deadline for the final determination is now July 20, 2016.

    3See Memorandum to the File from Ron Lorentzen, Acting A/S for Enforcement & Compliance, “Tolling of Administrative Deadlines As a Result of the Government Closure During Snowstorm Jonas,” dated January 27, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is cold-rolled steel from the Republic of Korea. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix II of this notice.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the Preliminary Scope Determination,4 the Department set aside a period of time for parties to address scope issues in case briefs or other written comments on scope issues.

    4See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Certain Cold-Rolled Steel Products From Brazil, the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom: Scope Comments Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determinations,” dated February 29, 2016 (“Preliminary Scope Decision Memorandum”).

    For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the records of the cold-rolled steel investigations, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Final Scope Decision Memorandum.5 The Final Scope Decision Memorandum is incorporated by, and hereby adopted by, this notice.

    5See Memorandum to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, “Final Scope Comments Decision Memorandum,” dated May 16, 2016 (Final Scope Decision Memorandum).

    Analysis of Comments Received

    All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice.6 A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix I. The Final Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“ACCESS”). ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov and it is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room B-8024 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/index.html. The signed and electronic versions of the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    6See Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, in January, March, and April 2016, the Department verified the sales and cost data reported by the mandatory respondents Hyundai Steel Company and POSCO,7 pursuant to section 782(i) of the Act. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant accounting and production records, and original source documents provided by respondents.

    7 We are continuing to collapse the mandatory respondent Daewoo International Corporation (DWI) and POSCO, and henceforward refer to the collapsed entity as “POSCO”. See Preliminary Determination, 81 FR at 11758.

    Use of Adverse Facts Available

    In making this final determination, the Department relied, in part, on facts available and, because Hyundai Steel Company did not act to the best of its ability in responding to the Department's requests for information, we drew an adverse inference where appropriate in selecting from among the facts otherwise available.8 For further information, see the accompanying Final Issues and Decision Memorandum.

    8See sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act.

    Changes to the Margin Calculations Since the Preliminary Determination

    Based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made certain changes to the margin calculations for Hyundai Steel Company and POSCO. For a discussion of these changes, see the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum. We have also revised the all-others rate.

    All-Others Rate

    Consistent with sections 735(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and 735(c)(5) of the Act, the Department also calculated an estimated all-others rate. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated all-others rate shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero and de minimis margins, and any margins determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. Where the rates for investigated companies are zero or de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available, section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act instructs the Department to establish an “all others” rate using “any reasonable method.”

    In this investigation, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins for Hyundai Steel Company and POSCO, that are above de minimis and which are not based entirely on total facts available. We calculated the all-others rate using a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents.9

    9 With two respondents, we would normally calculate (A) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; (B) a simple average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents; and (C) a weighted-average of the dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents using each company's publicly-ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. We would compare (B) and (C) to (A) and select the rate closest to (A) as the most appropriate rate for all other companies. See Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Reviews, Final Results of Changed-Circumstances Review, and Revocation of an Order in Part, 75 FR 53661, 53663 (September 1, 2010). As complete publicly ranged sales data was unavailable, we based the all-others rate on a simple average of the two calculated margins.

    Final Determination Margins

    The Department determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

    Exporter/manufacturer Weighted-average dumping margins
  • (percent)
  • Cash deposit rate
  • (percent)
  • Hyundai Steel Company 34.33 34.33 POSCO and Daewoo International Corporation 6.32 0.00 All Others 20.33 20.33
    Disclosure

    We intend to disclose to parties in this proceeding the calculations performed for this final determination within five days of the date of public announcement of our final determination, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation

    Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to continue to suspend liquidation of all entries of cold-rolled steel from Korea, which were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after March 7, 2016 (the date of publication of the affirmative Preliminary Determination).

    Where the product under investigation is also subject to a concurrent countervailing duty investigation, we instruct CBP to require a cash deposit less the amount of the countervailing duty determined to constitute any export subsidies. Because of the affirmative final determination in the countervailing duty investigation, suspension of liquidation will be ordered in that investigation, and so long as suspension of liquidation continues under this antidumping duty investigation, the cash deposit rates for this antidumping duty investigation will be the rates identified in the cash deposit rate column in the rate chart, above. In the event that a countervailing duty order is issued and suspension of liquidation continues in the companion countervailing duty investigation on cold-rolled steel from the Korea, the Department will continue to instruct CBP to require cash deposits adjusted by the amount of export subsidies, as appropriate. These adjustments are reflected in the final column of the rate chart, above.

    International Trade Commission Notification

    In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because the final determination in this proceeding is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports of cold-rolled steel from Korea no later than 45 days after our final determination. If the ITC determines that material injury or threat of material injury does not exist, the proceeding will be terminated and all cash deposits will be refunded. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, the Department will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders (“APOs”)

    This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a violation subject to sanction.

    This determination and notice are issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: July 20, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I List of Topics Discussed in the Final Issues and Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Scope of the Investigation V. Changes Since the Preliminary Determination VI. Discussion of the Issues General Comments 1. Differential Pricing Company-Specific Comments POSCO 2. International Freight and Domestic Brokerage and Handling Expenses 3. Loading and Foreign Inland Freight Expenses 4. Quality Product Characteristic 5. Yield Loss 6. General and Administrative Expenses 7. Home Market Gross Unit Price Field 8. Inclusion of Warehousing Expense in Freight Revenue Cap Calculations 9. CEP Offset 10. Affiliated Party Purchases Cost Adjustment Hyundai Steel 11. Whether or not to apply total adverse facts available to Hyundai Steel 12. Control Numbers and Prime/Non-Prime Designation 13. U.S. Sales and Further Manufacturing Costs 14. Repacking Cost for Further Manufactured Merchandise 15. Reporting of Inland Freight, Warehousing Services, International Freight, and Other Services Provided by an Affiliated Company 16. 2013 Financial Statements 17. Certain Home Market Customers 18. CEP Offset 19. Other Issues 20. Other Cost Issues VII. Recommendation Appendix II Scope of the Investigation

    The products covered by this investigation are certain cold-rolled (cold-reduced), flat-rolled steel products, whether or not annealed, painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other non-metallic substances. The products covered do not include those that are clad, plated, or coated with metal. The products covered include coils that have a width or other lateral measurement (“width”) of 12.7 mm or greater, regardless of form of coil (e.g., in successively superimposed layers, spirally oscillating, etc.). The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness less than 4.75 mm and a width that is 12.7 mm or greater and that measures at least 10 times the thickness. The products covered also include products not in coils (e.g., in straight lengths) of a thickness of 4.75 mm or more and a width exceeding 150 mm and measuring at least twice the thickness. The products described above may be rectangular, square, circular, or other shape and include products of either rectangular or non-rectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process, i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling” (e.g., products which have been beveled or rounded at the edges). For purposes of the width and thickness requirements referenced above:

    (1) Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above, and

    (2) where the width and thickness vary for a specific product (e.g., the thickness of certain products with non-rectangular cross-section, the width of certain products with non-rectangular shape, etc.), the measurement at its greatest width or thickness applies.

    Steel products included in the scope of this investigation are products in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements listed below exceeds the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:

    • 2.50 percent of manganese, or • 3.30 percent of silicon, or • 1.50 percent of copper, or • 1.50 percent of aluminum, or • 1.25 percent of chromium, or • 0.30 percent of cobalt, or • 0.40 percent of lead, or • 2.00 percent of nickel, or • 0.30 percent of tungsten (also called wolfram), or • 0.80 percent of molybdenum, or • 0.10 percent of niobium (also called columbium), or • 0.30 percent of vanadium, or • 0.30 percent of zirconium

    Unless specifically excluded, products are included in this scope regardless of levels of boron and titanium.

    For example, specifically included in this scope are vacuum degassed, fully stabilized (commonly referred to as interstitial-free (IF)) steels, high strength low alloy (HSLA) steels, motor lamination steels, Advanced High Strength Steels (AHSS), and Ultra High Strength Steels (UHSS). IF steels are recognized as low carbon steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as titanium and/or niobium added to stabilize carbon and nitrogen elements. HSLA steels are recognized as steels with micro-alloying levels of elements such as chromium, copper, niobium, titanium, vanadium, and molybdenum. Motor lamination steels contain micro-alloying levels of elements such as silicon and aluminum. AHSS and UHSS are considered high tensile strength and high elongation steels, although AHSS and UHSS are covered whether or not they are high tensile strength or high elongation steels.

    Subject merchandise includes cold-rolled steel that has been further processed in a third country, including but not limited to annealing, tempering, painting, varnishing, trimming, cutting, punching, and/or slitting, or any other processing that would not otherwise remove the merchandise from the scope of the investigation if performed in the country of manufacture of the cold-rolled steel.

    All products that meet the written physical description, and in which the chemistry quantities do not exceed any one of the noted element levels listed above, are within the scope of this investigation unless specifically excluded. The following products are outside of and/or specifically excluded from the scope of this investigation:

    • Ball bearing steels; 10

    10 Ball bearing steels are defined as steels which contain, in addition to iron, each of the following elements by weight in the amount specified: (i) Not less than 0.95 nor more than 1.13 percent of carbon; (ii) not less than 0.22 nor more than 0.48 percent of manganese; (iii) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of sulfur; (iv) none, or not more than 0.03 percent of phosphorus; (v) not less than 0.18 nor more than 0.37 percent of silicon; (vi) not less than 1.25 nor more than 1.65 percent of chromium; (vii) none, or not more than 0.28 percent of nickel; (viii) none, or not more than 0.38 percent of copper; and (ix) none, or not more than 0.09 percent of molybdenum.

    • Tool steels; 11

    11 Tool steels are defined as steels which contain the following combinations of elements in the quantity by weight respectively indicated: (i) More than 1.2 percent carbon and more than 10.5 percent chromium; or (ii) not less than 0.3 percent carbon and 1.25 percent or more but less than 10.5 percent chromium; or (iii) not less than 0.85 percent carbon and 1 percent to 1.8 percent, inclusive, manganese; or (iv) 0.9 percent to 1.2 percent, inclusive, chromium and 0.9 percent to 1.4 percent, inclusive, molybdenum; or (v) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 3.5 percent molybdenum; or (vi) not less than 0.5 percent carbon and not less than 5.5 percent tungsten.

    • Silico-manganese steel; 12

    12 Silico-manganese steel is defined as steels containing by weight: (i) Not more than 0.7 percent of carbon; (ii) 0.5 percent or more but not more than 1.9 percent of manganese, and (iii) 0.6 percent or more but not more than 2.3 percent of silicon.

    • Grain-oriented electrical steels (GOES) as defined in the final determination of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland.13

    13Grain-Oriented Electrical Steel From Germany, Japan, and Poland: Final Determinations of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Certain Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances, 79 FR 42501, 42503 (Dep't of Commerce, July 22, 2014). This determination defines grain-oriented electrical steel as “a flat-rolled alloy steel product containing by weight at least 0.6 percent but not more than 6 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, not more than 1.0 percent of aluminum, and no other element in an amount that would give the steel the characteristics of another alloy steel, in coils or in straight lengths.”

    • Non-Oriented Electrical Steels (NOES), as defined in the antidumping orders issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce in Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan.14

    14Non-Oriented Electrical Steel From the People's Republic of China, Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, and Taiwan: Antidumping Duty Orders, 79 FR 71741, 71741-42 (Dep't of Commerce, Dec. 3, 2014). The orders define NOES as “cold-rolled, flat-rolled, alloy steel products, whether or not in coils, regardless of width, having an actual thickness of 0.20 mm or more, in which the core loss is substantially equal in any direction of magnetization in the plane of the material. The term `substantially equal' means that the cross grain direction of core loss is no more than 1.5 times the straight grain direction (i.e., the rolling direction) of core loss. NOES has a magnetic permeability that does not exceed 1.65 Tesla when tested at a field of 800 A/m (equivalent to 10 Oersteds) along (i.e., parallel to) the rolling direction of the sheet (i.e., B800 value). NOES contains by weight more than 1.00 percent of silicon but less than 3.5 percent of silicon, not more than 0.08 percent of carbon, and not more than 1.5 percent of aluminum. NOES has a surface oxide coating, to which an insulation coating may be applied.”

    The products subject to this investigation are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers: 7209.15.0000, 7209.16.0030, 7209.16.0060, 7209.16.0070, 7209.16.0091, 7209.17.0030, 7209.17.0060, 7209.17.0070, 7209.17.0091, 7209.18.1530, 7209.18.1560, 7209.18.2510, 7209.18.2520, 7209.18.2580, 7209.18.6020, 7209.18.6090, 7209.25.0000, 7209.26.0000, 7209.27.0000, 7209.28.0000, 7209.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7211.23.1500, 7211.23.2000, 7211.23.3000, 7211.23.4500, 7211.23.6030, 7211.23.6060, 7211.23.6090, 7211.29.2030, 7211.29.2090, 7211.29.4500, 7211.29.6030, 7211.29.6080, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, 7225.50.6000, 7225.50.8080, 7225.99.0090, 7226.92.5000, 7226.92.7050, and 7226.92.8050. The products subject to the investigation may also enter under the following HTSUS numbers: 7210.90.9000, 7212.50.0000, 7215.10.0010, 7215.10.0080, 7215.50.0016, 7215.50.0018, 7215.50.0020, 7215.50.0061, 7215.50.0063, 7215.50.0065, 7215.50.0090, 7215.90.5000, 7217.10.1000, 7217.10.2000, 7217.10.3000, 7217.10.7000, 7217.90.1000, 7217.90.5030, 7217.90.5060, 7217.90.5090, 7225.19.0000, 7226.19.1000, 7226.19.9000, 7226.99.0180, 7228.50.5015, 7228.50.5040, 7228.50.5070, 7228.60.8000, and 7229.90.1000.

    The HTSUS subheadings above are provided for convenience and U.S. Customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of the investigation is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-17941 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XA444 Marine Mammals; File No. 14245 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; issuance of permit amendment.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the NMFS National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Seattle, WA 98115-6349, (Dr. John Bengtson, Responsible Party), has been issued a minor amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 14245-03.

    ADDRESSES:

    The amendment and related documents are available for review upon written request or by appointment in the Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-West Highway, Room 13705, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 427-8401; fax (301) 713-0376.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Amy Hapeman or Carrie Hubard, (301) 427-8401.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The requested amendment has been granted under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.); the regulations governing the taking and importing of marine mammals (50 CFR part 216); the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

    The original permit (No. 14245), issued on April 25, 2011 (76 FR 30309) authorized the holder to conduct research in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic Oceans on 33 species of cetaceans, including vessel and aerial surveys for remote observation and monitoring, marking, biological sampling, and/or tagging, and captures for two species with subsequent sampling and tagging activities through May 1, 2016. The minor amendment (No. 14245-04) extends the duration of the permit through May 1, 2017, but does not change any other terms or conditions of the permit.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Julia Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17919 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE699 Endangered and Threatened Species; Initiation of 5-Year Review for North Atlantic Right Whale AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of initiation of 5-year review; request for information.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces a 5-year review of the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The purpose of these reviews is to ensure that the listing classification of a species is accurate. The 5-year review will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review; therefore, we request submission of any such information on the North Atlantic right whale that has become available since the last 5-year review in 2012. Based on the results of this 5-year review, we will make the requisite determination under the ESA.

    DATES:

    To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we must receive your information no later than October 27, 2016. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit information on this document identified by NOAA-NMFS-2016-0092 by either of the following methods:

    • Electronic submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal www.regulations.gov. To submit comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal, first click the “submit a comment” icon, then enter NOAA-NMFS-2016-0092 in the keyword search. Locate the document you wish to comment on from the resulting list and click on the “Submit a Comment” icon on the right of that line.

    • Mail or hand-delivery: Therese Conant, NMFS Office of Protected Resources, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD. 20910.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael J. Asaro, NMFS Protected Resources Division, Greater Atlantic Region, 978-282-8469.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a list of endangered and threatened wildlife and plant species at 50 CFR 17.11 (for animals and 17.12 (for plants). Section 4(c)(2)(A) of the ESA requires that we conduct a review of listed species at least once every five years. On the basis of such reviews under section 4(c)(2)(B), we determine whether or not any species should be delisted or reclassified from endangered to threatened or from threatened to endangered. Delisting a species must be supported by the best scientific and commercial data available and only considered if such data substantiates that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for one or more of the following reasons: (1) The species is considered extinct; (2) the species is considered to be recovered; and/or (3) the original data available when the species was listed, or the interpretation of such data, were in error. Any change in Federal classification would require a separate rulemaking process. The regulations in 50 CFR 424.21 require that we publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing those species currently under active review. This notice announces our active review of the North Atlantic right whale currently listed as endangered.

    Background information on the North Atlantic right whale is available on the NMFS Office of Protected Species Web site at: http://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/whales/north-atlantic-right-whale.html.

    Determining if a Species is Threatened or Endangered

    Section 4(a)(1) of the ESA requires that we determine whether a species is endangered or threatened based on one or more of the five following factors: (1) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (2) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (3) disease or predation; (4) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b) also requires that our determination be made on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available after taking into account those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign nation, to protect such species.

    Public Solicitation of New Information

    To ensure that the 5-year review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting new information from the public, governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, environmental entities, and any other interested parties concerning the status of the North Atlantic right whale. The 5-year review considers the best scientific and commercial data and all new information that has become available since the listing determination or most recent status review. Categories of requested information include: (1) Species biology including, but not limited to, population trends, distribution, abundance, demographics, and genetics; (2) habitat conditions including, but not limited to, amount, distribution, and important features for conservation; (3) status and trends of threats; (4) conservation measures that have been implemented that benefit the species, including monitoring data demonstrating effectiveness of such measures; (5) need for additional conservation measures; and (6) other new information, data, or corrections including, but not limited to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the list of endangered and threatened species, and improved analytical methods for evaluating extinction risk.

    If you wish to provide information for this 5-year review, you may submit your information and materials electronically or via mail (see ADDRESSES section). We request that all information be accompanied by supporting documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, or reprints of pertinent publications. We also would appreciate the submitter's name, address, and any association, institution, or business that the person represents; however, anonymous submissions will also be accepted.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Angela Somma, Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18004 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE765 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Committee on Tuesday, August 16, 2016, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Tuesday, August 16, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048: (508) 339-2200; fax: (508) 339-1040.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The committee will give a brief update on the next steps for Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch control rules being considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The committee will also review preliminary PDT analysis and develop measures related to localized depletion to be considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. The Committee will review progress and provide input on Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, an action considering modification of accountability measures (AMs) that trigger if the sub-ACL of Georges Bank Haddock is exceeded by the midwater trawl Herring fishery. Additionally, they will start initial discussions of work priorities for the Herring FMP in 2017. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17969 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE764 New England Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of a public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Herring Advisory Panel on Wednesday, August 17, 2016, to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.

    DATES:

    This meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 17, 2016 at 9 a.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, 31 Hampshire Street, Mansfield, MA 02048: (508) 339-2200; fax: (508) 339-1040.

    Council address: New England Fishery Management Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2, Newburyport, MA 01950.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Agenda

    The Advisory Panel will give a brief update on the next steps for Management Strategy Evaluation of Atlantic Herring Acceptable Biological Catch control rules being considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Advisory Panel will also review preliminary PDT analysis and develop measures related to localized depletion to be considered in Amendment 8 to the Atlantic Herring FMP. The advisory panel will review progress and provide input on Framework Adjustment 5 to the Atlantic Herring FMP, an action considering modification of accountability measures (AMs) that trigger if the sub-ACL of Georges Bank Haddock is exceeded by the midwater trawl Herring fishery. Additionally, they will also start initial discussions of work priorities for the Herring FMP in 2017. Other business may be discussed as necessary.

    Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at 978-465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17970 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Technical Information Service [Docket No.: 160726001-5001-02] Opportunity To Enter Into a Joint Venture With the National Technical Information Service for Data Innovation Support; Extension of Proposal Submission Period AGENCY:

    National Technical Information Service, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; extension of proposal submission period.

    SUMMARY:

    The National Technical Information Service (NTIS) is extending the period during which it will accept proposals from organizations interested in entering into a Joint Venture Partnership with NTIS to assist Federal agencies to develop and implement innovative ways to collect, connect, access, analyze, or use Federal data and data services.

    DATES:

    Proposals are due on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 9, 2016. Proposals received after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on August 1, 2016 and before publication of this notice are deemed timely.

    ADDRESSES:

    Proposers must submit their written submissions electronically with the subject line “Opportunity to Enter into a Joint Venture Partnership with the National Technical Information Service for Data Innovation Support” via email to [email protected] with an email copy to Kenyetta Haywood at [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Don Hagen at 703-605-6142, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    On Wednesday, June 15, 2016, NTIS published a notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 39025), requesting proposals from interested for-profit, non-profit, or research performing organizations to enter into a Joint Venture Partnership with NTIS to assist Federal agencies to develop and implement innovative ways to collect, connect, access, analyze, or use Federal data and data services. An informational session and webinar about the opportunity were held on Thursday, July 7, 2016. The session was recorded and is posted on the NTIS Web site at www.ntis.gov. Due to the many questions received from interested parties and requests for additional time to prepare proposals, NTIS is extending the proposal submission period to 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 9, 2016. Proposers who submitted proposals by the August 1, 2016 deadline but who want to use the additional preparation time may withdraw the proposal they submitted and submit a complete, revised proposal by the August 9, 2016 deadline.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Gregory Capella, Deputy Director, National Technical Information Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18034 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-04-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Additions to and deletions from the Procurement list.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds products and a service to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: August 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Additions

    On 5/20/2016 (81 FR 31917-31918) and 6/24/2106 (81 FR 41297-41298), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notices of proposed additions to the Procurement List.

    After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the products and service and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the products and service listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the products and service to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and 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 products and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products and service are added to the Procurement List:

    Products: NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8520-00-NIB-0134—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Green-Certified, 8 oz. Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0135—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Green-Certified, 12 oz. Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0141—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 535 ml Pump Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0142—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 45 ml Pump Bottle 8520-00-NIB-0143—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 1200 ml LTX Cartridge Refill 8520-00-NIB-0144—Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer, Alcohol-Free, Foam, 1200 ml ADX Cartridge Refill Mandatory for: Department of Homeland Security Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Travis Association for the Blind, Austin, TX Contracting Activity: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Procurement Operations, Washington, DC Distribution: C-List NSN(s)-Product Name(s): MR 10731—Garden Colander, Includes Shipper 20731 Mandatory for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Wilson-Salem, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-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 (Goodwill) Contracting Activity: Dept. of the Air Force, FA3002 338 SCONS CC, Randolph AFB, TX Service Type: Janitorial Service Mandatory for: US Forest Service, Northern California Service Center, 6101 Airport Road, Redding, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Shasta County Opportunity Center, Redding, CA Contracting Activity: Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA Deletions On 6/24/2106 (81 FR 41297), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8415-01-579-9752—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9622—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9621—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9747—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9749—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9745—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9753—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9756—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9759—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9762—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9616—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9773—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9776—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9781—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0068—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0075—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9850—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-580-0077—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9852—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9864—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9840—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9843—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9847—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9827—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9830—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9833—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9836—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9801—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9806—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9811—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9814—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9782—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9784—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9823—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9789—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9794—Multi-Cam Coat 8415-01-579-9795—Multi-Cam Coat Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: STEPS, Inc., Farmville, VA, ReadyOne Industries, Inc., El Paso, TX Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8920-01-E62-3504—Cake Mix, Gingerbread; 6-4 lb cans 8920-01-E62-3503—Cake Mix, Gingerbread; 6-5 lb boxes Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Transylvania Vocational Services, Inc., Brevard, NC Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17990 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List; Proposed Additions and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed Additions to and Deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add products to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products and a service previously provided by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Additions

    If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the products listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following products are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 13001—Greensaver Produce Keeper, 1.6 Qt. MR 13002—Greensaver Produce Keeper, 4.3 Qt. MR 13004—Greensaver Crisper Insert. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH. Mandatory Purchase For: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency. Distribution: C-List. Deletions

    The following products and service are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 890—Barbecue, Display, 4 Tool. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency. NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 1032—Rag, Cleaning, White, MR 1145—Server, Gravy Boat. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc., Winston-Salem, NC. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency. NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 6230-00-643-3562—Lantern, Electric, Head 6230-01-493-7630—Lighting Pro VR-5AA Headlight. Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, TX. NSN(s)—Product Name(s) 6230-01-285-4396—Lantern, Electric, Fireman's Helmet. Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Easter Seals Capital Region & Eastern Connecticut, Inc., Windsor, CT. Service Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service. Mandatory for: Veterans Center #402: 4161 Cass, Detroit, MI. Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, Southfield, MI. Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs. Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17989 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings TIME AND DATE:

    10:00 a.m., Friday, August 5, 2016.

    PLACE:

    Three Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor, Commission Conference Room.

    STATUS:

    Closed.

    MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

    Surveillance, enforcement, and examinations matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's Web site at http://www.cftc.gov.

    CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

    Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.

    Natise Allen, Executive Assistant.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18134 Filed 7-27-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2016-HQ-0005] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Air Force Equal Opportunity (AF/EO) Program, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Air Force Equal Opportunity Office (AF/EO), ATTN: Mr. James H. Carlock Jr., 1500 West Perimeter Road, Suite 4500, Joint Base Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland 20762, or call at 240-612-4113.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: AF EO IT Systems—Entellitrack and iComplaints; AF FORM 1271, Equal Opportunity Record of Assistance/Contact; AF FORM 1587, Military Equal Opportunity Formal Complaint Summary; AF FORM 1587-1, Military Equal Opportunity Informal Complaint Summary; OMB Control Number 0701-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to counsel, process, investigate and adjudicate complaints of unlawful discrimination brought by contractors, retirees, and dependents. The information is used to investigate and resolve complaints of unlawful discrimination and sexual harassment under the AF Equal Opportunity Program, and to maintain records created as a result of the filing of allegations and appeals involving unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, physical/mental disability, or genetic information, reprisal for participating in the EEO process or opposing discriminatory practices.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 1060.

    Number of Respondents: 530.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 530.

    Average Burden per Response: 2 hours.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondents are contractors, retirees, AF applicants for employment, former AF employees, and family members of military and civilian employees who provide a variety of personal information to a certified EO Specialist/Counselor/Advisor. The information is then utilized for case management, recordkeeping, tracking, quarterly and annual statistical reporting. The information is requested once the respondent contacts (via phone, email, office, mail correspondence) the EO office and then is transferred into the AF EO IT System for further processing. All information provided becomes a part of the respondent's case file. Generally, the information is collected once; however, on occasion, the same respondent may file multiple complaints. Although the information requested is voluntary, not providing the information may delay case processing or cause case file not to be processed at all. Additionally, these records and/or information in these records may be used to report records as required by the FY 98 National Defense Authorization Act, and utilized as a data source for descriptive statistics; to provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that individual; or for disclosure to an authorized formal complaints auditor, administrative judge, equal employment opportunity investigator, arbitrator or other authorized official(s) involved in the investigation or settlement of a formal complaint or appeal.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register, Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18008 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force [Docket ID: USAF-2016-HQ-0006] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps (AFROTC), Department of Defense/Department of the Air Force/Headquarters.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department of the Air Force announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the AFROTC Scholarship Program, ATTN: Mr. Jack Sanders, 551 E. Maxwell Blvd., Maxwell AFB AL 36112 or call 334-953-2869.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: AFROTC Scholarship Program On-Line Application; OMB Control Number 0701-0101.

    Needs and Uses: The AFROTC scholarship application is required for completion by high school seniors and recent graduates for the purpose of competing for an AFROTC 4 year scholarship. Respondents must complete and submit their application via the AFRTOC.com Web site. Submitted data will be evaluated by AFROTC scholarship selections boards to determine eligibility and to select individuals for the award of a college scholarship. The following is required to be provided by the applicant and maintained by AFROTC: Names, addresses, social security numbers, telephone numbers, transcripts, and resumes. The following documentation is provided as part of the application: Counselor Certification/signed copy of transcript (9th-11th grades only), extracurricular activity sheet, GPA and SAT and/or ACT scores, physical fitness assessment, and resume.

    Affected Public: High school seniors and recent graduates who apply for an AFROTC scholarship.

    Annual Burden Hours: 7,500.

    Number of Respondents: 15,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 15,000.

    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.

    Frequency: Annually.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18042 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0029] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the U.S. Army Combat Readiness Center, ATTN: Mrs. Jennifer Hoskins, Building 4905 Ruf Avenue, Fort Rucker, AL 36362,or call at 334-255-3857.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Army Aviation and Ground Accident Reporting; DA Form 285 (Ground Accident Report), DA Form 285-AB (Abbreviated Ground Accident Report), DA Form 2397-AB (Abbreviated Aviation Accident Report), DA Form 2397-8, (Aviation Accident Report-Personnel Information) and DA Form 2397-9 (Aviation Accident Report-Injury/Occupational Illness Data), DA Form 2397-U (Unmanned Aircraft System Accident Report); OMB Control Number 0702-XXXX.

    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary to monitor and facilitate the U.S. Army's safety programs; to analyze accident experience and exposure information; to analyze and correlate relationships between planned actions and resultant accidents; and to support the Army's accident prevention efforts.

    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Annual Burden Hours: 458.

    Number of Respondents: 500.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 500.

    Average Burden per Response: 55 minutes.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    U.S. Army Safety Center personnel retrieve data from accident prevention studies by name, Social Security Number (SSN), age, or gender. Accident and incident case records are retrieved by date of incident, location of incident, or type of equipment involved. Paper records are maintained in locked file cabinets and information is accessible only by authorized personnel with appropriate clearance/access in the performance of their duty. Remote terminal access is only authorized by authorized personnel. Maintaining this accident data is critical in maintaining the integrity of the accident prevention process.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17924 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [OMB Control Number 0704-0441; Docket Number DARS-2016-0019] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 29, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Part 246, Quality Assurance, and related clauses at 252.246; OMB Control Number 0704-0441.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 54,250.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 54,250.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately .5 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 27,250.

    Needs and Uses: DoD needs to ensure that the Government receives timely notification of item nonconformances or deficiencies that could impact safety. The Procuring Contracting Officer and the Administrative Contracting Officer use the information to ensure that the customer is aware of potential safety issues in delivered products, has a basic understanding of the circumstances, and has a point of contact to begin addressing a mutually acceptable plan of action. In addition, DoD needs to track warranties for Item Unique Item Identification (IUID) required items in the IUID registry. The identification and enforcement of warranties is essential to the effectiveness and efficiency of DoD's material readiness.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation:

    a. The clause at DFARS 252.246-7003, Notification of Potential Safety Issues, requires contractors to provide notification of (1) all nonconformances for parts identified as critical safety items acquired by the Government under the contract, and (2) all nonconformances or deficiencies that may result in a safety impact for systems, or subsystems, assemblies, subassemblies, or parts integral to a system acquired by or serviced for the Government under the contract.

    b. The provision at DFARS 252.246-7005, Notice of Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items, requires an offeror to provide with its offer, for each contract line item number, warranty tracking information for each warranted item.

    c. The clause at DFARS 252.246-7006, Warranty Tracking of Serialized Items, requires contractors, for warranted items, to provide (1) the unique item identifier, and (2) the warranty repair source information and instructions.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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 number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public 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 provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18007 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [OMB Control Number 0704-0434; Docket Number DARS-2016-0018] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions and Approvals AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD)

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 29, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS); Radio Frequency Identification Advance Shipment Notices; OMB Control Number 0704-0434.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 5,217.

    Responses per Respondent: 3,782.

    Annual Responses: 19,732,850.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 1.16 seconds.

    Annual Burden Hours: 6,353.

    Needs and Uses: DoD uses advance shipment notices for the shipment of material containing Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tag data. DoD receiving personnel use the advance shipment notice to associate the unique identification encoded on the RFID tag with the corresponding shipment. Use of the RFID technology permits DoD an automated and sophisticated end-to-end supply chain that has increased visibility of assets and permits delivery of supplies to the warfighter more quickly.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation: The clause at DFARS 252.211-7006, Passive Radio Frequency Identification, requires the contractor to ensure that the data on each passive RFID tag are unique and conform to the requirements that they are readable and affixed to the appropriate location on the specific level of packaging in accordance with MIL-STD-129 tag placement specifications. The contractor shall encode an approved RFID tag using the appropriate instructions at the time of contract award. Regardless of the selected encoding scheme, the contractor is responsible for ensuring that each tag contains a globally unique identifier. The contractor shall electronically submit advance shipment notices with the RFID tag identification in advance of the shipment in accordance with the procedures at https://wawf.eb.mil/.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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 number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public 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 provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18006 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Defense Acquisition Regulations System [OMB Control Number 0704-0216; Docket Number DARS-2016-0012] Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance, the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by August 29, 2016.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 228, Bonds and Insurance, and related clauses at 252.228; OMB Control Number 0704-0216.

    Type of Request: Extension.

    Number of Respondents: 120.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 120.

    Average Burden per Response: Approximately 3.88 hours.

    Annual Burden Hours: 466.

    Needs and Uses: DoD uses the information obtained through this collection to determine the allowability of a contractor's costs of providing war-hazard benefits to its employees; to determine the need for an investigation regarding an accident that occurs in connection with a contract; and to determine whether a contractor performing a service or construction contract in Spain has adequate insurance coverage.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit and not-for profit institutions.

    Frequency: On occasion.

    Respondent's Obligation

    a. DFARS 252.228-7000, Reimbursement for War-Hazard Losses, requires the contractor to provide notice and supporting documentation to the contracting officer regarding potential claims, open claims, and settlements providing war-hazard benefits to contractor employees.

    b. DFARS 252.228-7005, Accident Reporting and Investigation Involving Aircraft, Missiles, and Space Launch Vehicles, requires the contractor to report promptly to the administrative contracting officer all pertinent facts relating to each accident involving an aircraft, missile, or space launch vehicle being manufactured, modified, repaired, or overhauled in connection with the contract.

    c. DFARS 252.228-7006, Compliance with Spanish Laws and Insurance, requires the contractor to provide the contracting officer with a written representation that the contractor has obtained the required types of insurance in the minimum amounts specified in the clause, when performing a service or construction contract in Spain.

    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Jasmeet Seehra.

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Seehra at the Office of Management and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    You may also submit comments, identified by docket 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 number, and title for the Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other public 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 provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check http://www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

    DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Frederick C. Licari.

    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Licari at: Publication Collections Program, WHS/ESD Information Management Division, 4800 Mark Center Drive, 2nd Floor, East Tower, Suite 02G09, Alexandria, VA 22350-3100.

    Jennifer L. Hawes, Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18005 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-HQ-0006] Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) announces a proposed public information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information. Any associated form(s) for this collection may be located within this same electronic docket and downloaded for review/testing. Follow the instructions at http://www.regulations.gov for submitting comments. Please submit comments on any given form identified by docket number, form number, and title.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) (Military Personnel Policy)/Accession Policy, Attn.: Major Arturo Roque, or call (703) 695-5527.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title; Associated Form; and OMB Number: Request for Verification of Birth; DD Form 372; OMB Control Number 0704-0006.

    Needs and Uses: Title 10, U.S.C. 505, 532, 3253, and 8253, require applicants meet minimum and maximum age and citizenship requirements for enlistment into the Armed Forces (including the Coast Guard). If an applicant is unable to provide a birth certificate, the recruiter will forward a DD Form 372, “Request for Verification of Birth,” to a state or local agency requesting verification of the applicant's birth date. This verification of the birth date ensures that the applicant does not fall outside the age limitations, and the applicant's place of birth supports the citizenship status claimed by the applicant.

    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.

    Annual Burden Hours: 8,200.

    Number of Respondents: 140,000.

    Responses per Respondent: 1.

    Annual Responses: 140,000.

    Average Burden per Response: .058 hours.

    Frequency: On Occasion.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18041 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0088] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Student Support Services Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), 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 September 27, 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-0088. 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 2E347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Harold Wells, 202-453-6131.

    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: Student Support Services Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0525.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Private Sector.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 1,072.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 16,348.

    Abstract: Student Support Services (SSS) program grantees must submit the Annual Performance Report (APR) annually. The reports are used to evaluate grantees' performance for substantial progress, respond to GPRA requirements, and award prior experience points at the end of each project (budget) period. The Department also aggregates the data to provide descriptive information on the projects and to analyze the impact of the (SSS) Program on the academic progress of participating students. The revisions to the APR are as follows: Field 6b IPEDS Unit ID is the primary source for data on colleges, universities, and technical and vocational postsecondary institutions in the United States, Section I, Part 3 Competitive Preference Priorities is a collection of supporting data of the interventions proposed during the Student Support Services grant competition, Field 38 Participant's Case Number is a TRIO generated number to be used as a “match key” to ensure accuracy and consistency in reporting; data for that field can be downloaded from the SSS APR Web site and Field 39 Deceased participant status which allows respondents to report on deceased participants.

    Dated: July 26, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17979 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0058] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Impact Aid Program Application for Section 7002 Assistance AGENCY:

    Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), 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 29, 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-0058. 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-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Amanda Ognibene, 202-453-6637.

    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: Impact Aid Program Application for Section 7002 Assistance

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0036

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 250

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 375

    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education is requesting an extension for the Application for Assistance under Section 7002 of Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). This application is for a grant program otherwise known as Impact Aid Payments for Federal Property. Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) that have lost taxable property due to Federal activities request financial assistance by completing an annual application. Please note that this formula grant program was previously authorized under Title VIII of the ESEA (as amended), but will move to Title VII under the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reauthorized the ESEA, effective for FY 2017. Regulations for Section 7002 of the Impact Aid Program are found at 34 CFR 222, Subpart B.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17894 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0059] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds AGENCY:

    Department of Education (ED), Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE).

    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 29, 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-0059. 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-349, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Elizabeth Witt, 202-260-5585.

    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: Survey on the Use of Funds Under Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality State Grants—State-Level Activity Funds.

    OMB Control Number: 1810-0711.

    Type of Review: Extension without change of an existing collection of information.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 52.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 260.

    Abstract: The reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) places a major emphasis on teacher quality as a significant factor in improving student achievement. Under ESEA, Title II, Part A provides funds to states (SEAs) and school districts (LEAs) to conduct a variety of teacher-related reform activities. ESEA funds can be used for a variety of teacher quality activities in any subject area. Although the majority of funds are provided to LEAs, allowable SEA uses of funds include: Reforming teacher and principal certification (including recertification) and licensure to ensure that teachers have the necessary subject-matter knowledge and teaching skills in the subjects they teach; and providing support to teachers and principals through programs such as teacher mentoring, team teaching, reduced class schedules, intensive professional development, and using standards or assessments to guide beginning teachers; and carrying out programs to establish, expand, or improve alternative routes for state certification for teachers and principals (especially in mathematics and science) that will encourage highly qualified individuals with at least a baccalaureate degree; and developing and implementing effective mechanisms that help LEAs and schools recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, principals, and pupil services personnel; and reforming tenure systems, implementing teacher testing for subject-matter knowledge, and implementing teacher testing for state certification or licensure, consistent with Title II of the Higher Education Act.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Tomakie Washington, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17895 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Agency Information Collection Renewal AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to renew, for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the renewed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    DATES:

    Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 27, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period or if you want access to the collection of information, without charge, contact the person listed below as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be sent to the following: Richard Bonnell, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Acquisition Management, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121 or by email at [email protected]. Please put “2016 DOE Agency Information Collection Renewal” in the subject line when sending an email.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Richard Bonnell by email at [email protected]. Please put “2016 DOE Agency Information Collection Renewal” in the subject line when sending an email.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. 1910-0400 (Renewal); (2) Information Collection Request Title: DOE Financial Assistance Information Clearance; (3) Type of Review: Renewal; (4) Purpose: This information collection package covers mandatory collections of information necessary to annually plan, solicit, negotiate, award and administer grants and cooperative agreements under the Department's financial assistance programs. The information is used by Departmental management to exercise management oversight with respect to implementation of applicable statutory and regulatory requirements and obligations. The collection of this information is critical to ensure that the Government has sufficient information to judge the degree to which awardees meet the terms of their agreements; that public funds are spent in the manner intended; and that fraud, waste, and abuse are immediately detected and eliminated; (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 11,134; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 39,378; (7) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 532,067; and (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $0

    Statutory Authorities:

    Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2016. John Bashista, Director, Office of Acquisition Management, Department of Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17983 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Call for U.S.-China Energy Performance Contracting Pilot Projects To Be Recognized at the 7th Annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy (DOE).

    ACTION:

    Notice of request for project submissions.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of a request for submission of innovative U.S.-China energy performance contracting (EPC) projects. EPC projects at public, commercial, and industrial facilities located in the U.S. or China with project participation from at least one U.S. entity and at least one Chinese entity are eligible. Eligible entities include energy service companies (ESCOs), technology providers, facility owners or operators, and financiers. EPC projects that meet the 2016 Pilot Project Criteria and demonstrate replicability will receive special recognition at the 7th Annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum in October 2016 in Beijing. Some recognition recipients will be invited to speak at a special breakout session.

    DATES:

    Project submissions for consideration must be received by August 22, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Project submissions should be emailed in English and Chinese to the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and ESCO Committee of China Energy Conservation Association at the email addresses provided below. “The Pilot Project Criteria 2016” and “Appendix: Project Submission Template” can be found on: http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/archived-research-areas/energy-efficiency-and-mitigation/epc/.

    Applicants must complete the Chinese and English project submission template and draft a proposed MOU. The proposed MOU should memorialize the cooperation of U.S. and Chinese entities applying as a team, set out their intention to do an EPC project(s); and include all minimum U.S.-China EPC Pilot Project Program requirements. Submit one email with project submission and proposed MOU as attachments to the following email addresses: [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected] Failure to submit complete, bilingual project information may result in ineligibility.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Questions about the U.S.-China Energy Performance Contracting Initiative—Ms. Arlene Fetizanan, U.S. Department of Energy, [email protected] or (202) 586-3124.

    Questions about the energy performance contracting pilot project criteria and submission—Ms. Sha Yu, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, [email protected] or (301) 314-6736.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background: This call for EPC pilot projects is part of the Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry Initiative under the U.S.-China Climate Change Working Group (CCWG). The CCWG was launched in 2013, and now includes nine action initiatives for understanding and addressing climate change in the United States and China. Under the CCWG Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry Initiative, DOE and China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) launched a program to promote EPC. The program aims to improve energy efficiency and reduce emissions in the U.S. and China through deep energy retrofits, using innovative financing where appropriate. The combined $20 billion U.S. and China EPC markets have the potential to grow dramatically, delivering significant environmental and economic benefits. For more information on U.S.-China EPC market trends and resources to assist clients, practitioners, and financial institutions in selecting, developing, and executing EPC projects, please visit: http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/archived-research-areas/energy-efficiency-and-mitigation/epc/.

    The U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum is an annual, invitation-only event at which the two sides discuss energy efficiency issues and develop initiatives for further collaboration. Over 200 senior private sector, NGO, and government stakeholders attend. This is the second year that DOE and NDRC have issued a request for recognition of U.S.-China EPC pilot projects at the Energy Efficiency Forum. In 2015, DOE and NDRC released their first call for U.S.-China EPC pilot project submissions for recognition. Three innovative pilot projects were recognized by senior U.S. and Chinese officials at the 6th Annual U.S.-China Energy Efficiency Forum (http://energy.gov/eere/articles/win-win-opportunities-sixth-annual-us-china-energy-efficiency-forum), as well as at the 2016 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue.

    Objective: This recognition program encourages U.S. and Chinese organizations to obtain real-world experience in each other's market using innovative, feasible business models alongside local practitioners. Recognized EPC projects will use integrated solutions to foster deep energy savings, demonstrating an optimal combination of project development and design, energy auditing, energy savings guarantees, third-party financing, contracting, and Measurement and Verification (M&V). For example, an innovative pilot project may consist of a bundle of short and long-payback measures for an attractive overall return on investment and deeper energy savings than shorter-payback measures, alone. The initiative aims to encourage as many noteworthy projects as practical in the public infrastructure, public and commercial buildings and industrial facilities sectors. All projects recognized should have participation from both Chinese and U.S. entities.

    The list of 2016 Pilot Project Criteria has been vetted by both DOE and NDRC (http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/data/epc/Pilot_Project_Opportunity_2016_ENG_CHN_final.pdf). Applicants must complete the Chinese and English project submission template and draft a proposed MOU. The proposed MOU should memorialize the cooperation of U.S. and Chinese entities applying as a team, set out their intention to do an EPC project(s); and include all minimum U.S.-China EPC Pilot Project Program requirements. In order to meet requirements, applications should describe the facility that will undergo a retrofit under an EPC and who the primary participants are. EPC pilot projects should include participation by both U.S. and Chinese stakeholders. The application should outline an integrated approach that will retrofit at least three systems and reduce energy consumption relative to baseline conditions. The EPC pilot project should utilize innovative financing, contracting and/or M&V and indicate how it is noteworthy relative to traditional EPCs in the market. Applicants agree to share project progress and data on energy savings quarterly. EPC pilot projects must start within nine months after signing the MOU. Refer to “The Pilot Project Criteria 2016” and “Appendix: Project Submission Template” in the link above for more requirement details. Failure to submit complete, bilingual project information may result in ineligibility.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2016. Robert L. Sandoli, Director of International Programs, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17986 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy [EERE-2016-WAP-GUID-001] Updating Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance AGENCY:

    Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability and request for public comment.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is updating Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance related to the implementation and installation of health and safety measures as part of the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP). The draft guidance also provides required components for Grantees to include in their Health and Safety (H&S) Plans. This guidance will assist Grantee decision-making during H&S Plan development.

    This notice also serves to inform the public of the availability of an online tool which provides notification of, and allows individuals to submit comments on, the draft guidance related to the DOE Weatherization Assistance Program. All future draft guidance releases will be made via the online tool. Individuals who wish to receive notification of draft guidance releases may receive that notification via the online tool. For information on the web address of the online tool see the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    DATES:

    DOE will accept written comments until August 29, 2016. For more information on how to submit comments, please see the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION sections of this notice.

    ADDRESSES:

    DOE's draft Weatherization and Health and Safety Guidance is available via the online commenting tool at: http://doe.civicomment.org/ Interested parties are invited to submit comments on the guidance via this online tool.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Erica Burrin; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., EE5W, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 280-9863; [email protected]

    For legal issues, please contact Kavita Vaidyanathan; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., GC-33, Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-0669; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is updating its Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance to clarify, update and provide additional information related to the implementation and installation of health and safety measures as part of the DOE WAP. This draft guidance also provides required components for Grantees to include in their Health and Safety (H&S) Plans. The guidance and attachments supersede the following:

    WPN 11-6a, Supplemental Health and Safety Guidance

    WPNs 11-6, Health and Safety Guidance

    WPN 09-6, Lead Safe Weatherization (LSW) Additional Materials and Information

    WPN 08-6, Interim Lead-Safe Weatherization Guidance

    WPN 08-4, Space Heater Policy

    WPNs 02-6, Weatherization Activities and Federal Lead-Based Paint Regulations

    WPN 02-5, Health and Safety Guidance

    It is DOE's aim that this guidance will better assist Grantee decision-making during H&S Plan development.

    Grantees may create more stringent requirements as long as those requirements do not conflict with this guidance.

    Submitting Comments on the Draft Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance

    DOE will accept comments regarding the draft Weatherization Health and Safety Guidance no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this notice. Interested parties are invited to submit comments via the online tool as outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Issued in Washington, DC on July 14, 2016. AnnaMaria Garcia, Director, Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17751 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-13-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-547); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements).

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due September 27, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-13-000) by either of the following methods:

    • eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    • Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0084.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-547 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The Commission uses FERC-547 (Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements) to implement the statutory refund provisions governed by Sections 4, 5 and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).1 Sections 4 and 5 authorize the Commission to order a refund (with interest) for any portion of a natural gas company's increased rate or charge found to be unjust or unreasonable. Refunds may also be instituted by a natural gas company as a stipulation to a Commission-approved settlement agreement or a provision under the company's tariff. Section 16 of the NGA authorizes the Commission to prescribe rules and regulations necessary to administer its refund mandates. The Commission's refund reporting requirements are located in 18 CFR 154.501 and 154.502.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

    The Commission uses the data to monitor refunds owed by natural gas companies to ensure that the flow-through of refunds owed by these companies are made as expeditiously as possible and to assure that refunds are made in compliance with the Commission's regulations.

    Type of Respondents: Natural gas companies.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:2 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    2 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    3 The cost is based on FERC's 2016 average cost (salary plus benefits) of $74.50/hour. The Commission staff believes that the industry's level and skill set is comparable to FERC.

    FERC—547: Gas Pipeline Rates: Refund Report Requirements Number of respondents
  • Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total humber
  • of responses
  • Average burden & cost per response 5 Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1)×(2)=(3) (4) (3)*(4)=(5) (5)÷(1) Natural Gas Pipelines 11 1 11 75 hrs.; $5,587.50 825 hrs.; $61,462.50 $5,587.50

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

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18039 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP16-98-000; PF15-29-000] Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Transco to Charleston Project

    On March 9, 2016, Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC (Dominion) filed an application in Docket No. CP16-98-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Transco to Charleston Project (Project), and would provide firm transportation service of 80,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/day) to local commercial, industrial, and power generation customers.

    On March 21, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the EA for the Project.

    Schedule for Environmental Review Issuance of EA September 19, 2016 90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline December 18, 2016

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Project Description

    Dominion would construct and operate 55 miles of 12-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Spartanburg, Laurens, Newberry, and Greenwood Counties, South Carolina; 5 miles of 4-inch-diameter natural gas pipeline in Dillon County, South Carolina; a new 3,600-horsepower (hp) compressor station in Dorchester County, South Carolina; add 2,800 hp of compression at an existing compressor station in Spartanburg County, South Carolina; modify operation at an existing compressor station in Aiken County, South Carolina; and construct and operate support facilities in Aiken, Charleston, Dillon, Dorchester, Greenwood, Laurens, Newberry, and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina.

    Background

    On October 30, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Planned Transco to Charleston Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI was issued during the pre-filing review of the Project in Docket No. PF15-29-000 and was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, the Columbia South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, the South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, the Natural Gas Supply Association, Upstate Forever, and 20 landowners. The primary issues raised by the commentors are potential crossings of private lands, wildlife species and habitat, and water quality, as well as general support for, and opposition to, the Project.

    Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP16-98), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at (866) 208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at [email protected] The eLibrary link on the FERC Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18040 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. CP15-558-000] PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Penneast Pipeline Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the PennEast Pipeline Project, proposed by PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC (PennEast) in the above-referenced docket. PennEast requests authorization to construct and operate a 118.8-mile-long pipeline to provide 1.1 million dekatherms per day (MMDth/d) of year-round natural gas transportation service from northern Pennsylvania to markets in eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and surrounding states.

    The draft EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the PennEast Pipeline Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the EIS, would result in some adverse environmental impacts, but impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of PennEast's proposed and FERC staff recommended mitigation measures. This determination is based on a review of the information provided by PennEast and further developed from data requests; field investigations; scoping; literature research; alternatives analysis; and contacts with federal, state, and local agencies as well as Indian tribes and individual members of the public.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration participated as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and participate in the NEPA analysis. Although these agencies provided input to the conclusions and recommendations presented in the draft EIS, the agencies will present their own conclusions and recommendations in any respective record of decision or determination for the Project.

    The draft EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the following project facilities:

    • 115.1 miles of new, 36-inch-diameter pipeline extending from Luzerne County, Pennsylvania to Mercer County, New Jersey (77 miles in Pennsylvania and 38 miles in New Jersey);

    • the 2.1-mile Hellertown Lateral consisting of 24-inch-diameter pipe in Northampton County, Pennsylvania;

    • the 0.1-mile Gilbert Lateral consisting of 12-inch-diameter pipe in Hunterdon County, New Jersey;

    • the 1.5-mile Lambertville Lateral consisting of 36-inch-diameter pipe in Hunterdon County, New Jersey;

    • new, 47,700 total hp Kidder Compressor Station in Kidder Township, Carbon County, Pennsylvania; and

    • associated aboveground facilities including eight metering and regulating stations for interconnections, 11 main line valve sites, and four pig launcher/receiver sites.

    The FERC staff mailed copies of the draft EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project area. Paper copy versions of this EIS (Volume I in paper copy, Volumes II and III on CD) were mailed to those specifically requesting them; all others received a CD version of the entire document. In addition, the draft EIS is available for public viewing on the FERC's Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of copies are available for distribution and public inspection at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8371.

    Any person wishing to comment on the draft EIS may do so. To ensure consideration of your comments on the proposal in the final EIS, it is important that the Commission receive your comments on or before September 12, 2016.

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or [email protected] Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.

    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on “eRegister.” If you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select “Comment on a Filing” as the filing type; or

    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP15-558-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426;

    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the Commission invites you to attend one of the public comment meetings its staff will conduct in the project area to receive comments on the draft EIS. To ensure interested parties have ample opportunity to attend a public comment meeting six meetings are scheduled as follows:

    Date and time Location Monday, August 15, 2016 6-10 p.m. Best Western Lehigh Valley & Conference Center, 300 Gateway Drive, Bethlehem, PA 18017, Phone: 610-866-5800. Monday, August 15, 2016 6-10 p.m. Penn's Peak, 325 Maury Road, Jim Thorpe, PA 18229, Phone: 610-826-9000. Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6-10 p.m. Grand Colonial, 86 Route 173 West, Hampton, NJ 08827, Phone: 908-735-7889. Tuesday, August 16, 2016 6-10 p.m. Peddler's Village, (Lahaska and Neshaminy Rooms), Routes 202 & 263, Lahaska, PA 19831, Phone: 215-794-4000. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 6-10 p.m. Best Western Genetti Hotel & Conference Center, 77 E Market Street, Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701, Phone: 570-823-6152. Wednesday, August 17, 2016 6-10 p.m. Clifford B. Memorial Hall, 1666 Pennington Road, Ewing, NJ 08618, Phone: 609-882-3221.

    The meetings will be scheduled from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. There will not be a formal presentation by Commission staff. The primary goal will be to have your verbal environmental comments on the draft EIS documented in the public record. Verbal comments will be recorded by stenographers in one-on-one settings, and transcriptions will be placed into the docket for the project and made available for public viewing on FERC's eLibrary system (see below for instructions on using eLibrary). If a significant number of people are interested in providing verbal comments in the one-on-one settings, a time limit of 3 to 5 minutes may be implemented for each commenter. It is important to note that verbal comments hold the same weight as written or electronically submitted comments. Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available throughout the meetings to answer your questions about the environmental review process.

    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR part 385.214).1 Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to have your comments considered.

    1 See the previous discussion on the methods for filing comments.

    Questions?

    Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP15-558-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-3676; for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.

    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18038 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC16-156-000.

    Applicants: Town Square Energy East, LLC, Town Square Energy, LLC.

    Description: Application of Town Square Energy East, LLC, et al. for Authorization Under Federal Power Act Section 203 and Requests for Expedited Treatment and Confidential Information.

    Filed Date: 7/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160722-5197.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2035-000.

    Applicants: Black Oak Wind, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to June 27, 2016 Black Oak Wind, LLC tariff filing.

    Filed Date: 7/21/16.

    Accession Number: 20160721-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2194-000.

    Applicants: Clinton Battery Utility, LLC.

    Description: Supplement to July 14, 2016 Clinton Battery Utility, LLC submits filing.

    Filed Date: 7/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160722-5185.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/5/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2272-000.

    Applicants: Puget Sound Energy, Inc

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Attachment O Revisions to Implement Intrachange Scheduling and Imbalance Charges to be effective 9/20/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160722-5180.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2273-000.

    Applicants: Passadumkeag Windpark, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Passadumkeag Market-Based Rate Tariff Amendment Filing to be effective 7/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/25/16.

    Accession Number: 20160725-5057.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2274-000.

    Applicants: Parrey, LLC.

    Description: § 205(d) Rate Filing: Parrey Market-Based Rate Tariff Amendment Filing to be effective 7/26/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/25/16.

    Accession Number: 20160725-5058.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17993 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1098-000.

    Applicants: Dominion Carolina Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: DCGT—July 20, 2016, Administrative Changes to be effective 8/19/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160720-5086.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1099-000.

    Applicants: Colorado Interstate Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Update Filing—Colorado Springs Utilities to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160720-5122.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1100-000.

    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate 2016-07-20, CP, Encana to be effective 7/21/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/20/16.

    Accession Number: 20160720-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/1/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated July 21, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17994 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1101-000.

    Applicants: Cheyenne Plains Gas Pipeline Company, L.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Non Conforming Negotiated Rate Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/21/16.

    Accession Number: 20160721-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1102-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Rate Schedule FTP to be effective 8/23/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/22/16.

    Accession Number: 20160722-5147.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/3/16.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and § 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17995 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-8-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (Ferc-539); Comment Request July 25, 2016. AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

    ACTION:

    Comment request.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(a)(1)(D), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is submitting its information collection FERC-539 (Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related Applications) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review of the information collection requirements. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission previously issued a Notice in the Federal Register (81 FR 21859, 4/13/2016) requesting public comments. The Commission received no comments on the FERC-539 and is making this notation in its submittal to OMB.

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due by August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments filed with OMB, identified by the OMB Control No. 1902-0062, should be sent via email to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs: [email protected] Attention: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Desk Officer.

    A copy of the comments should also be sent to the Commission, in Docket No. IC16-8-000, by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], by telephone at (202) 502-8663, and by fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-539, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related Applications.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0062.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-539 information collection requirements with no changes to the reporting requirements.

    Abstract: Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA) 1 provides, in part, that “. . . . no person shall export any natural gas from the United States to a foreign country or import any natural gas from a foreign country without first having secured an order from the Commission authorizing it to do so.” The 1992 amendments to Section 3 of the NGA concern importation or exportation from/to a nation which has a free trade agreement with the United States and requires that such importation or exportation: (1) Shall be deemed to be a “first sale” (i.e. not a sale for a resale) and (2) shall be deemed to be consistent with the public interest. Applications for such importation or exportation should be granted without modification or delay.

    1 15 U.S.C. 717-717w.

    The regulatory functions of Section 3 are shared by the Commission and the Secretary of Energy, Department of Energy (DOE). The Commission has the authority to approve or disapprove the construction and operation of particular facilities, the site at which such facilities shall be located, and, with respect to natural gas that involves the construction of new domestic facilities, the place of entry for imports or exit for exports. DOE approves the importation or exportation of the natural gas commodity.2 Additionally, pursuant to the DOE Delegation Order and Executive Order Nos. 10485 and 12038, the Commission has the authority to issue Presidential Permits for natural gas facilities which cross an international border of the United States. Persons seeking Section 3 authorizations or Presidential Permits from the Commission file applications for such requests pursuant to Part 153 of the Commission's Regulations.3

    2 Secretary of DOE's current delegation of authority to the Commission relating to import and export facilities was renewed by the Secretary's Delegation Order No. 00-004.00A, effective May 16, 2006.

    3 Part 153, Subpart B and Subpart C.

    Type of Respondents: The respondents include all jurisdictional natural gas companies seeking authorization from the Commission to import or export natural gas.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:4 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden for the information collection as:

    4 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    5 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the 2015 FERC average salary plus benefits of $149,489/year (or $72.00/hour). Commission staff finds that the work done for this information collection is typically done by wage categories similar to those at FERC.

    FERC-539: Gas Pipeline Certificates: Import & Export Related Applications Number of respondents Annual
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total humber
  • of responses
  • Average burden & cost per
  • response 5
  • Total annual burden hours &
  • total annual cost
  • Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) 12 2 24 12 hrs.; $864 288 hrs.; $20,736 $1,728

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

    Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-17896 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0027; FRL-9949-73-OEI] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for Review and Approval; Comment Request; On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), “On-Highway Motorcycle Certification and Compliance Program” (EPA ICR No. 2535.01, OMB Control No. 2060-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 7536) on February 12, 2016 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    DATES:

    Additional comments may be submitted on or before August 29, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0027 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to