Federal Register Vol. 81, No.154,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 154 (August 10, 2016)

Page Range52741-52967
FR Document

81_FR_154
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 52967 - Transfer of Unified Command Plan ResponsibilitiesPDF
81 FR 52963 - National Health Center Week, 2016PDF
81 FR 52782 - Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License; Technical AmendmentPDF
81 FR 52778 - Reconsideration of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards; Final ActionPDF
81 FR 52851 - Notice of Availability of Draft NPDES General Permits for Discharges From Potable Water Treatment Facilities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire: The Potable Water Treatment Facility General PermitPDF
81 FR 52850 - Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Action on Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Waupaca Foundry Plant 1PDF
81 FR 52840 - Deauthorization of Water Resources ProjectsPDF
81 FR 52838 - Deauthorization of Water Resources ProjectsPDF
81 FR 52781 - United States Navy Restricted Area, Menominee River, Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard, Marinette, WisconsinPDF
81 FR 52945 - In the Matter of the Review of the Designation of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (and Other Aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Pursuant to Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality ActPDF
81 FR 52878 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office of Management and Budget ApprovalsPDF
81 FR 52945 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Request for Determination of Possible Loss of United States CitizenshipPDF
81 FR 52943 - Notice of Meeting of the Cultural Property Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 52825 - Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014PDF
81 FR 52839 - Deauthorization of Water Resources ProjectsPDF
81 FR 52841 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Direct Loan Program Regulations for Forbearance and Loan RehabilitationPDF
81 FR 52946 - Notice of Proposal to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological MaterialsPDF
81 FR 52944 - Notice of Proposal To Extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Peru Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material From the Prehispanic Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material From the Colonial Period of PeruPDF
81 FR 52783 - Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 52955 - Railroad Safety Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 52853 - Notice of Agreements FiledPDF
81 FR 52826 - Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Results and Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010PDF
81 FR 52880 - Opportunity To Apply for Office on Women's Health 25th Anniversary Partnership Award, Trailblazer Award, and Emerging Leader AwardPDF
81 FR 52879 - Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 52763 - Revisions to Civil Penalty AmountsPDF
81 FR 52830 - Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science CenterPDF
81 FR 52779 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management AreaPDF
81 FR 52829 - Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing PermitPDF
81 FR 52916 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 52864 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 52946 - Commission MeetingPDF
81 FR 52900 - Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CAPDF
81 FR 52842 - Proposed Agency Information CollectionPDF
81 FR 52812 - Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Figs From Peru Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 52943 - Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Computer Matching Program (SSA/Department of Defense (DoD), Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC))-Match Number 1004PDF
81 FR 52810 - Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Pomegranates From Peru Into the Continental United StatesPDF
81 FR 52877 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 52811 - Concurrence With OIE Risk Designations for Bovine Spongiform EncephalopathyPDF
81 FR 52947 - Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes MellitusPDF
81 FR 52814 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request-Third Access Participation Eligibility and Certification Study Series (APEC III)PDF
81 FR 52891 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52946 - CSX Transportation, Inc.-Discontinuance of Service Exemption-in Boone County,W. Va.PDF
81 FR 52820 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Agency OptionsPDF
81 FR 52910 - Wolf Creek Generating Station; Use of Optimized ZIRLOTMPDF
81 FR 52953 - Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; Farruggio's ExpressPDF
81 FR 52896 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52884 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52889 - Proposed Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52780 - Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New AutomobilesPDF
81 FR 52813 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request-Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Issuance and Participation Estimates-Recordkeeping for Forms FNS-388 and FNS-388APDF
81 FR 52892 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52887 - Changes in Flood Hazard DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 52769 - Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Berwick Bay-Atchafalaya River, Morgan City, LAPDF
81 FR 52881 - Notice of Interest Rate on Overdue DebtsPDF
81 FR 52822 - Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region; Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and WyomingPDF
81 FR 52901 - Proposed Information Collection; National Park Service Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition ProgramPDF
81 FR 52823 - National Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 52956 - Petition for Waiver of CompliancePDF
81 FR 52956 - Petition for Special Approval of Alternate StandardPDF
81 FR 52903 - Information Collection Activities: Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface Commingling, and Security; Submitted for Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 52957 - Transfer of Federally Assisted Land or FacilityPDF
81 FR 52882 - Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 52827 - Information on Current and Future States of Cybersecurity in the Digital EconomyPDF
81 FR 52915 - Submission for Review: 3206-0162, Report of Medical Examination of Person Electing Insurable Interest Survivor Benefit, OPM 1530PDF
81 FR 52912 - Excepted ServicePDF
81 FR 52880 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection: Public Comment Request; Office for the Advancement of Telehealth Outcome MeasuresPDF
81 FR 52824 - Approval of Subzone Status; Rooms to Go (PR), Inc.; Toa Baja, Puerto RicoPDF
81 FR 52823 - Expansion of Subzone 149C; Phillips 66 Company; Brazoria County, TexasPDF
81 FR 52870 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52872 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52867 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52868 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52876 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52873 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52875 - Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and RecommendationsPDF
81 FR 52909 - Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent DecreePDF
81 FR 52909 - Notice of Lodging of Proposed Consent Decree Under the Clean Water ActPDF
81 FR 52901 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 52902 - National Register of Historic Places; Notification of Pending Nominations and Related ActionsPDF
81 FR 52899 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comments on the Assessment of Effects of Climate on WaterfowlPDF
81 FR 52835 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 52883 - Notice of Revocation of Customs Brokers' Licenses; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 52766 - Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) User Fee UpdatePDF
81 FR 52853 - Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 50PDF
81 FR 52883 - Center for Substance Abuse Prevention; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 52908 - Importer of Controlled Substances RegistrationPDF
81 FR 52908 - Bulk Manufacturer of Controlled Substances RegistrationPDF
81 FR 52824 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 46G-Cincinnati, Ohio, Authorization of Production Activity, Givaudan Flavors Corporation, (Flavor Products), Cincinnati, OhioPDF
81 FR 52917 - Product Change-Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 52824 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 126-Reno, Nevada, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Tesla Motors, Inc., Subzone 126D; (Lithium-Ion Batteries, Electric Motors and Stationary Energy Storage Systems), Sparks, NevadaPDF
81 FR 52855 - Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the PremergerPDF
81 FR 52925 - TrimTabs ETF Trust, et al.; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 52939 - Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, et al; Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 52933 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Adopt Rule 11.340(b) To Set Forth the Requirements for the Collection and Transmission of Data Pursuant to the Regulation NMS Plan To Implement a Tick Size Pilot ProgramPDF
81 FR 52926 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Related to Detection of Loss of ConnectionPDF
81 FR 52920 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending the NYSE Arca Options Fee SchedulePDF
81 FR 52922 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to AIM Retained OrdersPDF
81 FR 52917 - Joint Industry Plan; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Amendment No. 4 to the National Market System Plan Governing the Process of Selecting a Plan Processor and Developing a Plan for the Consolidated Audit Trail by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange LLC, C2 Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities Exchange, LLC, ISE Gemini, LLC, ISE Mercury, LLC, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, Inc., New York Stock Exchange LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.PDF
81 FR 52917 - Product Change-Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service AgreementPDF
81 FR 52854 - Mars Petcare US, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public CommentPDF
81 FR 52853 - Notice of Availability of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Filing Instructions Guides for HMDA Data Collected in 2017 and 2018; CorrectionPDF
81 FR 52907 - Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof; Notice of Request for Statements on the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 52831 - Notice of Availability of Revised Methodology for Determining Average Prime Offer RatesPDF
81 FR 52852 - Summitec Corporation, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture; Transfer of DataPDF
81 FR 52769 - Safety Zones; Multiple Fireworks and Swim in Captain of the Port New York ZonePDF
81 FR 52850 - Algonquin SKIC 10 Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52850 - Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52848 - Great Western Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52845 - Vista Energy Marketing, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52846 - Telysium Energy Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52842 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 52846 - Combined Notice of FilingsPDF
81 FR 52844 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 52843 - EF Kenilworth LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52843 - Kelly Creek Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52849 - McHenry Battery Storage, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52849 - Solverde 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 AuthorizationPDF
81 FR 52845 - Combined Notice of Filings #1PDF
81 FR 52821 - Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee MeetingPDF
81 FR 52831 - Privacy Act of 1974; System of RecordsPDF
81 FR 52767 - Army Privacy ProgramPDF
81 FR 52796 - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Texas HornshellPDF
81 FR 52784 - Review of the General Purpose Costing System; SupplementPDF
81 FR 52762 - Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Providence, LAPDF
81 FR 52761 - Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns; Hutchinson, MN; Jackson, MN; Pipestone, MN; Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca, MNPDF
81 FR 52770 - Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant ProgramPDF
81 FR 52741 - Bank Enterprise Award ProgramPDF
81 FR 52821 - Withdrawal of Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Sand Lick Fork Watershed Restoration Project; Daniel Boone National Forest, KYPDF
81 FR 52961 - Information Collection Request; Notice and Request for Public CommentPDF
81 FR 52750 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 52752 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 52755 - Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company AirplanesPDF
81 FR 52758 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 52959 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 52958 - Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Special PermitsPDF
81 FR 52960 - Special Permit ApplicationsPDF

Issue

81 154 Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Contents Agency Health Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52864-52867 2016-18995 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

See

Food and Nutrition Service

See

Forest Service

Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Concurrence with World Organization for Animal Health Risk Designations for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, 52811-52812 2016-18985 Import Authorizations: Fresh Figs from Peru into the Continental United States, 52812-52813 2016-18990 Fresh Pomegranates from Peru into the Continental United States, 52810-52811 2016-18987 Army Army Department RULES Army Privacy Program, 52767-52769 2016-18822 NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52831-52835 2016-18823 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection NOTICES Methodology for Determining Average Prime Offer Rates, 52831 2016-18899 Safety Enviromental Enforcement Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Oil and Gas Production Measurement, Surface Commingling, and Security, 52903-52907 2016-18953 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: National Advisory Committee, 52823 2016-18956 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52867-52877 2016-18934 2016-18935 2016-18936 2016-18937 2016-18938 2016-18939 2016-18940 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services PROPOSED RULES Medicare Program: Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Correction, 52783-52784 2016-19012 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52877-52878 2016-18986 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Drawbridge Operations: Berwick Bay-Atchafalaya River, Morgan City, LA, 52769 2016-18968 Safety Zones: Multiple Fireworks and Swim in Captain of the Port New York Zone, 52769-52770 2016-18894 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Institute of Standards and Technology

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Community Development Community Development Financial Institutions Fund RULES Bank Enterprise Award Program, 52741-52750 2016-18694 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52961-52962 2016-18559 Copyright Royalty Board Copyright Royalty Board PROPOSED RULES Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings under Statutory License, 52782-52783 2016-19097 Defense Department Defense Department See

Army Department

See

Engineers Corps

NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52835-52838 2016-18927
Drug Drug Enforcement Administration NOTICES Bulk Manufacturers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Noramco, Inc., Cayman Chemical Co., Janssen Pharmaceutical, Inc., et al., 52908-52909 2016-18921 Importers of Controlled Substances; Registrations: Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hospira, Cambrex Charles City, et al., 52908 2016-18922 Education Department Education Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Federal Direct Loan Program Regulations for Forbearance and Loan Rehabilitation, 52841-52842 2016-19015 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52842 2016-18991
Engineers Engineers Corps PROPOSED RULES Danger Zones and Restricted Areas: Menominee River, Marinette Marine Corp. Shipyard, Marinette, WI, 52781-52782 2016-19023 NOTICES Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects, 52838-52841 2016-19016 2016-19020 2016-19024 Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects; Correction, 52840 2016-19026 Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency RULES Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration: Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards; Final Action, 52778-52779 2016-19029 NOTICES Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program Petitions: Objection to State Operating Permit for Waupaca Foundry Plant 1, 52850-52851 2016-19027 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits: Massachusetts, New Hampshire; Discharges from Potable Water Treatment Facilities, 52851-52852 2016-19028 Pesticide Data Transfers: Summitec Corp.; Versar, Inc.; and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture, 52852-52853 2016-18896 Federal Accounting Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board NOTICES Guidance: Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 50, 52853 2016-18924 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 52750-52752, 52758-52761 2016-18483 2016-18493 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 52752-52755 2016-18488 The Boeing Company Airplanes, 52755-52758 2016-18487 Class E Airspace; Amendments: Hutchinson, Jackson, Pipestone, Two Harbors, Waseca, MN, 52761-52762 2016-18764 Class E Airspace; Revocations: Lake Providence, LA, 52762-52763 2016-18771 Federal Emergency Federal Emergency Management Agency NOTICES Flood Hazard Determinations; Changes, 52884-52889, 52892-52896 2016-18970 2016-18971 2016-18976 Flood Hazard Determinations; Proposals, 52889-52892, 52896-52899 2016-18974 2016-18977 2016-18982 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Combined Filings, 52842-52848 2016-18880 2016-18886 2016-18887 2016-18888 Initial Market-Based Rate Filings Including Requests for Blanket Section 204 Authorizations: Algonquin SKIC 10 Solar, LLC, 52850 2016-18893 Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC, 52850 2016-18892 EF Kenilworth, LLC, 52843-52844 2016-18885 Great Western Wind Energy, LLC, 52848-52849 2016-18891 Kelly Creek Wind, LLC, 52843 2016-18884 McHenry Battery Storage, LLC, 52849 2016-18883 Solverde 1, LLC, 52849-52850 2016-18882 Telysium Energy Marketing, LLC, 52846 2016-18889 Vista Energy Marketing, LP, 52845 2016-18890 Federal Financial Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council NOTICES Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Filing Instructions Guides for HMDA Data Collected in 2017 and 2018; Correction, 52853 2016-18905 Federal Maritime Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements Filed, 52853-52854 2016-19009 Federal Motor Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration NOTICES Hours of Service of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Farruggio's Express, 52953-52955 2016-18978 Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications: Diabetes Mellitus, 52947-52953 2016-18984 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Meetings: Railroad Safety Advisory Committee, 52955-52956 2016-19010 Petition for Special Approval of Alternate Standard: Maryland Transit Administration, 52956 2016-18954 Petitions for Waivers of Compliance: New Jersey Transit Corp., 52956-52957 2016-18955 Federal Trade Federal Trade Commission PROPOSED RULES Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles, 52780-52781 2016-18973 NOTICES Analysis of Proposed Consent Orders: Mars Petcare US, Inc., 52854-52855 2016-18906 Early Terminations of the Waiting Periods under the Premerger Notification Rules, 52855-52864 2016-18915 Federal Transit Federal Transit Administration NOTICES Transfers of Federally Assisted Lands or Facilities, 52957-52958 2016-18951 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Endangered Species Status for Texas Hornshell, 52796-52809 2016-18816 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52878-52879 2016-19021 Meetings: Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee, 52879-52880 2016-19005 Food and Nutrition Food and Nutrition Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Agency Options, 52820-52821 2016-18980 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Issuance and Participation Estimates, 52813-52814 2016-18972 Third Access Participation Eligibility and Certification Study Series, 52814-52819 2016-18983 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Applications for Subzone Expansions: Phillips 66 Co., Subzone 149C, Brazoria County, TX, 52823-52824 2016-18941 Production Activities: Givaudan Flavors Corp., Foreign-Trade Zone 46G, Cincinnati, OH, 52824 2016-18919 Tesla Motors, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 126, Reno, NV, 52824-52825 2016-18917 Subzone Approvals: Rooms to Go (PR), Inc., Toa Baja, PR, 52824 2016-18942 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Sand Lick Fork Restoration Project, Daniel Boone National Forest, Morehead, KY, 52821 2016-18690 Meetings: Tehama County Resource Advisory Committe, 52821-52822 2016-18824 Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices: Intermountain Region: Utah, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming, 52822-52823 2016-18961 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Assessment of Effects of Climate on Waterfowl, 52899-52900 2016-18928 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department See

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

See

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

See

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

See

Food and Drug Administration

See

Health Resources and Services Administration

See

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration

NOTICES Interest Rate on Overdue Debts, 52881-52882 2016-18967 Requests for Nominations: Office on Women's Health 25th Anniversary Partnership Award, Trailblazer Award, and Emerging Leader Award, 52880-52881 2016-19007
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Office for the Advancement of Telehealth Outcome Measure, 52880 2016-18944 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

See

Federal Emergency Management Agency

See

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Interior Interior Department See

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

See

Fish and Wildlife Service

See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

National Park Service

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service RULES Preparer Tax Identification Number User Fee Update, 52766-52767 2016-18925 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, 52826-52827 2016-19008 Pasta from Turkey, 52825-52826 2016-19017 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Investigations; Determinations, Modifications, and Rulings, etc.: Light-Emitting Diode Products and Components Thereof, 52907-52908 2016-18904 Justice Department Justice Department See

Drug Enforcement Administration

NOTICES Proposed Consent Decrees under the Clean Water Act, 52909-52910 2016-18931 2016-18933
Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: West of Devers Upgrade Project, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, CA, 52900-52901 2016-18992 Library Library of Congress See

Copyright Royalty Board

National Institute National Institute of Standards and Technology NOTICES Requests for Information: Current and Future States of Cybersecurity in the Digital Economy, 52827-52829 2016-18948 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska: Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area, 52779 2016-19000 NOTICES Environmental Assessments; Availability, etc.: Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, 52830-52831 2016-19002 Exempted Fishing Permit Applications: Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic, 52829-52830 2016-18999 National Park National Park Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Program, 52901-52902 2016-18959 National Register of Historic Places: Pending Nominations and Related Actions, 52901-52903 2016-18929 2016-18930 Nuclear Regulatory Nuclear Regulatory Commission NOTICES Exemptions: Wolf Creek Generating Station; Use of Optimized ZIRLO Fuel Rod Cladding Material, 52910-52912 2016-18979 Personnel Personnel Management Office NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 52915-52916 2016-18946 Excepted Service, 52912-52915 2016-18945 Pipeline Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration NOTICES Applications for Special Permits, 52958-52961 2016-18198 2016-18199 Applications for Special Permits: Hazardous Materials, 52959-52960 2016-18200 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 52916-52917 2016-18997 Postal Service Postal Service NOTICES Product Changes: Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service Negotiated Service Agreement, 52917 2016-18916 2016-18918 Priority Mail Express and Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement, 52917 2016-18907 Presidential Documents Presidential Documents PROCLAMATIONS Special Observances: National Health Center Week (Proc. 9473), 52963-52966 2016-19199 ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS Defense and National Security: Transfer of Unified Command Plan Responsibilities (Memorandum of August 5, 2016), 52967 2016-19201 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America, et al., 52939-52943 2016-18913 TrimTabs ETF Trust, et al., 52925-52926 2016-18914 Joint Industry Plans: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc., BOX Options Exchange, LLC, et al., 52917-52920 2016-18908 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: C2 Options Exchange, Inc., 52922-52925 2016-18909 Investors Exchange, LLC, 52933-52939 2016-18912 NASDAQ Stock Market, LLC, 52926-52932 2016-18911 NYSE Arca, Inc., 52920-52922 2016-18910 Social Social Security Administration NOTICES Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 52943 2016-18989 State Department State Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Determination of Possible Loss of United States Citizenship, 52945 2016-19019 Designations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, 52945 2016-19022 Meetings: Cultural Property Advisory Committee, 52943-52944 2016-19018 Memorandums of Understanding: Cyprus: Import Restrictions on Pre-Classical and Classical Archaeological Objects and Byzantine and Post-Byzantine Period Ecclesiastical and Ritual Ethnological Materials, 52946 2016-19014 Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from the Prehispanic Cultures and Certain Ethnological Material from the Colonial Period of Peru, 52944-52945 2016-19013 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, 52883 2016-18923 National Advisory Council, 52882 2016-18949 National Advisory Councils, 52882-52883 2016-18950 Surface Transportation Surface Transportation Board PROPOSED RULES Review of the General Purpose Costing System; Supplement, 52784-52796 2016-18806 NOTICES Discontinuance of Service Exemptions: CSX Transportation, Inc., Boone County, WV, 52946 2016-18981 Susquehanna Susquehanna River Basin Commission NOTICES Meetings: Susquehanna River Basin Commission, 52946-52947 2016-18994 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

See

Federal Transit Administration

See

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

RULES Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts, 52763-52766 2016-19003
Treasury Treasury Department See

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

See

Internal Revenue Service

Customs U.S. Customs and Border Protection NOTICES Revocation of Customs Brokers' Licenses; Correction, 52883-52884 2016-18926 Veteran Affairs Veterans Affairs Department RULES Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program, 52770-52778 2016-18721 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Presidential Documents, 52963-52967 2016-19199 2016-19201 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.

81 154 Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Community Development Financial Institutions Fund 12 CFR Part 1806 RIN 1505-AA91 Bank Enterprise Award Program AGENCY:

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION:

Interim rule with request for public comment.

SUMMARY:

The Department of the Treasury is issuing a revised interim rule implementing the Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA Program), administered by the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (CDFI Fund). This revised interim rule reflects the CDFI Fund's programmatic decision to create two subcategories within the Distressed Community Financing Activities category of Qualified Activities in order to differentiate between: Consumer Loans and Commercial Loans and Investments. This revised interim rule includes revisions necessary to implement this modification to the Distressed Community Financing Activities category, as well as to make certain technical corrections and other updates to the current rule.

DATES:

Effective date: August 10, 2016. All comments must be written and must be received in the offices of the CDFI Fund on or before October 11, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments concerning this revised interim rule via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov (please follow the instructions for submitting comments). All submissions received must include the agency name and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. Other information regarding the CDFI Fund and its programs may be obtained through the CDFI Fund's Web site at http://www.cdfifund.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Ibanez, BEA Program Manager, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, at [email protected]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The CDFI Fund, Department of the Treasury, was authorized by the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.) (the Act). The mission of the CDFI Fund is to expand economic opportunity for underserved people and communities by supporting the growth and capacity of a national network of community development lenders, investors, and financial service providers. Its vision is an America in which all people and communities have access to the investment capital and financial services they need to prosper. The BEA Program provides awards to depository institutions, insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), that demonstrate an increase in their activities in the form of loans, investments, services, and Technical Assistance, in Distressed Communities and provide financial assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) through grants, stock purchases, loans, deposits, and other forms of financial and technical assistance.

Through the BEA Program, the CDFI Fund seeks to: strengthen and expand the financial and organizational capacity of CDFIs; provide monetary awards to insured depository institutions that increase their lending and financial services in Distressed Communities; and increase the flow of private capital into Low- and Moderate-Income areas. Applicants participate in the BEA Program through a competitive application process in which the CDFI Fund evaluates Applicants based on the value of their increases in certain Qualified Activities. BEA Program award Recipients receive award proceeds in the form of a grant after successful completion of specified Qualified Activities.

The CDFI Fund has determined that, under the current rule, Applicants may be disproportionately incentivized to engage in commercial lending activities under the Distressed Community Financing Activity category. Increases in lending for commercial purposes have consistently been reported at higher levels in BEA Program applications than lending to residents of Distressed Communities, likely due to the larger average size of commercial versus consumer transactions, which makes Applicants potentially eligible for larger BEA Program awards. Currently, the Distressed Community Financing Activity category of Qualified Activities consists of seven individual activity-types (Affordable Housing Loans, Small Dollar Consumer Loans, Home Improvement Loans, Education Loans, Affordable Housing Development Loans, Small Business Loans, and Commercial Real Estate Loans). Under the current rule, Applicants report at the activity-type level for Distressed Community Financing Activities, and may choose to report lending for only those activity types within the category that had an increase. This disaggregated method of reporting often does not provide a complete and accurate reflection of the Applicant's net increase in lending to businesses and residents in Distressed Communities, as intended by the Act, because an Applicant's lending typically reflects multiple activity types. This revised interim rule creates two subcategories within the Distressed Community Financing Activities category in order to differentiate between: (1) Consumer Loans and (2) Commercial Loans and Investments. Consumer Loans consist of: Affordable Housing Loans, Small Dollar Consumer Loans, Home Improvement Loans, and Education Loans. Commercial Loans and Investments consist of: Affordable Housing Development Loans, Small Business Loans, and Commercial Real Estate Loans. Applicants will be required to aggregate Baseline Period and Assessment Period amounts at the subcategory levels. In order to substantiate the aggregate amounts reported, Applicants will continue to be required to submit individual transactions at the activity-type level. This regulatory change seeks to increase incentives for Applicants' lending to consumers in Distressed Communities and to ensure that Applicants provide complete and accurate information regarding their Distressed Community Financing Activities.

On May 5, 2015, the CDFI Fund published in the Federal Register an interim rule (80 FR 25581) implementing the BEA Program. The deadline for submission of comments was July 3, 2015.

II. Comments on the May 5, 2015, Interim Rule

As of the close of the July 3, 2015 comment period, the CDFI Fund received no comments on the current rule.

III. Summary of Changes

A. Subpart A: In subpart A, § 1806.103, Definitions, various changes and updates were made to the defined terms in the rule. Throughout the revised interim rule, the defined term “Qualified Activity” has been replaced by “Eligible Activity” in those instances where the intention is to define authorized uses of BEA Program awards by Recipients as opposed to defining Qualified Activities that are completed and reported by Applicants seeking to receive awards. This change will provide greater clarity to Applicants regarding the requirements to receive and use BEA Program awards.

The term “CDFI Support Activity” is revised in § 1806.103 to remove the specific criteria for “deposits” as such criteria will now be specified in the applicable NOFA. This will allow the CDFI Fund greater flexibility in adapting these criteria to market changes. New definitions have been added in § 1806.103 for “Commercial Loans and Investments” and “Consumer Loans,” the two new subcategories under the Distressed Community Financing Activities category. The term “Community Services” has been revised to allow the CDFI Fund the discretion to specify activities that are comparable to Community Services in the applicable NOFA. This will allow the CDFI Fund greater flexibility to adapt this listing to reflect developments in banking community activities. The term “Development Service Activities” has been revised to allow the CDFI Fund the discretion to specify any activities that are comparable to Development Service Activities in the applicable NOFA, again providing greater flexibility for the CDFI Fund to adapt to market developments.

In order to better align the defined individual beneficiaries of various Qualified and Eligible Activities with BEA Program goals, the CDFI Fund in this revised interim rule has clarified where such beneficiaries must be Eligible Residents and where they must be Eligible Residents that also meet BEA Program Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. “Education Loan” is revised in § 1806.103 to ensure that the borrower is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. “Financial Services” is revised in § 1806.103 to remove the requirement that an Eligible Resident receiving such services must also meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. “Individual Development Account” has been revised in § 1806.103 to clarify that holders of such accounts must be Eligible Residents who meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. The term “Small Dollar Consumer Loan” has been revised in § 1806.103 to ensure that the borrower is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. The term “Targeted Financial Services” is revised in § 1806.103 to remove the requirement that an Eligible Resident receiving such services must also meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. “Targeted Retail Savings/Investment Products” has been revised in § 1806.103 to remove the requirement that such products be targeted to an Eligible Resident who also meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. “Low- and Moderate-Income” is revised in § 1806.103 to better align with the CDFI Fund's definition of the term across its other programs. The term “Priority Factor” has been revised in § 1806.103 to incorporate the newly-designated subcategories under Distressed Community Financing Activities.

B. Subpart C: The title of subpart C has been revised to “Use of Funds/Eligible Activities.”

C. Subpart D: In subpart D, § 1806.401(a), minor revisions have been made in order to clarify that the section references Qualified Activities conducted by an Applicant prior to award rather than future activities proposed by an Applicant. Section 1806.402(b) has been revised to implement the two new subcategories under the Distressed Community Financing Activities category—Consumer Loans or Commercial Loans and Investments. Under the revised language, if an Applicant chooses to report transactions on any single activity type in either subcategory, the Applicant must report its overall increase on all activity types within that subcategory. Section 1806.402(c) has been revised to remove the requirement that when activities serving a Distressed Community are provided to an Eligible Resident, the resident must also meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. Section 1806.403(c) has been revised to provide a basic formula for calculating the estimated award amount for Qualified Activities.

Section 1806.405(b) has been revised to reflect the transition from paper to electronic submission of certain application components. This section has also been revised in 1806.405(b)(6)(ii) to remove a redundant reference to “Eligible Residents that resided in a Distressed Community,” where the definition of Eligible Residents already requires that they reside in a Distressed Community.

IV. Rulemaking Analysis A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

It has been determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866. Therefore, a Regulatory Assessment is not required.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) or any other law, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not apply.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The collections of information contained in this revised interim rule have been previously reviewed and approved by OMB in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned the applicable OMB Control Number associated with the CDFI Fund under 1559. 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 control number assigned by OMB. The revised interim rule imposes collections of new information, for which the CDFI Fund has OMB approval.

D. National Environmental Policy Act

The revised interim rule has been reviewed in accordance with the CDFI Fund's Environmental Quality regulations (12 CFR part 1815), promulgated pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires that the CDFI Fund adequately consider the cumulative impact that proposed activities have upon the human environment. It is the determination of the CDFI Fund that the revised interim rules does not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and, in accordance with the NEPA and the CDFI Fund Environmental Quality regulations, neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

E. Administrative Procedure Act

Because the revisions to this revised interim rule relate to grants, notice and public procedure and a delayed effective date are not required pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act found at 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

F. Comment

Public comment is solicited on all aspects of this interim rule. The CDFI Fund will consider all comments made on the substance of this interim rule, but it does not intend to hold hearings.

G. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number

Bank Enterprise Award Program—21.021.

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 1806

Banks, banking, Community development, Grant programs—housing and community development, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Savings associations.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 12 CFR part 1806 is revised to read as follows:

PART 1806—BANK ENTERPRISE AWARD PROGRAM Subpart A—General Provisions 1806.100 Purpose. 1806.101 Summary. 1806.102 Relationship to other CDFI Fund programs. 1806.103 Definitions. 1806.104 Uniform Administrative Requirements; waiver authority. 1806.105 OMB control number. Subpart B—Eligibility 1806.200 Applicant eligibility. Subpart C—Use of Funds/Eligible Activities 1806.300 Eligible Activities. 1806.301 Restrictions on use of award. Subpart D—Award Determinations 1806.400 General. 1806.401 Community eligibility and designation. 1806.402 Measuring and reporting Qualified Activities. 1806.403 Estimated award amounts. 1806.404 Selection process; actual award amounts. 1806.405 Applications for BEA Program Awards. Subpart E—Terms and Conditions of Assistance 1806.500 Award Agreement; sanctions. 1806.501 Compliance with government requirements. 1806.502 Fraud, waste, and abuse. 1806.503 Books of account, records, and government access. 1806.504 Retention of records. Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1834a, 4703, 4703 note, 4713, 4717; 31 U.S.C. 321.

Subpart A—General Provisions
§ 1806.100 Purpose.

The purpose of the Bank Enterprise Award (BEA) Program is to provide grants to Insured Depository Institutions that provide financial and technical assistance to Community Development Financial Institutions and increase their activities in Distressed Communities.

§ 1806.101 Summary.

Through the BEA Program, the CDFI Fund will provide monetary awards in the form of grants to Applicants selected by the CDFI Fund that increase their investments in or provide other support of CDFIs, increase their lending and investment activities in Distressed Communities, or increase their provision of certain services and assistance. Distressed Communities must meet minimum geographic, poverty, and unemployment criteria. Applicants are selected to receive BEA Program Awards through a merit-based, competitive application process. The amount of a BEA Program Award is based on the increase in Qualified Activities that are carried out by the Applicant during the Assessment Period. BEA Program Awards are disbursed by the CDFI Fund after the Recipient has successfully completed projected Qualified Activities. Each Recipient will enter into an Award Agreement, which will require it to abide by terms and conditions pertinent to any assistance received under this part, including the requirement that BEA Program Award proceeds must be used for Eligible Activities, and in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, as applicable. All BEA Program Awards are made subject to funding availability.

§ 1806.102 Relationship to other CDFI Fund programs.

(a) Restrictions using BEA Program Award in conjunction with other awards. (1) Restrictions are in place on applying for, receiving, and using BEA Program Awards in conjunction with awards under other programs administered by the CDFI Fund.

(2) Other programs include, but not limited to, the Capital Magnet Fund, the CDFI Program, the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, the Native American CDFI Assistance Program, and the New Markets Tax Credit Program, are as set forth in the applicable notice of funding opportunity or Notice of Allocation Availability.

(b) Prohibition against double funding. (1) Qualified Activities may not include transactions funded in whole or in part with award proceeds from another CDFI Fund program or Federal program.

(2) An Applicant that is a CDFI may not receive a BEA Program Award, either directly or through a community partnership if it has:

(i) Received a CDFI Program award within the preceding 12-month period, or has a CDFI Program application pending; or

(ii) Ever received a CDFI Program award based on the same activity during the same semiannual period for which the institution seeks a BEA Program Award.

§ 1806.103 Definitions.

For purposes of this part, the following terms shall have the following definitions:

Act means the Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, as amended (12 U.S.C. 4701 et seq.);

Affordable Housing Development Loan means origination of a loan to finance the acquisition, construction, and/or development of single- or multi-family residential real property, where at least 60 percent of the units in such property are affordable, as may be defined in the applicable NOFA, to Eligible Residents who meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements;

Affordable Housing Loan means origination of a loan to finance the purchase or improvement of the borrower's primary residence, and that is secured by such property, where such borrower is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements. Affordable Housing Loan may also refer to second (or otherwise subordinated) liens or “soft second” mortgages and other similar types of down payment assistance loans, but may not necessarily be secured by such property originated for the purpose of facilitating the purchase or improvement of the borrower's primary residence, where such borrower is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements;

Applicant means any insured depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813)) that is applying for a Bank Enterprise Award;

Appropriate Federal Banking Agency has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1813);

Assessment Period means an annual or semi-annual period specified in the applicable NOFA in which an Applicant will carry out, or has carried out, Qualified Activities;

Award Agreement means a formal agreement between the CDFI Fund and a Recipient pursuant to § 1806.500;

Bank Enterprise Award (or BEA Program Award) means an award made to an Applicant pursuant to this part;

Bank Enterprise Award Program (or BEA Program) means the program authorized by section 114 of the Act and implemented under this part;

Baseline Period means an annual or a semi-annual period specified in the applicable NOFA, in which an Applicant has previously carried out Qualified Activities;

CDFI Partner means a CDFI that has been provided assistance in the form of CDFI Related Activities by an unaffiliated Applicant;

CDFI Related Activities means Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans and CDFI Support Activities;

CDFI Support Activity means assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI that meets criteria set forth by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA and that is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, in the form of the origination of a loan, Technical Assistance, or deposits, as further specified in the applicable NOFA;

Commercial Loans and Investments means the following lending activity types: Affordable Housing Development Loans and related Project Investments; Small Business Loans and related Project Investments; and Commercial Real Estate Loans and related Project Investments;

Commercial Real Estate Loan means an origination of a loan (other than an Affordable Housing Development Loan or Affordable Housing Loan) that is secured by real estate and used to finance the acquisition or rehabilitation of a building in a Distressed Community, or the acquisition, construction and or development of property in a Distressed Community, used for commercial purposes;

Community Development Financial Institution (or CDFI) means an entity that has been certified as a CDFI by the CDFI Fund as of the date specified in the applicable NOFA;

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund (or CDFI Fund) means the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund established pursuant to section 104(a)(12 U.S.C. 4703(a)) of the Act;

Community Services means the following forms of assistance provided by officers, employees or agents (contractual or otherwise) of the Applicant:

(1) Provision of Technical Assistance and financial education to Eligible Residents regarding managing their personal finances;

(2) Provision of Technical Assistance and consulting services to newly formed small businesses and nonprofit organizations located in the Distressed Community;

(3) Provision of Technical Assistance and financial education to, or servicing the loans of, homeowners who are Eligible Residents and meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements; and

(4) Other services provided to Eligible Residents who meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements or enterprises that are Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, as deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund, and other comparable services as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA;

Consumer Loans means the following lending activity types: Affordable Housing Loans; Education Loans; Home Improvement Loans; and Small Dollar Consumer Loans;

Deposit Liabilities means time or savings deposits or demand deposits. Any such deposit must be accepted from Eligible Residents at the offices of the Applicant or of the Subsidiary of the Applicant and located in the Distressed Community. Deposit Liabilities may only include deposits held by individuals in transaction accounts (e.g., demand deposits, negotiable order of withdrawal accounts, automated transfer service accounts, and telephone or preauthorized transfer accounts) or non-transaction accounts (e.g., money market deposit accounts, other savings deposits, and all time deposits), as defined by the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency;

Development Service Activities means activities that promote community development and are integral to the Applicant's provision of financial products and Financial Services. Such services shall prepare or assist current or potential borrowers or investees to utilize the financial products or Financial Services of the Applicant. Development Service Activities include financial or credit counseling to individuals for the purpose of facilitating home ownership, promoting self-employment, or enhancing consumer financial management skills; or technical assistance to borrowers or investees for the purpose of enhancing business planning, marketing, management, financial management skills, and other comparable services as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA.

Distressed Community means a geographically defined community that meets the minimum area eligibility requirements specified in § 1806.401 and such additional criteria as may be set forth in the applicable NOFA;

Distressed Community Financing Activities means:

(1) Consumer Loans; or

(2) Commercial Loans and Investments;

Education Loan means an advance of funds to a student who is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements for the purpose of financing a college or vocational education;

Electronic Transfer Account (or ETA) means an account that meets the following requirements, and with respect to which the Applicant has satisfied the requirements:

(1) Be an individually owned account at a Federally insured financial institution;

(2) Be available to any individual who receives a Federal benefit, wage, salary, or retirement payment;

(3) Accept electronic Federal benefit, wage, salary, and retirement payments and such other deposits as a financial institution agrees to permit;

(4) Be subject to a maximum price of $3.00 per month;

(5) Have a minimum of four cash withdrawals and four balance inquiries per month, to be included in the monthly fee, through:

(i) The financial institution's proprietary (on-us) automated teller machines (ATMs);

(ii) Over-the-counter transactions at the main office or a branch of the financial institution; or

(iii) Any combination of on-us ATM access and over-the-counter access at the option of the financial institution;

(6) Provide the same consumer protections that are available to other account holders at the financial institution, including, for accounts that provide electronic access, Regulation E (12 CFR part 205) protections regarding disclosure, limitations on liability, procedures for reporting lost or stolen cards, and procedures for error resolution;

(7) For financial institutions that are members of an on-line point-of-sale (POS) network, allow on-line POS purchases, cash withdrawals, and cash back with purchases at no additional charge by the financial institution offering the ETA;

(8) Require no minimum balance, except as required by Federal or State law;

(9) At the option of the financial institution, be either an interest-bearing or a non-interest-bearing account; and

(10) Provide a monthly statement.

Eligible Activities means CDFI Related Activities, Distressed Community Financing Activities, and Service Activities, and as further described in the applicable NOFA and the Award Agreement;

Eligible Resident means an individual who resides in a Distressed Community;

Equity Investment means financial assistance provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, which CDFI meets such criteria as set forth in the applicable NOFA, in the form of a grant, a stock purchase, a purchase of a partnership interest, a purchase of a limited liability company membership interest, or any other investment deemed to be an Equity Investment by the CDFI Fund;

Equity-Like Loan means a loan provided by an Applicant or its Subsidiary to a CDFI, and made on such terms that it has characteristics of an Equity Investment that meets such criteria as set forth in the applicable NOFA;

Financial Services means check-cashing, providing money orders and certified checks, automated teller machines, safe deposit boxes, new branches, and other comparable services as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA, that are provided by the Applicant to Eligible Residents or enterprises that are Integrally Involved in the Distressed Community;

Geographic Units means counties (or equivalent areas), incorporated places, minor civil divisions that are units of local government, census tracts, block numbering areas, block groups, and Indian Areas or Native American Areas (as each is defined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census), or other areas deemed appropriate by the CDFI Fund;

Home Improvement Loan means an advance of funds, either unsecured or secured by a one-to-four family residential property, the proceeds of which are used to improve the borrower's primary residence, where such borrower is an Eligible Resident who meets Low- and Moderate-Income requirements;

Indian Reservation means a geographic area that meets the requirements of section 4(10) of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1903(10)), and shall include land held by incorporated Native groups, regional corporations, and village corporations, as defined in and pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), public domain Indian allotments, and former Indian Reservations in the State of Oklahoma;

Individual Development Account (or IDA) means a special savings account that matches the deposits of Eligible Residents who meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements individuals and that enables such individuals to save money for a particular financial goal including, but not limited to, and as determined by the CDFI Fund: buying a home, paying for post-secondary education, or starting or expanding a small business;

Insured Depository Institution means any bank or thrift, the deposits of which are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

Integrally Involved means, for a CDFI Partner, having provided or transacted the percentage of financial transactions or dollars (i.e., loans or Equity Investments), or Development Service Activities, in the Distressed Community identified by the Applicant or the CDFI Partner, as applicable, or having attained the percentage of market share for a particular product in a Distressed Community, set forth in the applicable NOFA;

Low- and Moderate-Income or Low- and Moderate-Income requirements means borrower income that does not exceed 80 percent of the median income of the area involved, according to the U.S. Census Bureau data, set forth in the Applicable NOFA;

Metropolitan Area means an area designated as such (as of the date of the BEA Program application) by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 3504(e)(3), 31 U.S.C. 1104(d), and Executive Order 10253 (3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 758), as amended;

Notice of Funding Availability (or NOFA) means the public notice of funding opportunity that announces the availability of BEA Program Award funds for a particular funding round and that advises prospective Applicants with respect to obtaining application materials, establishes application submission deadlines, and establishes other requirements or restrictions applicable for the particular funding round;

Priority Factor means a numeric value assigned to the following, as established by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA:

(1) Each subcategory within the Distressed Community Financing Activities category of Qualified Activities; or

(2) Each activity-type within the Service Activities and CDFI Related Activities categories of Qualified Activities.

(3) A priority factor represents the CDFI Fund's assessment of the degree of difficulty, the extent of innovation, and the extent of benefits accruing to the Distressed Community for each type of activity;

Project Investment means providing financial assistance in the form of a purchase of stock, limited partnership interest, other ownership instrument, or a grant to an entity that is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community and formed for the sole purpose of engaging in a project or activity (approved by the CDFI Fund), including Affordable Housing Development Loans, Affordable Housing Loans, Commercial Real Estate Loans, and Small Business Loans;

Qualified Activities means CDFI Related Activities, Distressed Community Financing Activities, and Service Activities;

Recipient means an Applicant that receives a BEA Program Award pursuant to this part and the applicable NOFA;

Service Activities means the following activities: Deposit Liabilities; Financial Services; Community Services; Targeted Financial Services; and Targeted Retail Savings/Investment Products;

Small Business Loan means an origination of a loan used for commercial or industrial activities (other than an Affordable Housing Loan, Affordable Housing Development Loan, Commercial Real Estate Loan, Home Improvement Loan) to a business or farm that meets the size eligibility standards of the Small Business Administration's Development Company or Small Business Investment Company programs (13 CFR 121.301) and is located in a Distressed Community;

Small Dollar Consumer Loan means affordable consumer lending products that serve as available alternatives in the marketplace for individuals who are Eligible Residents who meet Low- and Moderate-Income requirements and meet criteria further specified in the applicable NOFA;

State means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia or any territory of the United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands;

Subsidiary has the same meaning as in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, except that a CDFI shall not be considered a Subsidiary of any Insured Depository Institution or any depository institution holding company that controls less than 25 percent of any class of the voting shares of such corporation and does not otherwise control, in any manner, the election of a majority of directors of the corporation;

Targeted Financial Services means ETAs, IDAs, and such other banking products targeted to Eligible Residents, as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA;

Targeted Retail Savings/Investment Products means certificates of deposit, mutual funds, life insurance, and other similar savings or investment vehicles targeted to Eligible Residents, as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA;

Technical Assistance means the provision of consulting services, resources, training, and other nonmonetary support relating to an organization, individual, or operation of a trade or business, as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA; and

Unit of General Local Government means any city, county town, township, parish, village, or other general-purpose political subdivision of a State or Commonwealth of the United States, or general-purpose subdivision thereof, and the District of Columbia.

§ 1806.104 Uniform Administrative Requirements; waiver authority.

(a) Uniform Administrative Requirements. The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Administrative Requirements), codified by the Department of the Treasury at 2 CFR part 1000, apply to awards, regardless of type of award Recipient, made pursuant to this part.

(b) Waiver authority. The CDFI Fund may waive any requirement of this part that is not required by law, upon a determination of good cause. Each such waiver will be in writing and supported by a statement of the facts and grounds forming the basis of the waiver. For a waiver in any individual case, the CDFI Fund must determine that application of the requirement to be waived would adversely affect the achievement of the purposes of the Act. For waivers of general applicability, the CDFI Fund will publish notification of granted waivers in the Federal Register.

§ 1806.105 OMB control number.

The collections of information contained in this part have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and assigned the applicable, approved OMB Control Numbers associated with the CDFI Fund under 1559.

Subpart B—Eligibility
§ 1806.200 Applicant eligibility.

An entity that is an Insured Depository Institution is eligible to apply for a BEA Program Award if the CDFI Fund receives a complete BEA Program Award application by the deadline set forth in the applicable Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA). Additional eligibility requirements are set forth in the applicable NOFA.

Subpart C—Use of Funds/Eligible Activities
§ 1806.300 Eligible Activities.

Recipients of BEA Program Awards must use their payments for the following Eligible Activities:

(a) CDFI Related Activities;

(b) Distressed Community Financing Activities; and

(c) Service Activities, and to comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements as further described in the applicable NOFA and the Award Agreement.

§ 1806.301 Restrictions of use of award.

A Recipient may not distribute BEA Program Award funds to an Affiliate without the CDFI Fund's prior written consent.

Subpart D—Award Determinations
§ 1806.400 General.

The amount of a BEA Program Award shall be based on the Applicant's increases in Qualified Activities from the Baseline Period to the Assessment Period, as set forth in the applicable NOFA. When determining this increase, Applicants must consider all BEA Qualified Activities and all BEA qualified census tracts, as it relates to a given subcategory or activity type, as applicable.

§ 1806.401 Community eligibility and designation.

(a) General. If an Applicant reports that it has provided or engaged in Service Activities or Distressed Community Financing Activities, the Applicant shall identify one or more Distressed Communities in which it has provided or engaged in such activities. The Applicant may identify different Distressed Communities for each category or subcategory of activity. If an Applicant reports that it has provided or engaged in CDFI Support Activities, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the CDFI that the Applicant supported is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, as specified in the applicable NOFA.

(b) Minimum area and eligibility requirements. A Distressed Community must meet the following minimum area and eligibility requirements:

(1) Minimum area requirements. A Distressed Community:

(i) Must be an area that is located within the jurisdiction of one (1) Unit of General Local Government;

(ii) The boundaries of the area must be contiguous; and

(iii) The area must:

(A) Have a population, as determined by the most recent U.S. Bureau of the Census data available, of not less than 4,000 if any portion of the area is located within a Metropolitan Area with a population of 50,000 or greater; or

(B) Have a population, as determined by the most recent U.S. Bureau of the Census data available, of not less than 1,000 in any other case; or

(C) Be located entirely within an Indian Reservation.

(2) Eligibility requirements. A Distressed Community must be a geographic area where:

(i) At least 30 percent of the Eligible Residents have incomes that are less than the national poverty level, as published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census or in other sources as set forth in guidance issued by the CDFI Fund;

(ii) The unemployment rate is at least 1.5 times greater than the national average, as determined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' most recently published data, including estimates of unemployment developed using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census-Share calculation method, or in other sources as set forth in guidance issued by the CDFI Fund; and

(iii) Such additional requirements as may be specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA.

(c) Area designation. An Applicant shall designate an area as a Distressed Community by:

(1) Selecting Geographic Units which individually meet the minimum area and eligibility requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section; or

(2) Selecting two or more Geographic Units which, in the aggregate, meet the minimum area and eligibility requirements set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, provided that no Geographic Unit selected by the Applicant within the area has a poverty rate of less than 20 percent.

(d) Designation. The CDFI Fund will provide a prospective Applicant with data and other information to help it identify areas eligible to be designated as a Distressed Community. If requested, applicants shall submit designation materials as instructed in the applicable NOFA.

§ 1806.402 Measuring and reporting Qualified Activities.

(a) General. An Applicant may receive a BEA Program Award for engaging in any of the following categories of Qualified Activities during an Assessment Period: CDFI Related Activities, Distressed Community Financing Activities, or Service Activities. The CDFI Fund may further qualify such Qualified Activities in the applicable NOFA, including such additional geographic and transaction size limitations as the CDFI Fund deems appropriate.

(b) Reporting Qualified Activities. An Applicant should report only its Qualified Activities for the category or subcategory for which it is seeking a BEA Program Award.

(1) If an Applicant elects to apply for an award in the CDFI Related Activities category, it may elect to report on one or both types of activities within the CDFI Related Activities category.

(2) If an Applicant elects to apply for an award in the Distressed Community Financing Activities category, the Applicant must report on the following subcategories:

(i) Aggregate Consumer Loans; or

(ii) Aggregate Commercial Loans and Investments; or

(iii) Both paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) separately; unless the Applicant provides a reasonable explanation, acceptable to the CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, as to why the Applicant cannot report on aggregated activities in such subcategories.

(3) If an Applicant elects to apply for an award in the Service Activities category, it may elect to report on one or more types of activities within the Service Activities category.

(c) Area served. CDFI Related Activities must be provided to a CDFI. CDFI Partners that are the recipients of CDFI Support Activities must demonstrate that they are Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community. Service Activities and Distressed Community Financing Activities must serve a Distressed Community. An activity is considered to serve a Distressed Community if it is:

(1) Undertaken in the Distressed Community; or

(2) Provided to Eligible Residents or enterprises that are Integrally Involved in the Distressed Community.

(d) Certain limitations on Qualified Activities. Activities funded with the proceeds of Federal funding or tax credit programs are ineligible for purposes of calculating or receiving a Bank Enterprise Award. Please see the applicable NOFA for each funding round's limitations on Qualified Activities. Qualified Activities shall not include loans to or investments in those business types set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements.

(e) Measuring the value of Qualified Activities. Subject to such additional or alternative valuations as the CDFI Fund may specify in the applicable NOFA, the CDFI Fund will assess the value of:

(1) Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, loans, grants and certificates of deposits, at the original amount of such Equity Investments, Equity-Like Loans, loans, grants or certificates of deposits. Where a certificate of deposit matures and is then rolled over during the Baseline Period or the Assessment Period, as applicable, the CDFI Fund will assess the value of the full amount of the rolled-over deposit. Where an existing loan is refinanced (meaning, a new loan is originated to pay off an existing loan, whether or not there is a change in the applicable loan terms), the CDFI Fund will only assess the value of any increase in the principal amount of the refinanced loan;

(2) Project Investments at the original amount of the purchase of stock, limited partnership interest, other ownership interest, or grant;

(3) Deposit Liabilities at the dollar amount deposited as measured by comparing the net change in the amount of applicable funds on deposit at the Applicant during the Baseline Period with the net change in the amount of applicable funds on deposit at the Applicant during the Assessment Period, as described in paragraphs (e)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section:

(i) The Applicant shall calculate the net change in deposits during the Baseline Period by comparing the amount of applicable funds on deposit at the close of business the day before the beginning of the Baseline Period and at the close of business on the last day of the Baseline Period; and

(ii) The Applicant shall calculate the net change in such deposits during the Assessment Period by comparing the amount of applicable funds on deposit at the close of business the day before the beginning of the Assessment Period and at the close of business on the last day of the Assessment Period;

(4) Financial Services and Targeted Financial Services based on the predetermined amounts as set forth by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA; and

(5) Financial Services (other than those for which the CDFI Fund has established a predetermined value), Community Services, and CDFI Support Activities consisting of Technical Assistance based on the administrative costs of providing such services.

(f) Closed transactions. A transaction shall be considered to have been closed and carried out during the Baseline Period or the Assessment Period if the documentation evidencing the transaction:

(1) Is executed on a date within the applicable Baseline Period or Assessment Period, respectively; and

(2) Constitutes a legally binding agreement between the Applicant and a borrower or investee, which agreement specifies the final terms and conditions of the transaction, except that any contingencies included in the final agreement must be typical of such transaction and acceptable (both in the judgment of the CDFI Fund); and

(3) An initial cash disbursement of loan or investment proceeds has occurred in a manner that is consistent with customary business practices and is reasonable given the nature of the transaction (as determined by the CDFI Fund), unless it is normal business practice to make no initial disbursement at closing and the Applicant demonstrates that the borrower has access to the proceeds, subject to reasonable conditions as may be determined by the CDFI Fund.

(g) Reporting period. An Applicant must only measure the amount of a Qualified Activity that it reasonably expects to disburse to an investee, borrower, or other recipient within one year of the end of the applicable Assessment Period, or such other period as may be set forth by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA.

§ 1806.403 Estimated award amounts.

(a) General. An Applicant must calculate and submit to the CDFI Fund an estimated award amount as part of its BEA Program Award application.

(b) Award percentages. The CDFI Fund will establish the award percentage for each category and subcategory of Qualified Activities in the applicable NOFA. Applicable award percentages for Qualified Activities undertaken by Applicants that are CDFIs will be equal to three times the award percentages for Qualified Activities undertaken by Applicants that are not CDFIs.

(c) Calculating the estimated award amount for Qualified Activities. (1) The estimated award amount for the CDFI Related Activities category will be equal to the applicable award percentage of the net increase in each activity-type (i.e., Equity Investments/Equity Like-Loans; and CDFI Support Activities) under the CDFI Related Activities category between the Baseline Period and Assessment Period.

(2) The estimated award amount for the Distressed Community Financing Activities category will be equal to the applicable award percentage of the weighted value of each subcategory of Distressed Community Financing Activities (i.e., Consumer Loans; and Commercial Loans and Investments) between the Baseline Period and Assessment Period. The weighted value of the applicable subcategories shall be calculated by:

(i) Subtracting the Baseline Period value of such subcategory from the Assessment Period value of such subcategory to yield a difference; and

(ii) Multiplying the difference by the applicable Priority Factor (as set forth in the applicable NOFA).

(3) The estimated award amount for the Service Activities category will be equal to the applicable award percentage of the weighted value of each activity type between the Baseline Period and Assessment Period. The weighted value of the applicable activity type shall be calculated by:

(i) Subtracting the Baseline Period value of such Qualified Activity from the Assessment Period value of such Qualified Activity to yield a difference; and

(ii) Multiplying the difference by the applicable Priority Factor (as set forth in the applicable NOFA).

(d) Estimated award eligibility review. The CDFI Fund will determine the eligibility of each transaction for which an Applicant has applied for a BEA Program Award. Based upon this review, the CDFI Fund will calculate the actual award amount for which such Applicant is eligible.

§ 1806.404 Selection process; actual award amounts.

(a) Sufficient funds available to cover estimated awards. All BEA Program Awards are subject to the availability of funds. If the amount of appropriated funds available during a funding round is sufficient to cover all estimated award amounts for which Applicants are eligible, in the CDFI Fund's determination, and an Applicant meets all of the program requirements specified in this part, then such Applicant shall receive an actual award amount that is calculated by the CDFI Fund in the manner specified in § 1806.403.

(b) Insufficient funds available to cover estimated awards. If the amount of funds available during a funding round is insufficient to cover all estimated award amounts for which Applicants are eligible, in the CDFI Fund's determination, then the CDFI Fund will select Recipients and determine actual award amounts based on the process described in paragraph (c) of this section and any established maximum dollar amount of awards that may be awarded for the Distressed Community Financing Activities subcategories, as described in the applicable NOFA.

(c) Priority of awards. In circumstances where there are insufficient funds to cover estimated awards, the CDFI Fund will rank Applicants based on whether the Applicant is a CDFI or a non-CDFI, and in each category of Qualified Activity (e.g., Service Activities) according to the priorities described in this paragraph (c). Selections within each priority category will be based on the Applicants' relative rankings within each category, and based on whether the Applicant is a CDFI or a non-CDFI, subject to the availability of funds.

(1) First priority. If the amount of funds available during a funding round is insufficient for all estimated award amounts, first priority will be given to CDFI Applicants that engaged in CDFI Related Activities, followed by non-CDFI Applicants that engaged in CDFI Related Activities ranked in the ratio as set forth in the applicable NOFA.

(2) Second priority. If the amount of funds available during a funding round is sufficient for all first priority Applicants but insufficient for all remaining estimated award amounts, second priority will be given to CDFI Applicants that engaged in Distressed Community Financing Activities, followed by non-CDFI Applicants that engaged in Distressed Community Financing Activities, ranked in the ratio as set forth in the applicable NOFA.

(3) Third priority. If the amount of funds available during a funding round is sufficient for all first and second priority Applicants, but insufficient for all remaining estimated award amounts, third priority will be given to CDFI Applicants that engaged in Service Activities, followed by non-CDFI Applicants that engaged in Service Activities, ranked in the ratio as set forth in the applicable NOFA.

(d) Calculating actual award amounts. The CDFI Fund will determine actual award amounts based upon the availability of funds, increases in Qualified Activities from the Baseline to the Assessment Period, and an Applicant's priority ranking. If an Applicant receives an award for more than one priority category described in this section, the CDFI Fund will combine the award amounts into a single BEA Program Award.

(e) Unobligated or deobligated funds. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may use any deobligated funds or funds not obligated during a funding round:

(1) To select Applicants not previously selected, using the calculation and selection process contained in this part;

(2) To make additional monies available for a subsequent funding round; or

(3) As otherwise authorized by the Act.

(f) Limitation. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, may deny or limit the amount of a BEA Program Award for any reason.

§ 1806.405 Applications for BEA Program Awards.

(a) Notice of funding availability; applications. Applicants must submit applications for BEA Program Awards in accordance with this section and the applicable NOFA. An Applicant's application must demonstrate a realistic course of action to ensure that it will meet the requirements described in subpart D of this part within the period set forth in the applicable NOFA. Detailed application content requirements are found in the related application and applicable NOFA. The CDFI Fund will not disburse an award to an Applicant before it meets the eligibility requirements described in the applicable NOFA. The CDFI Fund shall require an Applicant to meet any additional eligibility requirements that the CDFI Fund deems appropriate. After receipt of an application, the CDFI Fund may request clarifying or technical information related to materials submitted as part of such application and/or to verify that Qualified Activities were carried out in the manner prescribed in this part. The CDFI Fund, in its sole discretion, shall determine whether an applicant fulfills the requirements set for forth in this part and the applicable NOFA.

(b) Application contents. An application for a BEA Program Award must contain:

(1) A completed electronic application module that reports the increases in Qualified Activities actually carried out during the Assessment Period as compared to those carried out during the Baseline Period. If an Applicant has merged with another institution during the Assessment Period, it must determine the Baseline Period amounts and Assessment Period amounts of the Qualified Activities of the merged institutions, and report the increase;

(2) An electronic application module which includes transactions to be considered for award calculation purposes. The transactions will include Qualified Activities that were closed during the Assessment Period. Applicants shall describe the original amount, census tract served (if applicable), dates of execution, initial disbursement, and final disbursement of the instrument for each transaction;

(3) Documentation of Qualified Activities that meets the required thresholds and conditions described in § 1806.402(f) and the applicable NOFA;

(4) Information necessary for the CDFI Fund to complete its environmental review requirements pursuant to part 1815 of this chapter;

(5) Certifications, as described in the applicable NOFA and BEA Program Award application, that the information provided to the CDFI Fund is true and accurate and that the Applicant will comply with all relevant provisions of this chapter and all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements;

(6) In the case of an Applicant that engaged in Service Activities, or Distressed Community Financing Activities, the Applicant must confirm, by submitting documentation as described in the applicable NOFA and BEA Program application, the Service Activities or Distressed Community Financing Activities were provided to:

(i) Eligible Residents; or

(ii) A business located in a Distressed Community.

(7) Information that indicates that each CDFI to which an Applicant has provided CDFI Support Activities is Integrally Involved in a Distressed Community, as described in the applicable NOFA and BEA Program application; and

(8) Any other information requested by the CDFI Fund, or specified by the CDFI Fund in the applicable NOFA or the BEA Program application, in order to document or otherwise assess the validity of information provided by the Applicant to the CDFI Fund.

Subpart E—Terms and Conditions of Assistance
§ 1806.500 Award Agreement; sanctions.

(a) General. After the CDFI Fund selects a Recipient, the CDFI Fund and the Recipient will enter into an Award Agreement. In addition to the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, the Award Agreement will require that the Recipient:

(1) Must carry out its Eligible Activities in accordance with applicable law, the approved BEA Program application, and all other applicable requirements;

(2) Must comply with such other terms and conditions that the CDFI Fund may establish;

(3) Will not receive any BEA Program Award payment until the CDFI Fund has determined that the Recipient has fulfilled all applicable requirements;

(4) Must comply with performance goals that have been established by the CDFI Fund. Such performance goals will include measures that require the Recipient to use its BEA Program Award funds for Eligible Activities; and

(5) Must comply with all data collection and reporting requirements. Each Recipient must submit to the CDFI Fund such information and documentation that will permit the CDFI Fund to review the Recipient's progress in satisfying the terms and conditions of its Award Agreement, including:

(i) Annual report. Each Recipient shall submit to the CDFI Fund at least annually and within 90 days after the end of each year of the Recipient's performance period, an annual report that will provide data that, among other things, demonstrates the Recipient's compliance with its performance goals (including a description of any noncompliance), its uses of the BEA Program Award funds, and the impact of the BEA Program and the CDFI industry. Recipients are responsible for the timely and complete submission of the annual report.

(ii) Financial statement. A Recipient is not required to submit its financial statement to the CDFI Fund. The CDFI Fund may obtain the necessary information from publicly available sources.

(b) Sanctions. In the event of any fraud, misrepresentation, or noncompliance with the terms of the Award Agreement by the Recipient, the CDFI Fund may terminate, reduce, or recapture the award, bar the Recipient and/or its Affiliates from applying for an award from the CDFI Fund for a period to be decided by the CDFI Fund in its sole discretion, and pursue any other available legal remedies.

(c) Compliance with other CDFI Fund awards. In the event that an Applicant, Recipient, or its Subsidiary or Affiliate is not in compliance, as determined by the CDFI Fund, with the terms and conditions of any CDFI Fund award, the CDFI Fund may, in its sole discretion, bar said Applicant or Recipient from applying for future BEA Program Awards or withhold payment (either initial or subsequent) of BEA Program Award funds.

(d) Notice. Prior to imposing any sanctions pursuant to this section or an Award Agreement, the CDFI Fund will provide the Recipient with written notice of the proposed sanction and an opportunity to respond. Nothing in this section, however, will provide a Recipient with the right to any formal or informal hearing or comparable proceeding not otherwise required by law.

§ 1806.501 Compliance with government requirements.

In carrying out its responsibilities pursuant to an Award Agreement, the Recipient must comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations (including but not limited to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, ordinances, and Executive Orders).

§ 1806.502 Fraud, waste, and abuse.

Any person who becomes aware of the existence or apparent existence of fraud, waste, or abuse of assistance provided under this part should report such incidences to the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

§ 1806.503 Books of account, records, and government access.

(a) A Recipient shall submit such financial and activity reports, records, statements, and documents at such times, in such forms, and accompanied by such supporting data, as required by the CDFI Fund and the U.S. Department of the Treasury to ensure compliance with the requirements of this part. The United States Government, including the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Comptroller General, and its duly authorized representatives, shall have full and free access to the Recipient's offices and facilities, and all books, documents, records, and financial statements relevant to the award of the Federal funds and may copy such documents as they deem appropriate.

(b) The Award Agreement provides that the provisions of the Act, this part, and the Award Agreement are enforceable under 12 U.S.C. 1818 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act by the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, as applicable, and that any violation of such provisions shall be treated as a violation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Nothing in this paragraph (b) precludes the CDFI Fund from directly enforcing the Award Agreement as provided for under the terms of the Act.

(c) The CDFI Fund will notify the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency before imposing any sanctions on a Recipient that is examined by or subject to the reporting requirements of that agency. The CDFI Fund will not impose a sanction described in § 1806.500(b) if the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency, in writing, not later than 30 calendar days after receiving notice from the CDFI Fund:

(1) Objects to the proposed sanction;

(2) Determines that the sanction would:

(i) Have a material adverse effect on the safety and soundness of the Recipient; or

(ii) Impede or interfere with an enforcement action against that Recipient by the Appropriate Federal Banking Agency;

(3) Proposes a comparable alternative action; and

(4) Specifically explains:

(i) The basis for the determination under paragraph (c)(2) of this section and, if appropriate, provides documentation to support the determination; and

(ii) How the alternative action suggested pursuant to paragraph (c)(3) of this section would be as effective as the sanction proposed by the CDFI Fund in securing compliance and deterring future noncompliance.

(d) Prior to imposing any sanctions pursuant to this section or an Award Agreement, the CDFI Fund shall, to the maximum extent practicable, provide the Recipient with written notice of the proposed sanction and an opportunity to comment. Nothing in this section, however, shall provide a Recipient to any formal or informal hearing or comparable proceeding not otherwise required by law.

§ 1806.504 Retention of records.

A Recipient must comply with all record retention requirements as set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements.

Dennis E. Nolan, Deputy Director, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund.
[FR Doc. 2016-18694 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-70-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5462; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-131-AD; Amendment 39-18606; AD 2016-16-08] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of spurious terrain awareness warning system (TAWS) alerts during approach and takeoff for airplanes fitted with the terrain and traffic collision avoidance system with transponder (T3CAS) when the T3CAS is constantly powered “ON” for more than 149 hours. This AD requires repetitive on-ground power cycle of the T3CAS. We are issuing this AD to prevent spurious TAWS alerts (collision prediction and alerting (CPA)), or missing legitimate CPA, which could increase flight crew workload during critical landing or takeoff phases, and could possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5462.

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-2016-5462; 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:

Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2016 (81 FR 21484) (“the NPRM”).

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2015-0125, dated July 1, 2015; corrected July 3, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Cases were reported of spurious Terrain Awareness Warning System (TAWS) alerts during approach and take off, with aeroplane fitted with the Terrain and Traffic Collision Avoidance System with Transponder (T3CAS). Investigations on the unit were launched with the manufacturer of the system (ACSS). The results of the laboratory investigation confirmed that an internal frozen Global Positioning System position anomaly occurs when the T3CAS is constantly powered `ON' for more than 149 hours. The origin for this defect was identified as a counter limitation related to a T3CAS internal software misbehaviour, not self-detected.

This condition, if not corrected, could lead to spurious TAWS alerts (Collision Prediction and Alerting (CPA), or missing legitimate CPA), which could increase flight crew workload during critical landing or take off phases, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.

Prompted by these reports, Airbus issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A34L003-13 to provide instructions to accomplish an on ground repetitive power cycle of the T3CAS before exceeding 120 hours of continuous power, and EASA issued AD 2014-0242 to require repetitive on ground power cycles of the T3CAS unit.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, the AOT A34L003-13 revision 1 has been issued which extend[s] the applicability to A340 aeroplanes modified in-service in accordance with Airbus SB 34-4282 (T3CAS std 1.2 unit installation). It was also identified that [EASA] AD 2014-0242 does not refer to affected A330 in-service aeroplanes on which SB A330-34-3271 or SB A330-34-3286 or SB A330-34-3301 have been embodied.

For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the same required actions as EASA AD 2014-0242, which is superseded, expands the Applicability of the [EASA] AD to include post SB A330-34-3271, post SB A330-34-3286 and post SB A330-34-3301 A330 aeroplanes, and post SB A340-34-4282 A340 aeroplanes.

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-2016-5462.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. We considered the comments received. The commenters, Air Line Pilots Association International and Mr. Scott Corner, supported the NPRM.

Conclusion

We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments 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

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A34L003-13, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an on-ground power cycle of the T3CAS. 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 3 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD): 2016-16-08 Airbus: Amendment 39-18606; Docket No. FAA-2016-5462; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-131-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the following Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category.

(1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -243, -223F, -243F, -301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Modification 202097 (T3CAS Standard 1.1) or Modification 202849 (T3CAS Standard 1.2) has been embodied in production; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3271; Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3286; or Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3301 have been embodied in-service.

(2) Airbus Model A340-211, -212, -213, -311, -312, and -313 airplanes, all manufacturer serial numbers on which Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4282 (T3CAS Standard 1.2) has been embodied in-service.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of spurious terrain awareness warning system (TAWS) alerts during approach and takeoff for airplanes fitted with the terrain and traffic collision avoidance system with transponder (T3CAS) when the T3CAS is constantly powered “ON” for more than 149 hours. We are issuing this AD to prevent spurious TAWS alerts (collision prediction and alerting (CPA)), or missing legitimate CPA, which could increase flight crew workload during critical landing or takeoff phases, and could possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) On-Ground Power Cycle

For Model A330 and A340 airplanes equipped with a T3CAS unit having a part number specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD: Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, or within 120 hours of continuous power of the T3CAS after installation of the T3CAS, as specified in any applicable service information in paragraph (h) of this AD, whichever occurs later, do an on-ground power cycle of the T3CAS, in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A34L003-13, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2015. Thereafter, repeat the on-ground power cycle of the T3CAS at intervals not to exceed 120 hours of continuous power of the T3CAS.

(1) Affected T3CAS Units are those having part number (P/N) 9005000-10101, Software Standard 1.1.

(2) Affected T3CAS Units are those having P/N 9005000-10202, Software Standard 1.2.

(h) Service Information Used To Install Part Affected

Paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(4) of this AD identify the service information that was used to install the T3CAS, as specified in paragraph (g) of this AD.

(1) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3271.

(2) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3286.

(3) Airbus Service Bulletin A330-34-3301.

(4) Airbus Service Bulletin A340-34-4282.

(i) Parts Installation Limitations

As of the effective date of this AD, installation on an airplane of a T3CAS unit having a part number specified in paragraph (g) of this AD is acceptable, provided that, following installation, the T3CAS unit is power cycled on a recurrent basis, as required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(j) 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 Airbus AOT A34L003-13, dated November 25, 2013.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1138; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected] Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.

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

(l) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0125, dated July 1, 2015; corrected July 3, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5462.

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

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Airbus Alert Operators Transmission (AOT) A34L003-13, Revision 01, dated May 26, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com.

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

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

Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 25, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18493 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD; Amendment 39-18607; AD 2016-16-09] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-10-01 for all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2011-10-01 required repetitive functional tests of the ram air turbine (RAT) heater, and repair if necessary. This new AD requires revision of the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. This AD was prompted by the need for new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 14, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. 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. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464.

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-2016-5464; 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 (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:

Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011) (“AD 2011-10-01”). AD 2011-10-01 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2016 (81 FR 23206) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the need for new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. The NPRM proposed to require revision of the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate new maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive AD 2015-0095, dated May 29, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

The airworthiness limitations and maintenance requirements for the FALCON 7X type design are included in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) chapter 5-40 and are approved by EASA. To ensure accomplishment of the maintenance tasks, and implementation of the airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40 original issue, including temporary revision (TR) TR-01, EASA issued AD 2008-0221.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, Dassault Aviation issued revision 4 of the FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations.

Dassault Aviation AMM chapter 5-40 revision 4 contains, among others, the following changes:

—Fatigue and Damage tolerance airworthiness limitations, —Miscellaneous Certification Maintenance Requirements and Airworthiness Limitation Items, —Periodic restoration of the DC generators (this action was required by EASA AD 2009-0254), —Functional test of the Ram Air Turbine heater (this action was required by EASA AD 2010-0033) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2011-10-01], —Special detailed fatigue inspection of fastener holes at front spar/wing lower panel connections at RIB 26, —Operational test of the IRS3 power supply weight-on- wheel logic, —Inspection of the interface between wheel keys and brake inboard rotor, —Operational test of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) electrical motor reversion, —Operational test of the HSTA trim emergency command, —Detailed inspection of the brake heat sink.

The maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in the FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40, have been identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness of the FALCON 7X type design. Failure to accomplish the actions specified in AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 4 may result in an unsafe condition.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2009-0254 and EASA AD 2010-0033, which are superseded, and requires accomplishment of the maintenance tasks and airworthiness limitations, as specified in Dassault Aviation FALCON 7X AMM chapter 5-40 at revision 4.

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-2016-5464.

This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs). Compliance with these actions and/or CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed by this AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. The request should include a description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements, components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane maintenance or inspection program specified in this AD, do not need to be reworked in accordance with the CDCCLs. However, once the airplane maintenance or inspection program or airworthiness limitations section (ALS) has been revised as required by this AD, future maintenance actions on these components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Dassault Aviation issued Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual, which introduces new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. 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 45 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 Functional test retained from AD 2011-10-01 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 $0 $85 per inspection cycle $3,825 per inspection cycle. Revise maintenance or inspection program 1 work-hour × $85 per hour = $85 0 $85 $3,825. 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011), and adding the following new AD: 2016-16-09 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18607; Docket No. FAA-2016-5464; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-097-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2011-10-01, Amendment 39-16682 (76 FR 25535, May 5, 2011) (“AD 2011-10-01”). This AD affects AD 2014-16-23, Amendment 39-17947 (79 FR 52545, September 4, 2014) (“AD 2014-16-23”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by the need for new and more restrictive maintenance requirements and airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and systems. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced structural integrity and reduced control of these airplanes due to the failure of system components.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Functional Test of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT) Heater, With New Terminating Action and Specific Delegation Approval Language

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2011-10-01, with new terminating action and specific delegation approval language. At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD, do a functional test of the RAT heater using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). Repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at the applicable time specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2) of this AD until the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD is done. If any functional test fails, before further flight, repair using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA.

(1) For Model FALCON 7X airplanes on which modification M0305 has not been done and on which Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has not been done: Within 650 flight hours after the effective date of this AD, do a functional test of the RAT heater and repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at intervals not to exceed 650 flight hours.

(2) For Model FALCON 7X airplanes on which modification M0305 has been done or on which Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has been done: Within 1,900 flight hours after June 9, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-10-01), or after modification M0305 or Dassault Service Bulletin 7X-018, dated March 6, 2009, has been done, whichever occurs later, do a functional test of the RAT heater. Repeat the functional test of the RAT heater thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,900 flight hours.

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

Additional guidance for doing the functional test of the RAT heater required by paragraph (g) of this AD can be found in Task 24-50-25-720-801, Functional Test of the RAT Heater, dated January 16, 2009, of the Dassault FALCON 7X Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM).

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the information specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual (MM). The initial compliance times for the tasks specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X MM are at the applicable compliance times specified in Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Falcon 7X MM, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(i) Terminating Actions for Certain Requirements of This AD and AD 2014-16-23

(1) Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(2) Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (q) of AD 2014-16-23.

(j) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has been revised as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

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

(l) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2015-0095, dated May 29, 2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5464.

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

(m) 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) Chapter 5-40-00, Airworthiness Limitations, DGT 107838, Revision 4, dated February 2, 2015, of the Dassault Aviation Falcon 7X Maintenance Manual.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation, Teterboro Airport, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone: 201-440-6700; Internet: http://www.dassaultfalcon.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 27, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18488 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-122-AD; Amendment 39-18608; AD 2016-16-10] 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame and in window post number 3. This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracks and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracks in the web and flange surfaces of the forward segment of window post number 3, and missing fasteners and cracks of the window upper sill; post-modification inspections for cracks of the window upper sill; a one-time fastener rework; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill, which could result in an in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 14, 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-2015-8429.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; 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:

Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 13, 2016 (81 FR 1577) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame and in window post number 3. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections for cracks and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracks in the web and flange surfaces of the forward segment of window post number 3, and missing fasteners and cracks of the window upper sill; post-modification inspections for cracks of the window upper sill; a one-time fastener rework; and related investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill, which could result in an in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

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.

Request for Restoration Procedures

United Airlines (UAL) requested that figure 21 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, be revised to provide airplane maintenance manual references on reinstallation of the panels and all disturbed air conditioning systems, and to include operational check procedures of all the disturbed systems.

We partially agree with UAL's comment. We agree that figure 21 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, should provide robust access/restoration procedures. We disagree with delaying this AD until any needed changes to figure 21 have been incorporated. Figure 21 is not a “Required for Compliance” (RC) section of the service information and is not mandated by this AD. Therefore, operators can deviate from these instructions, as specified in paragraph (k)(4)(ii) of this AD. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise Discussion Section of the NPRM

Boeing requested that we revise the second sentence in the Discussion section of the NPRM, which states: “Other Model 747 airplanes, except Model 747-8F and 747-8 airplanes, are of a similar station 320 crown frame configuration.” Boeing asked that the reference to Model 747-8F and Model 747-8 airplanes be removed. Boeing stated that although having a different design, Model 747-8F and Model 747-8 airplanes have a similar station 320 crown frame configuration as the other Model 747 airplanes. Boeing explained that, for Model 747-8F and Model 747-8 airplanes, it has issued service information that specifies repetitive inspections for cracking of the station 320 crown frame and is mandated by certain airworthiness limitations (AWLs).

We agree to clarify the Discussion section of the NPRM. We agree that Boeing Model 747-100, -200, -300, and -400 airplanes, and Model 747-8F and Model 747-8 airplanes, have similar station 320 crown frame configurations. However, we cannot revise the second sentence in the Discussion section of the NPRM because that particular sentence is not restated in the Discussion section of this AD. Also, as Boeing stated, the identified condition on Model 747-8F and Model 747-8 airplanes is addressed with AWLs. This AD addresses the identified unsafe condition on Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Clarification of Repetitive Inspections Required by Paragraph (h) of This AD

We revised paragraph (h) of this AD, which refers to inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD, by removing the text “for cracking in the window upper sill.” That text only applies to the inspection specified in paragraph (g)(5) of this AD and not to the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) of 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 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 Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015. The service information describes procedures for inspections and corrective actions for cracks and missing fasteners in the inner chord and outboard webs of the station 320 crown frame, in the left and right side window post number 3, and in the window upper sill structure. 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 165 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 Inspections Up to 193 work-hours × $85 per hour = $16,405 per inspection cycle $0 Up to $16,405 per inspection cycle Up to $2,706,825 per inspection cycle.

We have received no definitive data that would 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): 2016-16-10 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18608; Docket No. FAA-2015-8429; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-122-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective September 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, 747SR, and 747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

This AD was prompted by reports of fatigue cracks in the station 320 crown frame in window post number 3. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame, cracking of the window post number 3, and cracking of the window upper sill, which could result in an in-flight decompression and a loss of structural integrity of the fuselage.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Initial Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as provided by paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD: Do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

(1) Do a detailed inspection for cracks and missing fasteners of the station 320 crown frame.

(2) Do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for cracks of the station 320 crown frame.

(3) Do a surface HFEC inspection for cracks in the web and flange surfaces of the forward segment of window post number 3.

(4) Do a detailed inspection for missing fasteners of the window upper sill.

(5) Do a surface HFEC inspection for cracks of the window upper sill.

(h) Repetitive Inspections and Post-Repair Inspections, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

Do applicable repetitive post-repair inspections and repeat the inspections specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD thereafter at the applicable compliance time and intervals specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as required by paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

(i) Fastener Rework, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

At the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E., “Compliance,” of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015: Do the applicable actions (including fastener rework and a detailed inspection of the condition of the fastener hole) specified in Part 11 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015; and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, except as specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

(j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

(1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the original date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies a compliance time “after the Revision 1 date of this service bulletin,” this AD requires compliance within the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(3) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repairs: Before further flight, repair, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

(1) The Manager, Seattle 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 (l)(1) 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 the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle 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 paragraphs (g), (h), and (j)(3) of this AD: For service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) 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.

(l) Related Information

For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-6432; fax: 425-917-6590; email: [email protected]

(m) 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 747-53A2862, Revision 1, dated July 24, 2015.

(ii) Reserved.

(3) For Boeing 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.

(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 27, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18487 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-208-AD; Amendment 39-18605; AD 2016-16-07] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-21-14 R1 for all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. AD 2007-21-14 R1 required revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems. This new AD requires revising the maintenance program or inspection program to incorporate revised fuel maintenance and inspection tasks. This AD was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective September 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 14, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of November 20, 2007 (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office—EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket Number FAA-2015-8468.

Examining the AD Docket

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket Number FAA-2015-8468; 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 Operations office (telephone 800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009) (“AD 2007-21-14 R1”). AD 2007-21-14 R1 applied to all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3066) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations by the manufacturer. The NPRM proposed to retain the requirements of AD 2007-21-14 R1, and require more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0193, dated October 15, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on all Airbus Model A310 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

Prompted by an accident * * *, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR) 88, and the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA) published Interim Policy INT/POL/25/12. In response to these regulations, Airbus conducted a design review to develop Fuel Airworthiness Limitations (FAL) for Airbus on A310 aeroplanes.

The FAL were specified in Airbus A310 FAL document ref. 95A.1930/05 at issue 02 and in the A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) variation to FAL document issue 02, ref. 0BVLG110006/C0S issue 01, for A310 aeroplanes.

EASA issued [EASA] AD 2006-0202 to require compliance with the FAL documents (comprising maintenance/inspection tasks and Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCL)).

EASA AD 2006-0202 was superseded by EASA AD 2007-0096 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-14 R1], which retained the original requirements and corrected and updated the compliance paragraphs concerning task ref. 28-18-00-03-1 and CDCCL's.

Since EASA AD 2007-0096R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2007-21-14 R1] was published, Airbus issued A310 ALS Part 5, prompted by EASA policy statement (EASA D2005/CPRO) which requests design approval holders to integrate Fuel Tank Safety items into an ALS document. The A310 ALS Part 5 is approved by EASA.

Failure to comply with the items as identified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5 could result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the aeroplane.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD * * * requires implementation of the new and more restrictive maintenance instructions and/or airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5.

The unsafe condition is the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane. 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-2015-8468.

Comments

We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing this AD. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM. The Air Line Pilots Association International supported the intent of 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, with 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

Airbus has issued A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The airworthiness limitations introduce mandatory instructions and more restrictive maintenance requirements. 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 23 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2007-21-14 R1 and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2007-21-14 R1 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it takes about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $1,955, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009), and adding the following new AD: 2016-16-07 Airbus: Amendment 39-18605; Docket No. FAA-2015-8468; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-208-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD becomes effective September 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces AD 2007-21-14 R1, Amendment 39-16061 (74 FR 55123, October 27, 2009) (“AD 2007-21-14 R1”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Airbus Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by the issuance of more restrictive maintenance requirements and/or airworthiness limitations by the manufacturer. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential of ignition sources inside fuel tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors caused by latent failures, alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, could result in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Revision of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) To Incorporate Fuel Maintenance and Inspection Tasks, With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (f) of AD 2007-21-14 R1, with no changes. Within 3 months after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14, Amendment 39-15232, (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007) (“AD 2007-21-14”)), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on July 6, 2007), Section 1, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks.” For all tasks identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007, the initial compliance times start from the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD, and the repetitive inspections must be accomplished thereafter at the intervals specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, except as provided by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(1) November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14).

(2) The date of issuance of the original French standard airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original French export certificate of airworthiness.

Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

Airbus Operator Information Telex SE 999.0079/07, Revision 01, dated August 14, 2007, identifies the applicable sections of the Airbus A310 Airplane Maintenance Manual necessary for accomplishing the tasks specified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05.

(h) Retained Revision of Initial Compliance Time for Task 28-18-00-03-1, With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2007-21-14 R1, with no changes. For Task 28-18-00-03-1 identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007): The initial compliance time is the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD. Thereafter, Task 28-18-00-03-1 identified in Section 1 of Document 95A.1930/05, “Maintenance/Inspection Tasks,” of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007), must be accomplished at the repetitive interval specified in Section 1 of Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007).

(1) Prior to the accumulation of 40,000 total flight hours.

(2) Within 72 months or 20,000 flight hours after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14), whichever occurs first.

(i) Retained Revision of the ALS To Incorporate Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs), With No Changes

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2007-21-14 R1, with no changes. Within 12 months after November 20, 2007 (the effective date of AD 2007-21-14), revise the ALS of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006, as defined in Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007 (approved by the EASA on July 6, 2007), Section 2, “Critical Design Configuration Control Limitations.”

(j) Retained No Alternative Inspections, Inspection Intervals, or CDCCLs, With New Paragraph Reference

This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD 2007-21-14 R1, with a new paragraph reference. Except as provided by paragraphs (k) and (m)(1) of this AD: After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraphs (g) and (i) of this AD, no alternative inspections, inspection intervals, or CDCCLs may be used.

(k) New Requirement of This AD: Revise the Maintenance or Inspection Program

Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the airworthiness limitations as specified in Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014. The initial compliance times for the actions specified Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, are at the later of the times specified in Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014, or within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the revision required by this paragraph terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) through (i) of this AD.

(l) New Requirement of This AD: No Alternative Inspections, Intervals, and/or CDCCLs

After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as required by paragraph (k) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD.

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(n) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0193, dated October 15, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8468.

(o) 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.

(3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 14, 2016.

(i) Airbus A310 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Revision 00, dated May 27, 2014.

(ii) Reserved.

(4) The following service information was approved for IBR on November 20, 2007 (72 FR 58499, October 16, 2007).

(i) Airbus A310 ALS Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, dated May 31, 2006.

(ii) Airbus A310 Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Document 95A.1930/05, Part 5—Fuel Airworthiness Limitations, Issue 2, dated May 11, 2007.

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

(6) 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.

(7) 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 25, 2016. Victor Wicklund, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-18483 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4271; Airspace Docket No. 16-AGL-6] Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Minnesota Towns; Hutchinson, MN; Jackson, MN; Pipestone, MN; Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca, MN AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN. Decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacon (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the above airports. This action also updates the geographic coordinates at Hutchinson Municipal-Butler Field, Jackson Municipal Airport, Pipestone Municipal Airport, and Richard B. Helgeson Airport, to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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:

Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.

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 amends Class E airspace at Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN.

History

On May 3, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify Class E airspace at Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN (81 FR 26497) Docket No. FAA-2016-4271. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 modifies Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at the following airports:

Within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, Hutchinson, MN; Within a 6.3-mile radius of Jackson Municipal Airport, Jackson, MN; Within a 6.5-mile radius of Pipestone Municipal Airport, Pipestone, MN; Within a 7-mile radius of Richard B. Helgeson Airport, Two Harbors, MN; and Within a 6.3-mile radius of Waseca Municipal Airport, Waseca, MN.

Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of the standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the airports. Geographic coordinates are being adjusted for the following airports: Hutchinson Municipal-Butler Field, Jackson Municipal Airport, Pipestone Municipal Airport, and Richard B. Helgeson Airport, to coincide with the FAAs aeronautical database.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. AGL MN E5 Hutchinson, MN [Amended] Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field, MN (Lat. 44°51′36″ N., long. 94°22′57″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of Hutchinson Municipal Airport-Butler Field. AGL MN E5 Jackson, MN [Amended] Jackson Municipal Airport, MN (Lat. 43°39′01″ N., long. 94°59′12″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Jackson Municipal Airport. AGL MN E5 Pipestone, MN [Amended] Pipestone Municipal Airport, MN (Lat. 43°58′56″ N., long. 96°18′01″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Pipestone Municipal Airport. AGL MN E5 Two Harbors, MN [Amended] Richard B. Helgeson Airport, MN (Lat. 47°02′57″ N., long. 91°44′43″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 7-mile radius of Richard B. Helgeson Airport. AGL MN E5 Waseca, MN [Amended] Waseca Municipal Airport, MN (Lat. 44°04′24″ N., long. 93°33′11″ W.) That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Waseca Municipal Airport. Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 1, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-18764 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4236; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-5] Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Providence, LA AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action removes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Byerley Airport, Lake Providence, LA. The decommissioning of the non-directional radio beacon (NDB) and cancellation of Standard Instrument Approach Procedures have made this action necessary for continued safety and management within the National Airspace System.

DATES:

Effective 0901 UTC, November 10, 2016. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES:

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:

Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.

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 removes Class E airspace at Byerley Airport, Lake Providence, LA.

History

On April 22, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to remove Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Byerley Airport, Lake Providence, LA. (81 FR 23660) Docket No. FAA-2016-4236. Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.

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

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

This document amends 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 Rule

This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 removes the Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Byerley Airport, Lake Providence, LA. The controlled airspace is no longer necessary due to the decommissioning of the NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at the airport.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows: Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700 Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth. ASW LA E5 Lake Providence, LA (Removed) Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 28, 2016. Walter Tweedy, Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-18771 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary 14 CFR Part 383 RIN 2105-AE51 Revisions to Civil Penalty Amounts AGENCY:

Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION:

Interim final rule.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, the Department of Transportation is issuing an interim final rule to adjust for inflation the maximum civil penalty amounts for violations of certain aviation economic statutes and the rules and orders issued pursuant to these statutes.

DATES:

The rule is effective August 10, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stuart A. Hindman, Trial Attorney, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-366-9342, 202-366-7152 (fax), [email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Regulatory Information

DOT is promulgating this interim final rule to ensure that the maximum civil penalty liability amounts set forth in 14 CFR part 383 that may be assessed by the Department as a result of violations of certain economic provisions of Title 49 of the United States Code reflect the statutorily mandated maximums as adjusted for inflation. Pursuant to section 701 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Act), DOT is required to promulgate a “catch-up adjustment” through an interim final rule. Public Law 114-74. The 2015 Act requires the Department to adjust certain civil penalty amounts and provides clear direction for how to adjust the civil penalties, which leaves the agency little room for discretion. By operation of the 2015 Act, DOT must publish the catch-up adjustment by July 1, 2016, and the new levels must take effect no later than August 1, 2016. For these reasons, pursuant to the 2015 Act and 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), 553(d)(3), DOT finds that good cause exists for immediate implementation of this interim final rule without prior notice and comment and with an immediate effective date.

II. Background

On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, which amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the Inflation Adjustment Act), to improve the effectiveness of civil monetary penalties and to maintain their deterrent effect. The 2015 Act requires agencies to: (1) Adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through an interim final rule (IFR); and (2) make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation.

The method of calculating inflation adjustments in the 2015 Act differs substantially from the methods used in past inflation adjustment rulemakings conducted pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act. Previously, adjustments to civil penalty amounts were conducted under requirements that mandated significant rounding of figures. For example, a penalty increase that was greater than $1,000, but less than or equal to $10,000 would be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1,000. While this allowed penalties to be kept at round numbers, it meant that penalties would often not be increased at all if inflation had increased but not by a large enough factor. Furthermore, increases to penalties were capped at 10 percent. Over time, this formula caused penalties to lose value relative to total inflation.

The 2015 Act has removed these rounding requirements; now, penalty amounts are simply rounded to the nearest $1. While this results in penalty amounts that are no longer round numbers, it does ensure that penalty amounts will be increased each year to a figure commensurate with the actual calculated inflation. Furthermore, the 2015 Act “resets” the inflation calculations by excluding prior inflationary adjustments made under the Inflation Adjustment Act, which contributed to a decline in the real value of penalty levels. To do this, the 2015 Act requires agencies to identify, for each penalty, the year and corresponding amount(s) for which the maximum penalty level or range of minimum and maximum penalties was originally enacted by Congress or last adjusted by statute or regulation, other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act. DOT has determined that the maximum levels for the civil penalties that may be assessed for violations of aviation economic statutes and regulations pursuant to 14 CFR part 383 were established by Vision 100—Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003 (“Vision 100”) (Section 503, Pub. L. 108-176; 117 Stat. 2490, December 12, 2003), and have not been adjusted since, excluding Inflation Adjustment Act revisions.

III. Completing the Catch-Up Adjustment

The table below shows the penalties that we are increasing pursuant to the 2015 Act. These calculations follow guidance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), M-16-06, “Implementation of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” dated Feb. 24, 2016.

In the first column, we have provided a description of the penalty. In the second column (“Citation,”) we have provided the United States Code (U.S.C.) statutory citation for the provision that authorizes that penalty. In the third column (“Current Penalty”), we have listed the existing penalty, and in the fourth column (“Baseline Penalty”), we have provided the amount of the penalty as enacted by Congress or changed through a mechanism other than pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act, which in the case of all five of these adjustments is by Vision 100. The multiplier that we have used to adjust from the CPI-U of the year of this last adjustment (2003) to the CPI-U for the current year was provided by the Office of Management and Budget; it is 1.28561. Multiplying the baseline penalty by the multiplier provides the “New Penalty” listed in the final column, rounded to the nearest dollar. In accordance with the 2015 Act and OMB memorandum M-16-06, however, DOT did not increase penalty levels by more than 150 percent of the corresponding levels in effect on November 2, 2015. The adjusted penalty is to be the lesser of either the preliminary new penalty arrived at via the multiplier or an amount equal to 250% of the current penalty. In the case of these five penalties, the lesser number was the figure that resulted from applying the multiplier.

Where applicable, DOT has also made conforming edits to regulatory text. In addition, we are deleting a reference to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 in section 383.1(b) of the regulatory text. The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 amended the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990. Additionally, in the regulatory text for section 383.1(b) we are deleting the reference to the Inflation Adjustment Act because it has been amended by the 2015 Act.

Pursuant to the 2015 Act, in the event a violation took place prior to the effective date of the new penalty level, and the DOT assessed a penalty after the effective date, the new penalty level shall be assessed in a manner consistent with applicable law. The 2015 Act does not alter DOT's statutory authority, to the extent it exists, to assess penalties below the maximum level. As the 2015 Act applies to penalties assessed after the effective date of the applicable adjustment, the 2015 Act adjusts penalties prospectively. The 2015 Act does not retrospectively change previously assessed or enforced penalties that DOT is actively collecting or has collected.

Description Citation Current
  • penalty
  • Base line
  • penalty
  • New penalty
    General civil penalty for violations of certain aviation economic regulations and statutes 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1) $27,500 $25,000 $32,140 General civil penalty for violations of certain aviation economic regulations and statutes involving an individual or small business concern 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1) 1,100 1,100 1,414 Civil penalties for individuals or small businesses for violations of most provisions of Chapter 401 of Title 49, including the anti-discrimination provisions of sections 40127 and 41705 and rules and orders issued pursuant to these provisions 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A) 11,000 10,000 12,856 Civil penalties for individuals or small businesses for violations of 49 U.S.C. 41719 and rules and orders issued pursuant to that provision 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(C) 5,500 5,000 6,428 Civil penalties for individuals or small businesses for violations of 49 U.S.C. 41712 or consumer protection rules and orders issued pursuant to that provision 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(D) 2,750 2,500 3,214
    Regulatory Analysis and Notices A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This interim final rule has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies and procedures and is considered not significant under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 or DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; therefore, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

    The increase of the maximum civil penalty will impact entities and individuals that are found to be in violation of certain aviation economic and consumer protection statutes, rules, and orders. There is no direct cost to any regulated entity or individual unless the entity or individual is found to have committed a violation. Furthermore, the economic impact of the interim final rule is expected to be minimal to the extent that preparation of a regulatory evaluation is not warranted.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires an assessment of the impact of proposed and final rules on small entities unless the agency certifies that the proposed regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. An air carrier or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft with up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity). See 14 CFR 399.73.

    The revision of the civil penalty amount will raise potential penalties for individuals and small businesses with regard to violations of certain aviation economic regulations and statutes or consumer protection rules and orders. Because the largest increase to the maximum civil penalty affecting small entities is only $2,856, the aggregate economic impact of this rulemaking on small entities should be minimal and would only be borne by those entities found in violation of the regulations.

    Accordingly, I hereby certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    In addition, DOT has determined the RFA does not apply to this rulemaking. The 2015 Inflation Act requires DOT to publish an interim final rule and does not require DOT to complete notice and comment procedures under the APA. The Small Business Administration's A Guide for Government Agencies: How to Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (2012), provides that:

    If, under the APA or any rule of general applicability governing federal grants to state and local governments, the agency is required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), the RFA must be considered [citing 5 U.S.C. 604(a)]. . . . If an NPRM is not required, the RFA does not apply.

    Therefore, because the 2015 Inflation Act does not require an NPRM for this rulemaking, the RFA does not apply.

    C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This interim final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (“Federalism”). This regulation has no substantial direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. It does not contain any provision that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments. It does not contain any new provision that preempts state law, because states are already preempted from regulating in this area under the Airline Deregulation Act, 49 U.S.C. 41713. Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do not apply.

    D. Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (“Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments”). Because none of the measures in the rule will significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

    E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register providing notice of and a 60-day comment period on, and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning, each proposed collection of information. This rule imposes no new information reporting or record keeping necessitating clearance by the Office of Management and Budget.

    F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this interim final rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that it is categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979). Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR 1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id. Paragraph 3.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C categorically excludes “[a]ctions relating to consumer protection, including regulations.” The purpose of this rulemaking is to adjust the maximum civil penalties for violations of certain aviation consumer protection statutes, regulations, and orders. The Department does not anticipate any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances present in connection with this rulemaking.

    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department analyzed the interim final rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. The Department considered whether the rule includes a federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100,000,000 or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. The Department has determined that this interim final rule will not result in such expenditures. Accordingly, this interim final rule is not subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 383

    Administrative practice and procedure, Penalties.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation amends 14 CFR part 383 as set forth below:

    PART 383—CIVIL PENALTIES 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 383 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 584; Sec. 503, Pub. L. 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490; Pub. L. 101-410, 104 Stat. 890; Sec. 31001, Pub. L. 104-134.

    2. Section 383.1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 383.1 Purpose and periodic adjustment.

    (a) Purpose. This part adjusts the civil penalty liability amounts prescribed in 49 U.S.C. 46301(a) for inflation in accordance with the Act cited in paragraph (b) of this section.

    (b) Periodic Adjustment. DOT will periodically adjust the maximum civil penalties set forth in 49 U.S.C. 46301 and this part as required by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.

    3. Section 383.2 is revised to read as follows:
    § 383.2 Amount of penalty.

    Civil penalties payable to the U.S. Government for violations of Title 49, Chapters 401 through 421, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46301(a), are as follows:

    (a) A general civil penalty of not more than $32,140 (or $1,414 for individuals or small businesses) applies to violations of statutory provisions and rules or orders issued under those provisions, other than those listed in paragraph (b) of this section, (see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(1));

    (b) With respect to small businesses and individuals, notwithstanding the general $1,414 civil penalty, the following civil penalty limits apply:

    (1) A maximum civil penalty of $12,856 applies for violations of most provisions of Chapter 401, including the anti-discrimination provisions of sections 40127 (general provision), and 41705 (discrimination against the disabled) and rules and orders issued pursuant to those provisions (see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(A));

    (2) A maximum civil penalty of $6,428 applies for violations of section 41719 and rules and orders issued pursuant to that provision (see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(C)); and

    (3) A maximum civil penalty of $3,214 applies for violations of section 41712 or consumer protection rules or orders (see 49 U.S.C. 46301(a)(5)(D)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n), on: August 5, 2016. Molly J. Moran, Acting General Counsel.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19003 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 300 [TD 9781] RIN 1545-BN02 Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN) User Fee Update AGENCY:

    Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

    ACTION:

    Final regulations and removal of temporary regulations.

    SUMMARY:

    This document contains final regulations relating to the imposition of certain user fees on tax return preparers. The final regulations supersede and adopt the text of temporary regulations that reduced the user fee to apply for or renew a preparer tax identification number (PTIN) from $50 to $33. The final regulations affect individuals who apply for or renew a PTIN. The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 authorizes the charging of user fees.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: These regulations are effective on September 9, 2016. Applicability Date: For date of applicability, see § 300.13(d).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Concerning the final regulations, Hollie M. Marx at (202) 317-6844; concerning cost methodology, Eva J. Williams at (202) 803-9728 (not toll-free numbers).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Summary of Comments

    This document contains final regulations relating to the imposition of a user fee to apply for or renew a PTIN. The Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 (IOAA), which is codified at 31 U.S.C. 9701, authorizes agencies to prescribe regulations that establish user fees for services provided by the agency. The charges must be fair and must be based on the costs to the government, the value of the service to the recipient, the public policy or interest served, and other relevant facts. The IOAA provides that regulations implementing user fees are subject to policies prescribed by the President; these policies are set forth in the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (OMB Circular A-25).

    Under OMB Circular A-25, federal agencies that provide services that confer special benefits on identifiable recipients beyond those accruing to the general public are to establish user fees that recover the full cost of providing the special benefit. An agency that seeks to impose a user fee for government-provided services must calculate the full cost of providing those services, review user fees biennially, and update them as necessary.

    Section 6109(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations for the inclusion of a tax return preparer's identifying number on a return, statement, or other document required to be filed with the IRS. On September 30, 2010, the Treasury Department and the IRS published final regulations under section 6109 (REG-134235-08) in the Federal Register (TD 9501) (75 FR 60315) (PTIN regulations) to provide that, for returns or claims for refund filed after December 31, 2010, the identifying number of a tax return preparer is the individual's PTIN or such other number prescribed by the IRS in forms, instructions, or other appropriate guidance. The PTIN regulations require a tax return preparer who prepares or who assists in preparing all or substantially all of a tax return or claim for refund after December 31, 2010 to have a PTIN. Final regulations (REG-139343-08) published in the Federal Register (TD 9503) (75 FR 60316) on September 30, 2010, established a $50 user fee to apply for or renew a PTIN. The ability to prepare tax returns and claims for refund for compensation is a special benefit, for which the IRS may charge a user fee to recover the full costs of providing the special benefit.

    Pursuant to the guidelines in OMB Circular A-25, the IRS recalculated its cost of providing services under the PTIN application and renewal process and determined that the full cost of administering the PTIN program going forward is reduced from $50 to $33 per application or renewal. On October 30, 2015, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (80 FR 66851-01) a notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-121496-15) proposing amendments to regulations under 26 CFR part 300. On the same date, the Treasury Department and the IRS published in the Federal Register (80 FR 66792-01) temporary regulations (TD 9742) that reduced the amount of the user fee to obtain or renew a PTIN from $50 to $33 per original or renewal application. Five electronic public comments were submitted under the regulation number for the proposed regulations, but their contents related to issues other than a user fee for applying for or renewing a PTIN and are not relevant to these regulations. The comments are available for public inspection at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request. The IRS received no requests for a public hearing, and none was held. The final regulations adopt the proposed regulations without change. The temporary regulations are hereby made obsolete and removed.

    Effect on Other Documents

    Temporary regulations § 300.13T are obsolete as of September 9, 2016.

    Special Analyses

    Certain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.

    The Administrative Procedure Act provides that substantive rules generally will not be effective until thirty days after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). The Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that section 5 U.S.C. 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act applies to these final regulations.

    The notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-121496-15) included an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The Treasury Department and the IRS concluded in the initial regulatory flexibility analysis that the proposed regulations, if promulgated, may have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. None of the public comments submitted under the regulation number for the proposed regulation addressed the initial regulatory flexibility analysis. After further consideration, the Treasury Department and the IRS conclude that no final regulatory flexibility analysis is required. The Treasury Department and the IRS certify that the final regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Although the final regulations will likely affect a substantial number of small entities, the economic impact on those entities is not significant. The final regulations establish a $33 fee to apply for or renew a PTIN per original or renewal application, which is a reduction from the previously established fee of $50 per original or renewal application, and the $33 fee will not have a significant economic impact on a small entity.

    Pursuant to section 7805(f) of the Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking that preceded these final regulations was submitted to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for comment on its impact on small business. No comments were received on the proposed regulations.

    Drafting Information

    The principal author of these final regulations is Hollie M. Marx, Office of the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). However, other personnel from the Treasury Department and the IRS participated in their development.

    List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 300

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.

    Adoption of Amendments to the Regulations

    Accordingly, 26 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

    PART 300—USER FEES Paragraph 1. The authority citation for part 300 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    31 U.S.C. 9701.

    Par. 2. Section 300.13 is amended by adding paragraph (b) and revising paragraph (d) to read as follows:
    § 300.13 Fee for obtaining a preparer tax identification number.

    (b) Fee. The fee to apply for or renew a preparer tax identification number is $33 per year, which is the cost to the government for processing the application for a preparer tax identification number and does not include any fees charged by the vendor.

    (d) Applicability date. This section will be applicable for applications for and renewal of a preparer tax identification number filed on or after September 9, 2016.

    § 300.13T [Removed]
    Par. 3. Section 300.13T is removed. John Dalrymple, Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement. Approved: July 14, 2016. Mark J. Mazur, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury (Tax Policy).
    [FR Doc. 2016-18925 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 32 CFR Part 505 [USA-2016-HQ-0030] Army Privacy Program AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Direct final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army is amending the Army Privacy Program Regulation. Specifically, Army is adding exemption rules for Army system of records “A0600-20 SAMR, Soldiers Equal Opportunity Investigative Files”. This rule provides policies and procedures for the Army's implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended. This direct final rule makes changes to the Department of the Army's Privacy Program rule. These changes will allow the Department to exempt records from certain portions of the Privacy Act. This will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of Defense's (DoD's) program by preserving the exempt status of the records when the purposes underlying the exemption are valid and necessary to protect the contents of the records.

    DATES:

    The rule will be effective October 19, 2016 unless comments are received that would result in a contrary determination. Comments will be accepted on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and/or RIN number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy C. Rogers, Chief, FOIA/PA, telephone: 703-428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Direct Final Rule and Significant Adverse Comments

    DoD has determined this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it involves non-substantive changes dealing with DoD's management of its Privacy Programs. DoD expects no opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments. However, if DoD receives a significant adverse comment, the Department will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, DoD will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

    This regulatory action imposes no monetary costs to the Agency or public. The benefit to the public is the accurate reflection of the Agency's Privacy Program to ensure that policies and procedures are known to the public.

    Regulatory Procedures Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”

    Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distribute impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. It has been determined this Privacy Act rule is not a significant rule. This rule does not (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy; a sector of the economy; productivity; competition; jobs; the environment; public health or safety; or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another Agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in these Executive Orders.

    Public Law 96-354, “Regulatory Flexibility Act” (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the DoD does not have significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it is concerned only with the administration of Privacy Act within the DoD.

    Public Law 95-511, “Paperwork Reduction Act” (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rule for the DoD imposes no information collection requirements on the public under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    Section 202, Public Law 104-4, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act”

    It has been determined that this Privacy Act rulemaking for the DoD does not involve a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more and that such rulemaking will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

    Executive Order 13132, “Federalism”

    It has been determined that the Privacy Act rule for the Department of Defense does not have federalism implications. The rule does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

    List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 505

    Privacy.

    Accordingly 32 CFR part 505 is amended as follows:

    PART 505—ARMY PRIVACY ACT PROGRAM 1. The authority citation for 32 CFR part 505 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Public Law 93-579, 88 Stat. 1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

    2. Amend appendix D to part 505 by adding paragraph (g)(35) to read as follows: Appendix D to Part 505—Exemptions, Exceptions, and DoD Blanket Routine Uses

    (g) * * *

    (35) System identifier: A0600-20 SAMR.

    (i) System name: Soldiers Equal Opportunity Investigative Files.

    (ii) Exemptions: Investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes, other than material within the scope of subsection 5 U.S.C. 552a(j)(2), is exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). However, if an individual is denied any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be entitled by Federal law or for which he would otherwise be eligible, as a result of the maintenance of such information, such material shall be provided to the individual, except to the extent that disclosure would reveal the identity of a confidential source. Therefore, portions of this system of records may be exempt pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) from subsections 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f).

    (iii) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

    (iv) Reasons: (A) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of a criminal investigation or other investigation conducted for law enforcement purposes to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation which will present a serious impediment to law enforcement.

    (B) From subsection (d) because access to such records contained in this system would inform the subject of a criminal investigation or other investigation conducted for law enforcement purposes, of the existence of that investigation, provide the subject of the investigation with information that might enable him to avoid detection or apprehension, and would present a serious impediment to law enforcement.

    (C) From subsection (e)(1) because in the course of criminal investigations or other law enforcement investigations, information is often obtained concerning the violations of laws or civil obligations of others not relating to an active case or matter. In the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary that this valuable information is retained because it can aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide valuable leads for other agencies and future cases that may be brought.

    (D) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (e)(4)(H) because the requirements in those subsections are inapplicable to the extent that portions of this system of records may be exempted from subsection (d), concerning individual access.

    (E) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the identity of specific sources must be withheld to protect the confidentiality of the sources of criminal and other law enforcement information. This exemption is further necessary to protect the privacy and physical safety of witnesses and informants.

    (F) From subsection (f) because portions of this system of records have been exempted from the access provisions of subsection (d).

    (G) For records that are copies of exempt records from external systems of records, such records are only exempt from pertinent provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a to the extent such provisions have been identified and an exemption claimed for the original record and the purposes underlying the exemption for the original record still pertain to the record that is now contained in this system of records. In general, the exemptions were claimed to properly protect classified information relating to national defense and foreign policy; to avoid interference during the conduct of criminal, civil, or administrative actions or investigations; to ensure protective services provided to the President and others are not compromised; to protect records used solely as statistical records; to protect the identity of confidential sources incident to Federal employment, military service, contract, and security clearance determinations; to preserve the confidentiality and integrity of Federal testing materials; and to safeguard evaluation materials used for military promotions when provided by a confidential source. The exemption rule for the original records will identify the specific reasons the records are exempt from specific provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552a.

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18822 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 117 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0677] Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Berwick Bay-Atchafalaya River, Morgan City, LA 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 Morgan City Railroad Bridge across Berwick Bay at mile 17.5 of the Atchafalaya River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route, mile 0.3 in Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to conduct maintenance on the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain temporarily closed to navigation for five hours.

    DATES:

    This deviation is effective from 7 a.m. to noon on August 25, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2016-0677] 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 David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule of the Morgan City Railroad Bridge across Berwick Bay at mile 17.5 of the Atchafalaya River and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, Morgan City to Port Allen Alternate Route, mile 0.3 in Morgan City, St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. This deviation was requested to allow the bridge owner to replace a cracked joint on the west end of the bridge. This bridge is governed by 33 CFR 117.5.

    This deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation from 7 a.m. to noon on Thursday, August 25, 2016. The bridge has a vertical clearance of 4 feet above high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 73 feet above high water in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists of tugs with tows, oil industry related work boats and crew boats, commercial fishing vessels and some recreational craft.

    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at any time and should pass at the slowest safe speed. The bridge will not be able to open for emergencies and the Morgan City-Port Allen Landside route through Amelia, LA is the closest available alternate route.

    The Coast Guard will also inform the users of the waterways through our Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge.

    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.

    David M. Frank, Bridge Administrator, Eighth Coast Guard District.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18968 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0685] Safety Zones; Multiple Fireworks and Swim in Captain of the Port New York Zone AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

    DATES:

    The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160 will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this document, call or email Petty Officer First Class Ronald Sampert U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as indicated in Tables 1 and 2 below. This regulation was published in the Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

    Table 1 1. First Data Corp Fireworks Display, Ellis Island Safety Zone; 33 CFR 165.160 (2.2) • Launch site: A barge located between Federal Anchorages 20-A and 20-B, in approximate position 40°41′45″ N., 074°02′09″ W. (NAD 1983) about 365 yards east of Ellis Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: September 10, 2016.
  • • Time: 7:40 p.m.-9:00 p.m.
  • 2. Save the Date Fireworks Display, Ellis Island Safety Zone; 33 CFR 165.160 (2.2) • Launch site: A barge located between Federal Anchorages 20-A and 20-B, in approximate position 40°41′45″ N., 074°02′09″ W. (NAD 1983) about 365 yards east of Ellis Island. This Safety Zone is a 360-yard radius from the barge.
  • • Date: October 27, 2016.
  • • Time: 8:30 p.m.-10:00 p.m.
  • Table 2 1. Rose Pitonof Swim, Swim Event; 33 CFR 165.160 (4.2) • Location: Participants will swim between Manhattan, New York and the shore of Coney Island, New York transiting through the Upper New York Bay, under the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge and south in the Lower New York Bay. The route direction is determined by the predicted tide state and direction of current on the scheduled day of the event.
  • • This Safety Zone includes all waters within a 100-yard radius of each participating swimmer.
  • • Date: August 13, 2016.
  • • Time: 6:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
  • Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.

    This document is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notification in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to enter the safety zone.

    Dated: July 22, 2016. M.H. Day, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18894 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 38 CFR Part 21 RIN 2900-AP72 Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program AGENCY:

    Department of Veterans Affairs.

    ACTION:

    Interim final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is establishing a grant program (Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS)) under the authority of the U.S.C. to award grants to eligible entities to fund projects that are successful in accomplishing employment rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. VA will award grants on the basis of an eligible entity's proposed use of a Pay for Success (PFS) strategy to achieve goals. This interim final rule establishes regulations for awarding a VEPFS grant, including the general process for awarding the grant, criteria and parameters for evaluating grant applications, priorities related to the award of a grant, and general requirements and guidance for administering a VEPFS grant program.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This rule is effective on August 10, 2016.

    Comment Date: Comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted through www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand-delivery to Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; or by fax to (202) 273-9026. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP72—Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program.” Copies of comments received will be available for public inspection in the Office of Regulation Policy and Management, Room 1068, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except holidays). Please call (202) 461-4902 for an appointment. (This is not a toll-free number.) In addition, during the comment period, comments may be viewed online through the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at www.Regulations.gov.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Patrick Littlefield, Director, VA Center for Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs, (08), 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC, (202) 256-7176. (This is not a toll-free number.)

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    VA's Vocational Rehabilitation & Employment (VR&E) Service provides services and assistance necessary to enable Veterans with compensable service-connected disabilities and employment barriers to achieve maximum independence in daily living and, to the maximum extent feasible, to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment. (A Veteran with a noncompensable service-connected disability is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation services and assistance under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code. See 38 U.S.C. 3102.) Section 3119 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) to make grants to or contract with public or nonprofit agencies, including institutions of higher learning, to advance “the knowledge, methods, techniques, and resources available for use in rehabilitation programs for veterans.” Section 3119 specifically authorizes the Secretary to make grants to such agencies to conduct or provide support for projects which are “designed to increase the resources and potential for accomplishing the rehabilitation of disabled veterans.” (See also implementing regulation at 38 CFR 21.390.)

    PFS is a strategy for successfully attaining positive social or environmental outcomes by paying for an intervention to achieve such outcomes only after the intervention produces these outcomes. Using a PFS strategy, a party to an agreement agrees to pay for services for specific people or communities in need of particular services only if and when an agreed-upon set of outcomes related to meeting the people's or communities' needs has been achieved or a level of impact has been verified. Instead of funding services regardless of the results, payments are made only if interventions achieve the outcomes agreed upon in advance. For example, instead of paying for the provision of job training without knowing whether such training will have a successful result, an entity might use a PFS strategy to pay for the provision of job training only when individuals gain stable employment in good jobs. When the party committed to pay for outcomes is a Government entity, taxpayers will not have to pay for ineffective services. However, the party that provides services may not have the funding for the services before outcomes are measured. PFS agreements can incorporate PFS financing, sometimes referred to as “social impact bonds,” to cover the costs of the services until success is achieved and payments are due. PFS financing involves third-party, independent investors that provide the financing necessary to carry out the intervention. In addition, a PFS model typically involves a project coordinator or intermediary to facilitate and manage the project, a service provider to deliver the intervention, and an independent evaluator to determine whether the intervention achieves the desired outcomes.

    There is a need to find new, innovative methods for rehabilitating Veterans with compensable service-connected disabilities (as defined in 38 CFR 3.1(k)) who qualify for benefits under VA's VR&E program so that they become employable and are ultimately able to obtain and maintain suitable employment. Through PFS grant programs, which may serve various Veteran populations including those Veterans with noncompensable service-connected disabilities who do not qualify for VR&E benefits, we hope to obtain information to establish new, innovative methods for rehabilitating Veterans who qualify for VR&E benefits. PFS offers an economical mechanism, which can save taxpayers' money, for exploring the resources and techniques that are available for rehabilitating Veterans with service-connected disabilities with regard to employment. We interpret the authority in Sec. 3119 to award grants to conduct or provide support for projects which are designed to increase the potential for accomplishing the rehabilitation of disabled Veterans broadly, to allow for the funding of projects that serve Veterans with either compensable or noncompensable service-connected disabilities. By funding projects that serve Veterans with either compensable or noncompensable service-connected disabilities, there is increased potential to discover new techniques and resources for use in VA's VR&E program to enable Veterans who qualify for VR&E services to become employable and to obtain and maintain suitable employment.

    Accordingly, under the authority of Sec. 3119, VA will award grants to eligible entities that will become “outcomes payors,” to administer payment for outcomes of interventions that are successful in accomplishing employment rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. In other words, VA will fund outcomes of projects that achieve favorable employment outcomes related to success in the ability or potential to secure or sustain stable employment or to achieve increased earnings of Veterans with service-connected disabilities. The funding will be referred to as “outcomes payments” and the grant known as the “Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS)” grant. This interim final rule establishes regulations for awarding a VEPFS grant, including the general process for awarding the grant, criteria and parameters for evaluating grant applications, priorities related to the award of a grant, and general requirements and guidance for administering a VEPFS grant program.

    § 21.440 Purpose and Scope.

    Section 21.440 sets forth the purpose of a VEPFS grant program and explains what the program provides. This section indicates that VA may provide a grant to an eligible entity to fund outcomes payments for a project that achieves favorable employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. There is a need to find new and innovative methods for rehabilitating Veterans with compensable service-connected disabilities with regard to employment and, as noted above, the VEPFS grant program offers an economical mechanism, which can save taxpayers' money, for exploring the resources and techniques that may be available to address that need.

    § 21.441 Definitions.

    Section 21.441 defines terms used in §§ 21.440-21.449 and any Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) issued pursuant to §§ 21.440-21.449. The definitions are set out in the regulatory text, but we elaborate on some of them as follows:

    “Eligible entity” is defined as a public or nonprofit agency, to include institutions of higher learning. Section 3119 of title 38, United States Code, provides authorization to make grants to public or nonprofit agencies, including institutions of higher learning. We interpret the term “nonprofit agency,” as used in Sec. 3119, to include tax-exempt, incorporated or unincorporated organizations that serve the public interest and generally have a charitable, educational, scientific, religious, or literary goal. We interpret the term “public agency”, as used in Sec. 3119, to include the government of the United States or of a State or political subdivision of a State.

    “Employment outcome” is defined as the employment or earnings of a participant in the intervention or control group member after the service period. The VEPFS program will measure certain outcomes, including competitive employment, skill development, achieving a sustained period of employment, wage-earnings, and achieving employment that aligns with the interests and aptitude of the job seeker. Improving employment outcomes means creating positive impact in terms of these outcomes, where the results for individuals that receive the intervention are better than the results for a valid control group that did not receive the intervention.

    “Intervention” is defined as a service or technology that is provided to individuals and intended to achieve certain results. Examples of service interventions or technological interventions to improve Veteran employment outcomes include, but are not limited to, support services, employment coaching, mental health treatment, vocational training, occupational therapy, community engagement, and outreach.

    “Project partnership” is defined as a collaboration among entities that negotiate an agreement and execute a project to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. For the purpose of the VEPFS grant program, a project partnership is not a distinct legal entity. Section 21.441 includes definitions for the entities that may be involved in a project partnership.

    “Social finance strategy” is defined as a method for securing financial resources using an investment approach that focuses on achieving positive social and/or environmental impact with some form of financial return. Examples of social finance strategies include: (1) Matching taxpayer dollars with non-government contributions to extend the impact of not-for-profit organizations; (2) simplifying access to government funding for community organizations and institutions of higher learning.

    “Strong evidence” is defined as results from previous studies, the designs of which can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity), which include enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the state, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external validity). The following are examples of strong evidence: (1) More than one well-designed and well-implemented experimental study or well-designed and well-implemented quasi-experimental study that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program; or (2) one large, well-designed and well-implemented randomized controlled, multisite trial that supports the effectiveness of the practice, strategy, or program.

    “Work-plan” is defined as a document that articulates tasks and milestones with regard to a particular project. A work plan contains a detailed overview of all activities that will be undertaken to complete a project, and the goals, objectives, outcomes, responsible parties, and timeline for each task of a project, which collectively serve as the roadmap for execution of project tasks.

    § 21.442 VEPFS Grants—General.

    Section 21.442 provides general information pertaining to VEPFS grants. Section 21.442(a) establishes that only an eligible entity may receive a VEPFS grant. Section 21.442(b) establishes that the available grant funding amount will be specified in the NOFA. The amount of funding VA may provide in a VEPFS grant is not limited by or otherwise specified in statute. In addition, VA may combine its funds with funds of another Federal entity to increase the amount available for a VEPFS project. VA will determine the amount of funding available for an individual VEPFS project, including any contributions from another Federal agency, on a case-by-case basis and will announce the amount of available grant funding for that VEPFS project in the applicable NOFA. Section 21.442(c) states that the period for a VEPFS grant will be a minimum of 5 years and a pre-determined maximum number of years, as specified in the NOFA, beginning on the date on which the VEPFS grant is awarded, with the availability of no-cost extensions. At the end of the pre-determined maximum period, the effectiveness of the project will be assessed to determine the project's success. Five years is the minimum length of time necessary to maximize the effectiveness of a project and obtain meaningful data on a project's success through periodic reporting. This timeframe allows 1 year to develop, refine and launch the project, 3 years for service delivery to produce outcomes and data, and 1 year for a thorough evaluation of outcomes. Section 21.442(d) specifies that a recipient must provide matching funds from non-Federal sources that are at least equal to or greater than the amount of Federal grant funds awarded, which will be combined with the amount of Federal grant funds awarded to be used to fund the proposed PFS project as a condition of receiving a VEPFS grant. Requiring matching funds increases the amount of available funding for VEPFS projects. Section 21.442(e) specifies that a VEPFS grant is not a Veterans' benefit, and, therefore, any decisions of the Secretary as to whether to award a VEPFS grant are final and not subject to the same rights of appeal as decisions related to Veterans' benefits.

    § 21.443 Permissible Uses of VEPFS Grant Funds.

    Section 21.443(a) specifies that VEPFS grant funds may be used to make outcomes payments only if an intervention achieves outcomes at a pre-set level that has been agreed to in a PFS agreement before service delivery begins for a PFS project with a goal to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. As stated above, the reason for using a PFS strategy is to avoid using taxpayer dollars for ineffective services and therefore save taxpayer money. VA is specifically funding PFS projects that aim to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities to carry out Congress' intention that VA “advance the knowledge, methods, techniques, and resources available for use in rehabilitation programs for veterans” and increase the “potential for accomplishing the rehabilitation of disabled veterans.”

    In addition, to cover the indirect costs of administering the grant (costs associated with general administration and expenses), § 21.443(b) allows a recipient to use a Federally approved indirect cost rate (a rate already negotiated with the Federal Government), use a 10% de minimis rate of modified total direct costs, negotiate an indirect cost rate for the first time, or claim certain costs directly following 2 CFR 200.413 so as to not limit the pool of eligible applicants to entities that will use a particular permissible option. This is consistent with regulatory guidance to Federal agencies that provide grant awards to non-Federal entities, including States, local governments, Indian tribes, institutions of higher education, and non-profit organizations issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and codified in in part 200 of title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. 2 CFR 200.414; see also 2 CFR 200.69. These administrative costs may be claimed before outcomes are measured and regardless of whether outcomes are achieved at pre-set levels.

    § 21.444 Notice of Funding Availability.

    Section 21.444 states that when funds are available to award a VEPFS grant, VA will publish a NOFA announcing the funding opportunity in the Federal Register and on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) providing specific details about the opportunity. Section 21.444, in paragraphs (a)-(f), lists generally the information the NOFA will include. Section 200.203 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations, requires the issuance of a NOFA, which includes specific identifying information, information describing the funding opportunity, and information regarding the award, eligibility, application, application review, and Federal award administration. OMB requires the issuance of a NOFA and publication of this information to ensure that eligible entities have the information required to apply for grants.

    § 21.445 Application.

    Section 21.445 identifies VEPFS grant application procedures and the information required to constitute a complete application package. This section requires eligible entities to submit a complete grant application package, in accordance with instructions provided in the NOFA through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov) to apply for a VEPFS grant. Use of this Web site is the easiest and most efficient way to process grant applications. Furthermore, eligible entities submitting an application for a VEPFS grant will likely be familiar with this Web site. In describing the information a complete application package must contain, paragraph (a) requires the complete application to contain a project description, including a description of the intervention, the Veteran population to be served, and anticipated employment outcomes. VA needs this information to determine whether the project proposed has a reasonable chance of providing positive employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. Paragraph (b) requires the complete application to contain a description of the anticipated project partnership(s), including the responsibilities of each of the partner entities, the experience of any involved entities with serving Veteran populations, and other qualifications of the involved entities that may be relevant in carrying out responsibilities of the project partnership. VA needs this information to assess the likelihood of success an applicant will have carrying out a VEPFS project. In addition, paragraph (b) informs applicants that, in procuring partners such as the project coordinator and investor, procurement standards set forth in 2 CFR 200.317-200.326 must be followed. Paragraph (c) requires the complete application to include a work plan with a budget and timelines. These disclosures will help reviewers assess how close the project is to beginning to provide services and the extent to which an applicant has considered all aspects of planning. Paragraph (d) requires the complete application to contain a description of applicant's expertise or experience with PFS or other social finance strategies or experience administering programs that serve Veterans with disabilities. Paragraph (e) requires the complete application to include documentation of an applicant's ability and capacity to administer the project. Having the information obtained from the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) will also allow VA to assess the likelihood of success of a VEPFS project. Paragraph (f) requires the complete application to include proof of matching funds already secured, the applicant's ability to secure matching funds, or commitments of matching funds the applicant has received. Reviewers need this documentation to confirm an applicant's ability to meet the VEPFS grant funding requirements. Paragraph (g) requires that the complete application contain any additional information VA deems appropriate and sets out in the NOFA so that VA can tailor the NOFA as necessary.

    § 21.446 Scoring and Selection.

    Section 21.446(a) states that VA will score only complete applications received from eligible entities by the deadline established in the NOFA and identifies the criteria to be used in selecting a recipient. Selection of a recipient will be based on the likelihood of successful implementation of the project and the likelihood that the project will meet objectives. The information described in § 21.446(a) will allow VA to make such determination regarding the likelihood of project success.

    Section 21.446(b) indicates that NOFA announcements may clarify the selection criteria in paragraph (a) and will specify the relative weight (point value) assigned for each selection criterion according to the criterion's importance in ensuring the successful development and implementation of a VEPFS project and that eligible entities will be ranked in order from highest to lowest total score. This section also indicates that VA will award any VEPFS grant on the primary basis of scores but will also consider a risk assessment evaluation.

    § 21.447 VEPFS Grant Agreement.

    Section 21.447 states that VA will draft a grant agreement for execution between VA and the applicant selected to receive a VEPFS grant, and VA will obligate the grant funds to cover the amount of the approved grant, subject to the availability of funding, upon execution of the agreement. This section also states that the VEPFS grant agreement will provide that the recipient agrees (and will ensure that any subcontractors agree) to: Operate the program in accordance with the provisions of §§ 21.440-21.449, 2 CFR part 200, and the applicant's VEPFS grant application; comply with such other terms and conditions, including recordkeeping and reports for program monitoring and evaluation purposes, as VA may establish for purposes of carrying out the VEPFS program in an effective and efficient manner; and provide any additional information VA requests in the manner and timeframe VA specifies. Part 200 provides uniform guidance and government-wide terms and conditions for the management of awards and the administration of Federal grants, and this rulemaking provides additional guidance and conditions for the administration of VEPFS grants in particular. Adherence to the government-wide rules is mandatory and compliance with the additional rules specific to VEPFS grants will ensure program integrity across any VEPFS grants VA awards. In addition, timely and accurate reporting is critical to allow VA to evaluate the VEPFS program.

    § 21.448 Recipient Reporting Requirements.

    Section 21.448 requires recipients to submit a quarterly report 30 days after the close of each Federal fiscal quarter of the grant period that includes a detailed record of the time involved and resources expended administering the VEPFS program; the number of Veterans served, including demographics of this population; the types of employment assistance provided; a full accounting of VEPFS grant funds used or unused during the quarter; a comparison of accomplishments related to the objectives of the award; an explanation for any goals not met; and an analysis and explanation for any cost overruns. With such information, VA can effectively analyze program performance and ensure that a recipient is using grant funds in accordance with the grant agreement. In addition, § 21.448 requires recipients to provide additional reports if necessary to allow VA to assess program accountability and effectiveness on an ongoing basis.

    § 21.449 Recovery of Funds.

    Section 21.449 specifies that VA can impose additional conditions as specified in 2 CFR 200.207 if a recipient fails to comply with any Federal statutes or regulations or the terms and conditions of an award made under §§ 21.440-21.449. Section 21.449 also allows VA to take any appropriate actions specified in 2 CFR part 200 as remedies for non-compliance if non-compliance cannot be remedied. These measures help safeguard Federal funds and ensure appropriate use of the VEPFS grant funds awarded.

    Administrative Procedure Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3), the Secretary finds that there is good cause to dispense with the opportunity for prior notice and comment and good cause to publish this rule with an immediate effective date. The Secretary finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this rule for the purpose of soliciting prior public comment or to have a delayed effective date. As stated above, the Secretary is issuing this rule because there is a need to find new methods for rehabilitating Veterans with service-connected disabilities so that they become employable and are able to obtain and maintain suitable employment. This rulemaking provides the opportunity for the discovery of new methods for rehabilitating Veterans with service-connected disabilities with regard to employment using a strategy that will save taxpayer money. However, the funding for a grant which would be awarded based on a NOFA to be published concurrently with this interim final rule, and which will be used to fund a project that achieves favorable employment outcomes for Veterans with a service-connected disability of post-traumatic stress disorder, is available only in this current fiscal year and must be obligated by September 30, 2016, if it is to be used for such purpose. To provide sufficient time to obligate the funds by September 30, 2016, the regulations established by this rulemaking must be in effect by August 9, 2016. Failure to obligate the funds by September 30, 2016, will cause the funds to expire.

    Because this interim final rule will serve an important Veterans' need in an economical way, which would not be possible if publication were to be delayed, the Secretary finds that it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest to delay this rule for the purpose of soliciting advance public comment or to have a delayed effective date. Accordingly, VA is issuing this rule as an interim final rule with an immediate effective date. We will consider and address any comments received within 60 days of the date this interim final rule is published in the Federal Register.

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) defines a “significant regulatory action” requiring review by OMB, unless OMB waives such review, as “any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.”

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

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    This interim final rule includes provisions constituting collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that require approval by OMB. Specifically, sections 21.445, 21.447, and 21.448 contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. VA has submitted the following information collection request to OMB for review and clearance in accordance with the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. An emergency approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act is only valid for 180 days. Comments should be directed to OMB, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Department of Veterans Affairs Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20530, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to the Director, Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; email to www.Regulations.gov. Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AP72.”

    A regular review of this information collection will also be undertaken and announced in a future Federal Register notice indicating approval of this collection of information under the emergency review procedures of the Paperwork Reduction Act. All comments and suggestions, or questions regarding additional information, including obtaining a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, should be directed to Patrick Littlefield, Director, VA Center for Innovation, Department of Veterans Affairs, (08), 810 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC, (202) 256-7176. We request written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed emergency collection of information.

    The Department considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

    • Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    • Evaluating the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    • Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    • Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    The collections of information contained in 38 CFR 21.445, 21.447, and 21.448 are described immediately following this paragraph, under their respective titles.

    Title: Grant Applications.

    Summary of collection of information: The new collection of information in proposed 38 CFR 21.445 would require applicants to submit a complete VEPFS grant application.

    Description of need for information and proposed use of information: The collection of information is necessary to award grants to eligible entities. VA will use this information to decide whether an applicant meets the requirements and satisfies the scoring criteria for award of VEPFS grants under 38 U.S.C. 3119.

    Description of likely respondents: Public and non-profit entities, including institutions of higher learning, that have an interest in serving Veterans with service-connected disabilities.

    Estimated number of respondents: 25 in FY 2016; 25 in FY 2017; 25 in FY 2018.

    Estimated frequency of responses: This is a one-time collection.

    Estimated average burden per response: 80 hours.

    Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 2,000 hours in FY 2016; 2,000 hours in FY 2017; 2,000 hours in 2018.

    Title: Quarterly Fiscal Reports.

    Summary of collection of information: The new collection of information in proposed 38 CFR 21.447(a)(1) and 21.448(a) would require each recipient to agree in the grant agreement to submit quarterly reports, which would include detailed records of the time expended and employment outcomes accomplished in the provision of VEPFS activities, accounting of how the grant funds were used.

    Description of need for information and proposed use of information: The collection of information is necessary to determine compliance with the requirements for a grant.

    Description of likely respondents: Public and non-profit entities, including institutions of higher learning, that have an interest in serving Veterans with service-connected disabilities.

    Estimated number of respondents: 1 in FY 2017, up to 10 in FY 2018, up to 10 in FY 2019.

    Estimated frequency of responses: 4 quarterly reports per year for 5 years.

    Estimated average burden per response: 1 hour.

    Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 4 hours in FY 2017, 44 hours in FY 2018, 84 hours in FY 2019, 84 hours in 2020, 84 hours in 2021, 80 hours in 2022, 40 hours in 2023.

    The regulatory terms also authorize VA to impose additional recordkeeping or reporting requirements as defined in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement (38 CFR 21.447(a)(2)), request additional information as defined in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement (38 CFR 21.447(a)(3)), and request additional reports in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement if necessary to fully and effectively assess program accountability and effectiveness (38 CFR 21.448(b)). Because these information collection requirements will depend on the terms and conditions of the grant agreement for a particular funding opportunity, VA is not seeking emergency approval for these regulatory provisions at this time. Rather, VA will more clearly define and articulate these potential record-keeping and reporting requirements when it submits the PRA package when it undertakes a regular review of this collection.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Secretary hereby certifies that this interim final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Secretary estimates that, for any VEPFS grant program, no more than ten non-renewable grants will be awarded. For each grant awarded, usually one of each, but no more than a few, outcomes payors, project coordinators, evaluators, investors, and service providers will be involved with the grant program. The goal of these grants is to rehabilitate Veterans with service-connected disabilities with regard to employment. Thus, an insubstantial number of small entities will be affected by this interim final rule and, accordingly, there will not be a significant economic impact on such affected entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

    Unfunded Mandates

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

    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

    The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title for the program affected by this document is 64.116, Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans.

    Signing Authority

    The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Robert D. Snyder, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on July 11, 2016, for publication.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Jeffrey Martin, Office Program Manager, Office of Regulation Policy & Management Office of the Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21

    Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights, Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Education, Employment, Grant programs—education, Grant programs—veterans, Health care, Loan programs—education, Loan programs—veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, VA amends 38 CFR part 21, subpart A as follows:

    PART 21—VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION Subpart A—Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 31 1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart A, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    38 U.S.C. 501(a), chs. 18, 31, and as noted in specific sections.

    2. Add an undesignated center heading and §§ 21.440 through 21.449 to subpart A to read as follows: Veterans Employment Pay for Success Grant Program Sec. 21.440 Purpose and scope. 21.441 Definitions. 21.442 VEPFS grants—general. 21.443 Permissible uses of VEPFS grant funds. 21.444 Notice of funding availability. 21.445 Application. 21.446 Scoring and selection. 21.447 VEPFS grant agreement. 21.448 Recipient reporting requirements. 21.449 Recovery of funds.
    § 21.440 Purpose and scope.

    Sections 21.440 through 21.449 establish and implement the Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS) grant program, which provides grants to eligible entities to fund outcomes payments for projects that are successful in accomplishing employment rehabilitation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. These sections apply only to the administration of the VEPFS grant program, unless specifically provided otherwise.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119)
    § 21.441 Definitions.

    For the purposes of §§ 21.440 through 21.449, and any Notices of Funding Availability (NOFA) issued pursuant to §§ 21.440 through 21.449, the following definitions apply:

    Applicant is an eligible entity that submits an application for a VEPFS grant announced in a NOFA.

    Eligible entity is a public or nonprofit agency, to include institutions of higher learning.

    Employment outcome is the employment or earnings of a participant in the intervention or control group member after the service period. Improving employment outcomes means creating positive impact in terms of these outcomes, where the results for individuals that receive the intervention are better than the results for a valid control group that did not receive the intervention.

    Intervention is a service or technology that is provided to individuals and is intended to achieve certain results.

    Outcomes payments are funds that are paid to an investor or service provider and that are released only for the achievement of outcomes, as compared to those of a control group, that meet target levels that have been agreed to in advance of the provision of intervention (i.e., if positive impact has been created by the intervention in terms of these outcomes). When investors have provided the upfront capital for the project, these payments generally cover repayment of the principal investment and provide a modest return on investment for any associated risks of paying for the intervention upfront.

    Pay for Success (PFS) agreement is a multi-party agreement to deliver an innovative or evidence-based intervention intended to improve outcomes for a targeted population signed by the entities that constitute the project partnership.

    Project partnership is a collaboration among entities that negotiate an agreement and execute a project to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. The entities that may be involved in a project partnership include:

    (1)(i) Outcomes payor. Entity that receives a VEPFS grant and pays for outcomes of services that meet target levels that have been agreed to in advance of the provision of the intervention.

    (ii) Project coordinator. Facilitates, coordinates, and executes a PFS agreement to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities. With respect to other PFS projects, project coordinators are sometimes referred to as intermediaries.

    (iii) Evaluator. Independent entity that determines the impact of the services provided, including whether the services have resulted in employment outcomes that meet target levels that have been agreed to in advance of the provision of the intervention.

    (iv) Investor. Person or entity that provides upfront capital to cover costs of providing services/delivering an intervention and other associated costs before a determination has been made as to whether certain employment outcomes have been achieved at pre-set target levels.

    (v) Service provider. Entity that delivers an intervention designed to achieve improved employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities.

    (2) A full project partnership is a project partnership that includes an outcomes payor, evaluator, investor (if the PFS agreement involves PFS financing), and service provider. A partial project partnership includes an outcomes payor and at least one of the following: Evaluator, investor (if the PFS agreement involves PFS financing), or service provider.

    Recipient is the entity that receives a VEPFS grant under §§ 21.440 through 21.449. The recipient is also the outcomes payor.

    Secretary refers to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

    Service-connected disability is a disability that is “service-connected” as defined in 38 CFR 3.1.

    Social finance strategy is a method for securing financial resources using an investment approach that focuses on achieving positive social and/or environmental impact with some form of financial return.

    Strong evidence constitutes results from previous studies, the designs of which can support causal conclusions (i.e., studies with high internal validity), that include enough of the range of participants and settings to support scaling up to the state, regional, or national level (i.e., studies with high external validity).

    Veteran has the same definition as provided in 38 CFR 3.1.

    Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS) agreement is a PFS agreement to deliver an innovative, evidence-based intervention intended to improve Veteran employment outcomes.

    Veterans Employment Pay for Success (VEPFS) project is a project with a strategy for delivering a service with a goal to significantly improve a current condition with respect to unemployment of a target Veteran population and sufficient evidence to support the theory behind the project using a financial model that includes cost savings by funding the project only if it is successful.

    Work-plan is a document that articulates tasks and milestones with regard to a particular project.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119)
    § 21.442 VEPFS grants—general.

    (a) VA may award a VEPFS grant only to an eligible entity selected under § 21.446.

    (b) The amount of Federal funding available to be awarded in a VEPFS grant will be specified in the NOFA.

    (c) A VEPFS grant will be awarded for a minimum of 5 years and a pre-determined maximum number of years, beginning on the date on which the VEPFS grant is awarded, with the availability of no-cost extensions.

    (d) As a condition of receiving a VEPFS grant, a recipient will be required to provide matching funds from non-Federal sources equal to or greater than the amount of Federal grant funds awarded, to be combined with the amount of Federal grant funds awarded and used as specified in § 21.443.

    (e) A VEPFS grant award is not a Veterans' benefit. Decisions of the Secretary are final and not subject to the same appeal rights as decisions related to Veterans' benefits.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119)
    § 21.443 Permissible uses of VEPFS grant funds.

    (a) VEPFS grant funds may be used only to fund outcomes payments if an intervention achieves outcomes at a pre-set target level that has been agreed to in a PFS agreement before service delivery begins for a PFS project with a goal to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities.

    (b) To pay for the indirect costs of administering a grant, regardless of whether an intervention achieves outcomes at a pre-set target level, a recipient may:

    (1) Use a Federally approved indirect cost rate (a rate already negotiated with the Federal Government);

    (2) Use a 10% de minimis rate of modified total direct costs;

    (3) Negotiate an indirect cost rate for the first time; or

    (4) Claim certain costs directly following 2 CFR 200.413.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119, 2 CFR 200.414)
    § 21.444 Notice of funding availability.

    When funds are available for a VEPFS grant, VA will publish a NOFA in the Federal Register and on Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). The NOFA will identify:

    (a) The location for obtaining grant applications and the specific forms that will be required;

    (b) The date, time, and place for submitting completed grant applications;

    (c) The total amount and type of funds available and the maximum amount available to a single applicant;

    (d) Information regarding eligibility and the scoring process;

    (e) Any timeframes and manner for payments under the grant; and

    (f) Other information necessary for the VEPFS grant application process, as determined by VA, including contact information for the VA office that will oversee the VEPFS grant.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119)
    § 21.445 Application.

    To apply for a VEPFS grant, eligible entities must submit to VA a complete application package in accordance with the instructions in the NOFA and include the forms specified in the NOFA. Applications will be accepted only through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov). A complete grant application package, as further described in the NOFA, includes standard forms specified in the NOFA and the following:

    (a) Project description, including a description of the intervention, the Veteran population to be served, and anticipated employment outcomes;

    (b) Description of anticipated project partnership(s), including the responsibilities of each of the partner entities, the experience of any involved entities with serving Veteran populations, and other qualifications of the involved entities that may be relevant in carrying out responsibilities of the project partnership. In procuring partners such as the project coordinator and investor, procurement standards set forth in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 must be followed;

    (c) A work plan, including a budget and timelines;

    (d) Description of applicant's expertise or experience with PFS or other social finance strategies or experience administering programs that serve Veterans with disabilities;

    (e) Documentation of applicant's ability and capacity to administer the project;

    (f) Proof of matching funds already secured, ability to secure matching funds, or commitments received; and

    (g) Any additional information as deemed appropriate by VA and set forth in the NOFA.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119)
    § 21.446 Scoring and selection.

    (a) Scoring. VA will score only complete applications received from eligible entities by the deadline established in the NOFA. VA will score applications using the following criteria:

    (1) Project description. Applicant identifies and describes an intervention that is designed to improve employment outcomes for Veterans with service-connected disabilities through a PFS agreement and demonstrates with strong evidence the ability of the intervention to meet objectives. Project description should explain and justify the need for the intervention, and include concept, size and scope of the project, and the Veteran population to be served.

    (2) Project partnership. Applicant provides a description of the partnership and the level of partnership (full, partial, or none) attained at the time of application.

    (3) Work plan and budget. Applicant provides a work plan that describes in detail the timeline for the tasks outlined in the project description and proposed milestones. Applicant provides a budget that specifies amount of outcome payments and indirect and other relevant costs.

    (4) Expertise and capacity. Applicant provides evidence of its past experience with PFS or other social finance strategies or experience administering programs that serve Veterans with disabilities, and of its ability and capacity to successfully administer the project.

    (5) Match. Applicant provides evidence of secured cash matching (1:1) funds or of its ability to secure or commitments to receive such funds.

    (b) Selection of recipients. All complete applications from eligible entities will be scored using the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section and ranked in order from highest to lowest total score. NOFA announcements may also clarify the selection criteria in paragraph (a). The relative weight (point value) for each selection criterion will be specified in the NOFA. Point values will be assigned according to the criterion's importance in ensuring the successful development and implementation of a VEPFS project. VA will award any VEPFS grant on the primary basis of scores but will also consider a risk assessment evaluation.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3119)
    § 21.447 VEPFS grant agreement.

    After an applicant is selected to receive a VEPFS grant in accordance with § 21.446, VA will draft a grant agreement to be executed by VA and the applicant. Upon execution of the VEPFS grant agreement, VA will obligate grant funds to cover the amount of the approved grant, subject to the availability of funding. The VEPFS grant agreement will provide that the recipient agrees, and will ensure that each subcontractor (if applicable) agrees, to:

    (a) Operate the program in accordance with the provisions of §§ 21.440 through 21.449, 2 CFR part 200, and the applicant's VEPFS grant application;

    (b) Comply with such other terms and conditions, including recordkeeping and reports for program monitoring and evaluation purposes, as VA may establish in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement for purposes of carrying out the VEPFS program in an effective and efficient manner; and

    (c) Provide additional information that VA requests with respect to:

    (1) Program effectiveness, as defined in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement;

    (2) Compliance with the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement; and

    (3) Criteria for evaluation, as defined in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119)
    § 21.448 Recipient reporting requirements.

    (a) Recipients must submit to VA a quarterly report 30 days after the close of each Federal fiscal quarter of the grant period. The report must include the following information:

    (1) A detailed record of the time involved and resources expended administering the VEPFS program.

    (2) The number of Veterans served, including demographics of this population.

    (3) The types of employment assistance provided.

    (4) A full accounting of VEPFS grant funds used or unused during the quarter.

    (5) A comparison of accomplishments related to the objectives of the award.

    (6) An explanation for any goals not met.

    (7) An analysis and explanation for any cost overruns.

    (b) VA may request additional reports in the Terms and Conditions of the grant agreement if necessary to allow VA to fully and effectively assess program accountability and effectiveness.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119, 2 CFR 200.327-200.328)
    § 21.449 Recovery of funds.

    If a recipient fails to comply with any Federal statutes or regulations or the terms and conditions of an award made under §§ 21.440 through 21.449, VA may impose additional conditions as specified in 2 CFR 200.207 or, if non-compliance cannot be remedied, take any appropriate actions specified in 2 CFR part 200 as remedies for non-compliance.

    (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 3119, 2 CFR 200.338 through 200.342)
    [FR Doc. 2016-18721 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 60 [EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505; FRL-9950-34-OAR] Reconsideration of the Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards; Final Action AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Denial of petitions for reconsideration.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice that it has responded to 11 petitions for reconsideration of the final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews,” published in the Federal Register on August 16, 2012, and seven petitions for reconsideration of subsequent amendments published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2013, and December 31, 2014. The agency previously granted reconsideration of several discrete issues and took final action on reconsideration through documents published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2013, December 31, 2014, August 12, 2015, and June 3, 2016. The Administrator denied the remaining requests for reconsideration in separate letters to the petitioners. The basis for the EPA's action is set out fully in a separate document available in the rulemaking docket.

    DATES:

    Effective August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Lisa Thompson, Sector Policies and Programs Division (E143-05), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919) 541-9775; fax number: (919) 541-3470; email address: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related information?

    A copy of this Federal Register notice, the petitions for reconsideration, and the separate document describing the full basis for this action are available in the docket the EPA established under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505. In addition, following signature, an electronic copy of this final action and the document will be available on the World Wide Web (WWW) at the following address: https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/actions.html.

    II. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) specifies which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue over petitions for review of final EPA actions. This section provides, in part, that “a petition for review of action of the Administrator in promulgating . . . any standard of performance or requirement under section [111] of [the CAA],” or any other “nationally applicable” final action, “may be filed only in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.”

    The EPA has determined that its action denying the petitions for reconsideration is nationally applicable for purposes of CAA section 307(b)(1) because the action directly affects the Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews, which are nationally applicable CAA section 111 standards. Thus, any petitions for review of the EPA's decision to deny petitioners' requests for reconsideration must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by October 11, 2016.

    III. Description of Action

    On August 16, 2012, pursuant to CAA section 111(b) of the CAA, the EPA published the final rule titled “Oil and Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews.” 77 FR 49490. The EPA published subsequent amendments to the rule on September 23, 2013 (78 FR 58416), and December 31, 2014 (79 FR 79018). Following publication of these final rules, the Administrator received petitions for reconsideration of certain provisions of the final rules pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(7)(B).

    CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) requires the EPA to convene a proceeding for reconsideration of a rule if a party raising an objection to the rule “can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection within [the public comment period] or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.” The requirement to convene a proceeding to reconsider a rule is, thus, based on the petitioner demonstrating to the EPA both: (1) That it was impracticable to raise the objection during the comment period, or that the grounds for such objection arose after the comment period, but within the time specified for judicial review (i.e., within 60 days after publication of the final rulemaking notice in the Federal Register, see CAA section 307(b)(1)); and (2) that the objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.

    The EPA received 18 petitions for reconsideration of the new source performance standards and subsequent amendments from the following 13 organizations or groups of organizations:

    • America's Natural Gas Alliance and the American Exploration and Production Council (ANGA & AXPC)

    • American Petroleum Institute (API) (3 petitions)

    • California Communities Against Toxics, California Safe Schools, Clean Air Council, Coalition For A Safe Environment, Desert Citizens Against Pollution, Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club (Earthjustice)

    • Clean Air Council, Clean Air Task Force, Environmental Defense Fund, Group Against Smog and Pollution, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club

    • Gas Processors Association (GPA) (2 petitions)

    • Independent Petroleum Association of America, Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia, Inc., Kentucky Oil & Gas Association, Inc., Indiana Oil and Gas Association, Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association, Ohio Oil and Gas Association, Illinois Oil & Gas Association

    • Interstate Natural Gas Association of America

    • M-Squared Products & Services, Inc. (M-Squared)

    • REM Technology Inc.

    • Texas Commission On Environmental Quality (TCEQ)

    • Texas Oil & Gas Association (TXOGA) (2 petitions)

    • Texas Pipeline Association

    • Western Energy Alliance (WEA) (2 petitions)

    The EPA previously granted reconsideration of all issues in seven of the petitions and on several discrete issues contained in some of the other petitions it received and took final action on reconsideration through documents published in the Federal Register on September 23, 2013, December 31, 2014, August 12, 2015, and June 3, 2016. The EPA has now denied the issues in the remaining 11 petitions as not satisfying one or both of the statutory conditions for compelled reconsideration. We discuss each of the petitions we are denying and the basis for those denials in a separate document titled “Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of Certain Issues: Oil and Natural Gas New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR part 60, subpart OOOO).” For reasons set out in the document, the remaining issues raised in petitions for review from ANGA & AXPC, API, Earthjustice, GPA, M-Squared, TCEQ, TXOGA, and WEA are denied.1

    1 The Administrator is also sending an individual letter to each of the petitioners announcing her decision on their petitions.

    Dated: July 29, 2016. Gina McCarthy, Administrator.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19029 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 679 [Docket No. 150916863-6211-02] RIN 0648-XE795 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Temporary rule; closure.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Aleutian district (WAI) of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2016 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in this area allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

    DATES:

    Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), August 5, 2016, through 2400 hrs, A.l.t., December 31, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

    The 2016 TAC of Pacific ocean perch, in the WAI, allocated to vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery was established as a directed fishing allowance of 161 metric tons by the final 2016 and 2017 harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (81 FR 14773, March 18, 2016).

    In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the WAI by vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery.

    After the effective dates of this closure, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.

    Classification

    This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA) finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such a requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of the Pacific ocean perch directed fishery in the WAI for vessels participating in the BSAI trawl limited access fishery. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of August 4, 2016. The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

    This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19000 Filed 8-5-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 154 Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Proposed Rules FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 16 CFR Part 259 Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”).

    ACTION:

    Extension of deadline for submission of public comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The FTC is extending the deadline for filing public comments on its recent notice seeking comment on proposed revisions to the Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles (“Fuel Economy Guide” or “Guide”).

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “Fuel Economy Guide Amendments, R711008” on your comment, and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fueleconomyamendments by following the instructions on the web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Fuel Economy Guide Amendments, R711008” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Hampton Newsome, (202) 326-2889, Attorney, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Comment Period Extension

    The Commission published a notice on June 6, 2016 seeking public comment on proposed revisions to the Guide (81 FR 36216). The Notice set August 8, 2016 as the deadline for filing comments. On July 28, 2016, the Center for Auto Safety and the Consumer Federation of America requested a 30-day extension to the comment period to allow the completion of consumer research to enhance the record in this proceeding.

    The Commission agrees that allowing additional time for filing comments would help facilitate a more complete record. Moreover, this extension would not harm consumers because the current Guide will remain in effect during the review process. Therefore, the Commission has decided to extend the comment period to September 7, 2016.

    II. Request for Comment

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 7, 2016. Write “Fuel Economy Guide Amendments, R711008” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, such as anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is obtained from any person and which is privileged or confidential,” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/fueleconomyrevisions, by following the instructions on the web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Fuel Economy Guide Amendments, R711008” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the News Release describing this proceeding. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 7, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    By direction of the Commission. Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18973 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 33 CFR Part 334 United States Navy Restricted Area, Menominee River, Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard, Marinette, Wisconsin AGENCY:

    United States Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a document in the Federal Register on May 24, 2011, amending its regulations to establish a restricted area in the Menominee River at the Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin. The Corps published correcting amendments in the Federal Register on April 4, 2012, which corrected latitude and longitude coordinates and also revised administrative and enforcement responsibilities. The Corps is proposing to further amend these regulations to expand the existing restricted area to provide additional area of protection during the construction and launching of Littoral Combat Ships. The proposed expansion would result in temporary encroachment within the Menominee River Federal Navigation Channel. The regulations are necessary to provide adequate protection of U.S. Navy combat vessels, their materials, equipment to be installed therein, and crew, while located at the Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be submitted on or before September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number COE-2016-0005, by any of the following methods:

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

    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number, COE-2016-0005, in the subject line of the message.

    Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ATTN: CECW-CO (David B. Olson), 441 G Street NW., Washington, DC 20314-1000.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: Due to security requirements, we cannot receive comments by hand delivery or courier.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket number COE-2016-0005. All comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the commenter indicates that the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise protected, through regulations.gov or email. The regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email directly to the Corps without going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, we recommend that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If we cannot read your comment because of technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic comments should avoid the use of any special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David Olson, Headquarters, Operations and Regulatory Community of Practice, Washington, DC at (202) 761-4922, or Mr. Ryan J. Huber, St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Branch, at (651) 290-5859.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33 U.S.C. 3), the Corps proposes to amend the restricted area regulations at 33 CFR part 334 by amending § 334.815 to expand the previously established restricted area in the Menominee River, at the Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard, Marinette, Wisconsin. The amendment would also add a provision of disestablishment whereby the restricted area would be disestablished by no later than November 17, 2025. By correspondence dated October 29, 2015, the Department of the Navy, has requested the Corps of Engineers to amend this restricted area.

    Pursuant to Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. 408 (Section 408), and in accordance with Engineer Circular (EC) 1165-2-216, the Corps has granted approval for a ten-year occupancy within a portion of the federal navigation channel. The proposed amendment would include a provision for disestablishment of the restricted area no later than ten years from the date of the Section 408 approval.

    Procedural Requirements a. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    This proposed rule is issued with respect to a military function of the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

    b. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The proposed rule has been reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) which requires the preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The restricted area is necessary for security of this shipyard. Small entities can utilize navigable waters outside of the restricted area when the restricted area is activated. Unless information is obtained to the contrary during the public notice comment period, the Corps expects that the economic impact of this restricted area would have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic. This proposed rule if adopted, will have no significant economic impact on small entities.

    c. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    A preliminary draft environmental assessment has been prepared for this action. Due to the administrative nature of this action and because the intended change will only expand the existing restricted area by approximately 1.4 acres for a ten year period, the Corps expects that this regulation, if adopted, will not have a significant impact to the quality of the human environment and, therefore, preparation of an environmental impact statement will not be required. The environmental assessment will be finalized after the public notice period is closed and all comments have been received and considered. It may be reviewed at the District office listed at the end of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

    d. Unfunded Mandates Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an enforceable duty among the private sector and, therefore, it is not a Federal private section mandate and it is not subject to the requirements of either section 202 or Section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. We have also found under Section 203 of the Act, that small governments will not be significantly and uniquely affected by this rulemaking.

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

    Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Restricted areas, Waterways.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Corps proposes to amend 33 CFR part 334, as follows:

    PART 334—DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS 1. The authority citation for 33 CFR part 334 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    40 Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

    2. Revise § 334.815 to read as follows:
    § 334.815, Menominee River, at the Marinette Marine Corporation Shipyard, Marinette, Wisconsin; naval restricted area.

    (a) The area. The waters adjacent to Marinette Marine Corporation's pier defined by a rectangular shape on the south side of the river beginning on shore at the eastern property line of Marinette Marine Corporation at latitude 45°05′55.87″ N., longitude 087°36′55.61″ W.; thence northerly to latitude 45°05′59.72″ N., longitude 087°36′55.61″ W.; thence westerly to latitude 45°06′03.22″ N., longitude 87°37′09.75″ W.; thence westerly to latitude 45°06′03.78″ N., longitude 87°37′16.40″ W.; thence southerly to latitude 45°06′2.80″ N., longitude 87°37′16.56″ W.; thence easterly along the Marinette Marine Corporation pier to the point of origin. The restricted area will be marked by a lighted and signed floating buoy line.

    (b) The regulation. All persons, swimmers, vessels and other craft, except those vessels under the supervision or contract to local military or Naval authority, vessels of the United States Coast Guard, and local or state law enforcement vessels, are prohibited from entering the restricted area when marked by signed floating buoy line without permission from the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Bath, ME or his/her authorized representative.

    (c) Enforcement. The regulation in this section shall be enforced by the Supervisor of Shipbuilding, Conversion and Repair, USN, Bath, ME and/or such agencies or persons as he/she may designate.

    (d) Disestablishment of restricted area. The restricted area will be disestablished not later than November 17, 2025, unless written application for its continuance is made to and approved by the Secretary of the Army prior to that date.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Approved: Edward E. Belk, Jr., Chief, Operations and Regulatory Division, Directorate of Civil Works.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19023 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Copyright Royalty Board 37 CFR Part 370 [Docket No. RM 2008-7] Notice and Recordkeeping for Use of Sound Recordings Under Statutory License; Technical Amendment AGENCY:

    Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On June 21, 2016, the Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published in the Federal Register a technical amendment to regulations that govern reporting requirements for noncommercial educational webcasters that pay no more than the minimum fee for their use of sound recordings under the applicable statutory licenses. Subsequently, interested parties petitioned the Judges to amend the regulations further to effect the Judges' stated intent. The Judges' hereby publish the proposed amendment and request comments to the proposed rule.

    DATES:

    Comments are due no later than September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    This notice and request is also posted on the agency's Web site (www.loc.gov/crb) and on Regulations.gov (www.regulations.gov). Submit electronic comments to [email protected] See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on submitting comments in other formats.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kimberly Whittle at (202) 707-7658 or at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Introduction

    The Copyright Royalty Judges (Judges) published a technical amendment to a final rule in the Federal Register to clarify that the reporting requirements in Part 370 that applied to “Minimum Fee Broadcasters” now apply to the more inclusive group, “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters.” 1 81 FR 40190 (Jun. 21, 2016) (emphasis added). The Judges added the new term “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” to the definition section of 37 CFR 370.4. They also removed the “Minimum Fee Broadcaster” definition, which they deemed to be no longer necessary because the new definition of “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters” was intended to include the entities that qualified under the prior definition of “Minimum Fee Broadcasters.”

    1 The Judges used the term “webcaster” advisedly, as stations do not report or pay royalties for broadcasting over the air. They only pay for the rights to stream sound recordings over the Internet, or “webcast.”

    By adding the new term “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters,” the Judges intended to expand relaxed reporting requirements then available to Minimum Fee Broadcasters to certain nonprofit educational webcasters that had previously been denied those expanded relaxed reporting requirements.

    On June 21, 2016, the Judges received a Joint Petition of the National Association of Broadcasters and the National Religious Broadcasters Noncommercial Music License Committee to Amend Final Rule Regarding Reporting Requirements (Joint Motion). The moving parties contended that by removing the definition of “Minimum Fee Broadcaster,” the Judges had failed to effect their intent. The moving parties requested that the Judges reinstate the definition of “broadcaster” as “an entity that owns and operates a terrestrial AM or FM radio station that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission.” Absent this amendment, the petitioners contended that noncommercial minimum fee broadcasters that were not educational webcasters were excluded from the new definition of “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster.”

    The Judges find that the regulation, as amended on June 21, 2016, defines the new term “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” too narrowly and therefore arguably excludes noncommercial minimum fee broadcasters, a category that the Judges had intended to include.

    The Judges shall treat the Joint Motion as a petition for rulemaking and now propose to make the necessary changes to include minimum fee noncommercial broadcasters in the definition of “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcasters.” That inclusion shall ensure that noncommercial minimum fee broadcasters qualify fully for the relaxed reporting requirements in part 370.

    How To Submit Comments

    Interested parties must submit comments to only one of the following addresses. Unless responding by email, claimants must submit an original, five paper copies, and an electronic version on a CD or other portable memory device in Portable Document Format (PDF) that contains searchable, accessible text (not a scanned image of text). Commenters should conform all filed electronic documents to the Judges' Guidelines for Electronic Documents posted on the Copyright Royalty Board Web site at http://www.loc.gov/crb/docs/Guidelines_for_Electronic_Documents.pdf. Email: [email protected]; or

    U.S. mail: Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Overnight service (only USPS Express Mail is acceptable): Copyright Royalty Board, P.O. Box 70977, Washington, DC 20024-0977; or

    Commercial courier: Address package to: Copyright Royalty Board, Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-403, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000. Deliver to: Congressional Courier Acceptance Site, 2nd Street NE., and D Street NE., Washington, DC; or

    Hand delivery: Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, LM-401, 101 Independence Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20559-6000.

    List of Subjects in 37 CFR 370

    Copyright, Sound recordings.

    Proposed Regulations

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Copyright Royalty Judges propose to amend 37 CFR part 370 as follows:

    PART 370—NOTICE AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR STATUTORY LICENSES 1. The authority citation for part 370 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    17 U.S.C. 112(e)(4), 114(f)(4)(A).

    2. In § 370.4, in paragraph (b), revise the definition of “Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster” to read as follows:
    § 370.4 Reports of use of sound recordings under statutory license for nonsubscription transmission services, preexisting satellite digital audio radio services, new subscription services and business establishment services.

    (b) * * *

    Eligible Minimum Fee Webcaster means a nonsubscription transmission service whose payments for eligible transmissions do not exceed the annual minimum fee established for licensees relying upon the statutory licenses set forth in 17 U.S.C. 112(e) and 114; and:

    (i) Is a Licensee that owns and operates a terrestrial AM or FM radio station that is licensed by the Federal Communications Commission; or

    (ii) Is directly operated by, or affiliated with and officially sanctioned by, a domestically accredited primary or secondary school, college, university, or other post-secondary degree-granting institution; and

    (A) The digital audio transmission operations of which are, during the course of the year, staffed substantially by students enrolled in such institution;

    (B) Is exempt from taxation under section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, has applied for such exemption, or is operated by a State or possession or any governmental entity or subordinate thereof, or by the United States or District of Columbia, for exclusively public purposes; and

    (C) Is not a “public broadcasting entity” (as defined in 17 U.S.C. 118(f)) qualified to receive funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting pursuant to the criteria set forth in 47 U.S.C. 396

    Dated: July 28, 2016. Suzanne M. Barnett, Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19097 Filed 8-8-16; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 1410-72-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 405, 410, 411, 414, 417, 422, 423, 424, 425, and 460 [CMS-1654-CN] RIN 0938-AS81 Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model; Correction AGENCY:

    Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    This document corrects a technical error in the proposed rule that appeared in the July 15, 2016 Federal Register (81 FR 46162-46476) entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model.”

    DATES:

    The proposed rule published July 15, 2016 (81 FR 46162-46476) is corrected as of August 9, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terri Plumb, (410) 786-4481, Gaysha Brooks, (410) 786-9649, or Annette Brewer (410) 786-6580.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background

    In FR Doc. 2016-16097 (81 FR 46162), the proposed rule entitled, “Medicare Program; Revisions to Payment Policies under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to Part B for CY 2017; Medicare Advantage Pricing Data Release; Medicare Advantage and Part D Medical Low Ratio Data Release; Medicare Advantage Provider Network Requirements; Expansion of Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program Model” (referred to hereafter as the “CY 2017 PFS proposed rule,”) there was a technical error that is identified and corrected in this correcting document. The correction is applicable as of August 9, 2016.

    II. Summary of Errors in the Preamble

    On page 46457 of the CY 2017 PFS proposed rule, we inadvertently stated that comments related to information collection requirements were due September 13, 2016. However, on page 46162, in the DATES section of the rule, we state that comments are due “no later than 5 p.m. on September 6, 2016.” Accordingly, we are correcting the date on page 46457 to align with the DATES section of the rule on page 46162.

    III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking and Delay in Effective Date

    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rule in the Federal Register and provide a period for public comment before the provisions of a rule take effect. In addition, section 553(d) of the APA mandates a 30-day delay in effective date after issuance or publication of a rule. Sections 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3) of the APA provide for exceptions from the APA notice and comment, and delay in effective date requirements. Section 553(b)(B) of the APA authorizes an agency to dispense with normal notice and comment rulemaking procedures for good cause if the agency makes a finding that the notice and comment process is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest; and includes a statement of the finding and the reasons for it in the rule. In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows the agency to avoid the 30-day delay in effective date where such delay is contrary to the public interest and the agency includes in the rule a statement of the finding and the reasons for it.

    In our view, this correcting document does not constitute a rulemaking that would be subject to these requirements. This document merely corrects a technical error in the CY 2017 PFS proposed rule. The corrections contained in this document are consistent with, and do not make substantive changes to, the policies and payment methodologies that were proposed subject to notice and comment procedures in the CY 2017 PFS proposed rule. As a result, the correction made through this correcting document is intended to resolve an inadvertent error so that the rule accurately reflects the correct date for comments to be submitted in order to assure their consideration in the final rule.

    Even if this were a rulemaking to which the notice and comment and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the CY 2017 PFS proposed rule or delaying the effective date of the corrections would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public interest to ensure that the rule accurately reflects the public comment period. Further, such procedures would be unnecessary, because we are not making any substantive revision to the proposed rule, but rather, we are simply correcting the Federal Register document to reflect the correct date by which public comments must be received in order to assure their consideration for the final rule. For these reasons, we believe there is good cause to waive the requirements for notice and comment and delay in effective date.

    IV. Correction of Errors

    In FR Doc. 2016-16097 (81 FR 46162), published July 15, 2016, on page 46457, in the first column, in the third paragraph, line 2, the phrase “September 13, 2016” is corrected to read “September 6, 2016”.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Madhura Valverde, Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19012 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 49 CFR Parts 1247 and 1248 [Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4)] Review of the General Purpose Costing System; Supplement AGENCY:

    Surface Transportation Board.

    ACTION:

    Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    Through this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (Supplemental NPR), the Surface Transportation Board (Board) is revising its proposal to eliminate the “make-whole adjustment” that is currently applied as part of our general purpose costing system, the Uniform Railroad Costing System (URCS). The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) in this proceeding, issued on February 4, 2013, explained that when disaggregating data and calculating system-average unit costs in Phase II, URCS does not fully take into account the economies of scale realized from larger shipment sizes, necessitating an adjustment in Phase III. This subsequent adjustment in Phase III, referred to as the make-whole adjustment, produces a step function and does not appropriately reflect operating costs and economies of scale. To better address this problem and related issues, the Board is now proposing to modify certain inputs into Phase II of URCS and to modify certain cost calculations in Phase III of URCS in order to eliminate the make-whole adjustment. The Board is also proposing certain other related changes to URCS, including proposals for locomotive unit-miles (LUM) and train miles allocations, which would result in more appropriate rail movement costs.

    DATES:

    Comments are due by October 11, 2016; replies are due by November 7, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments may be submitted either via the Board's e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should attach a document and otherwise comply with the instructions at the “E-Filing” link on the Board's Web site, at http://www.stb.dot.gov. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 copies to: Surface Transportation Board, Attn: Docket No. EP 431 (Sub-No. 4), 395 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Allison Davis at (202) 245-0378. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In 1989, the Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), adopted URCS as its general purpose costing system. Adoption of the Unif. R.R. Costing Sys. as a Gen. Purpose Costing Sys. for All Regulatory Costing Purposes, 5 I.C.C.2d 894 (1989). The Board uses URCS for a variety of regulatory functions. URCS is used in rate reasonableness proceedings as part of the initial market dominance determination. At later stages of rate reasonableness proceedings, URCS is used in parts of the Board's determination as to whether the challenged rate is reasonable, and, when warranted, the maximum rate prescription. URCS is also used to develop variable costs for making cost determinations in abandonment proceedings; to provide the railroad industry and shippers with a standardized costing model; to cost the Board's Carload Waybill Sample to develop industry cost information; and to provide interested parties with basic cost information regarding railroad industry operations.

    URCS develops a regulatory cost estimate that can be applied to a service that occurs anywhere on a rail carrier's system. These cost estimates are developed through three distinct phases of URCS.

    • Phase I occurred only when URCS was originally developed using the annual reports submitted by Class I rail carriers (R-1 reports). Regression analyses were performed to develop equations linking expense account groupings with particular measures of railroad activities.

    • Annually, in Phase II, URCS takes the aggregated cost data and traffic statistics provided by Class I carriers in their most recent R-1 reports and other reports and disaggregates them by calculating system-average unit costs associated with specific rail activities.

    • In Phase III, URCS takes the unit costs from Phase II and applies them to the characteristics of a particular movement in order to calculate the variable cost of that movement.1

    1 Although Phase III is referred to generically here, Phase III actually consists of two programs: The waybill costing program, used to calculate the variable costs of movements from the Waybill Sample, and the interactive Phase III movement costing program, which calculates variable costs of movements based on user-supplied information. The waybill costing program calculates the make-whole factors, whereas the interactive Phase III movement costing program applies the make-whole factors and estimates a movement-specific cost. The interactive Phase III movement costing program is available for download on the Board's Web site. See also infra note 79 and accompanying text.

    The agency has periodically reviewed URCS since its inception.2 In August 2009, the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the Board to submit a report providing options for additional updates to URCS. In the report submitted in May 2010, the Board identified the make-whole adjustment as one area that warranted further review.3

    2See, e.g., Review of the Surface Transp. Bd.'s Gen. Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 3) (STB served Apr. 6, 2009); Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., 2 S.T.B. 754 (1997); Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., EP 431 (Sub-No. 2) (ICC served July 21, 1993).

    3 Surface Transp. Bd., Surface Transportation Board Report to Congress Regarding the Uniform Rail Costing System, 14, 18-19 (May 27, 2010).

    By decision served on February 4, 2013, the Board issued the NPR, mentioned above, to address concerns with the make-whole adjustment in URCS. As explained in the NPR, the make-whole adjustment is applied by URCS to correct the fact that, when disaggregating data and calculating system-average unit costs in Phase II, URCS does not fully take into account the economies of scale realized from larger shipment sizes. The purpose of the make-whole adjustment, which is calculated and applied in Phase III, is to recognize the efficiency savings that a carrier obtains in its higher-volume shipments and thus render more appropriate unit costs.

    URCS applies the make-whole adjustment through a three-step process. First, URCS assumes that a movement's costs are equal to that of a system-average movement. Next, URCS applies efficiency adjustments depending on shipment size—single-car (1 to 5 cars), multi-car (6 to 49 cars), and trainload/unit train (50 or more cars).4 URCS applies the efficiency adjustments to higher-volume movements, thereby reducing the system-average unit costs of such movements.5 Last, URCS redistributes the total savings obtained in all of the higher-volume shipments (the shortfall) across all of the lower-volume shipments, such that the sum of variable costs across all of the carrier's movements remains the same.

    4 Single-car, multi-car, and trainload/unit train are the three basic shipment size categories for purposes of the make-whole adjustment. URCS currently treats all trainload movements as unit train movements; because of its handling of the Empty/Loaded Ratio, URCS assumes that every trainload movement travels from origination to destination and back to origination. Trainload movements are also assumed to be unit train because URCS uses certain unit train statistics reported by the railroads when costing trainload movements (e.g., train miles, locomotive unit-miles, car-miles, and gross ton-miles). Although the NPR used the term “trainload” to describe these movements, because URCS treats these movements as unit train, this Supplemental NPR will use the term “unit train,” which better reflects how those shipments are costed.

    Additionally, URCS treats intermodal traffic as a type of “hybrid” category. Prior to 1997, URCS treated intermodal traffic as single-car movements. In 1997, the Board concluded that more accurate costs would be obtained by applying to intermodal traffic many, though not all, of the efficiency adjustments applicable to unit train movements. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., 2 S.T.B. 659, 663-665 (1997).

    5 There are 14 efficiency adjustments, any number of which may apply to a particular movement.

    The NPR identified two primary concerns with how the make-whole adjustment is currently applied by URCS. First, the efficiency adjustments cause a step function because the adjustments generally reduce the system-average unit costs by various set percentages depending on whether the movement is classified as unit train, multi-car, or single-car. As a result, the current URCS methodology generally reflects economies of scale only between single-car and multi-car shipments and between multi-car and unit train shipments, but it does not reflect any economies of scale within those shipment sizes. For example, the system-average unit cost for a multi-car movement is the same whether it is a 6-car or 49-car shipment. Likewise, the unit cost for a unit train movement is the same, whether it is a 50-car or 135-car shipment (or anywhere in between). At the same time, however, the system-average unit cost for a 49-car multi-car shipment is significantly higher than the unit cost for a 50-car unit train shipment. In other words, hard break points exist that may not reflect true efficiency differences between single-car and multi-car shipments, and between multi-car and unit train shipments.

    Second, the make-whole adjustment redistributes the shortfall across single-car and multi-car movements on a per-car basis, which not only fails to account for economies of scale but also increases the size of the step function. For example, under the per-car method for switching-related costs, costs are increased in proportion to the number of cars switched (i.e., a two-car movement is costed as twice as expensive to switch as a one-car movement, a three-car movement is three times as expensive to switch as a one-car movement, etc.). By not decreasing the per-car costs as the number of cars in the shipment increases, the redistribution of savings does not adequately account for economies of scale. Additionally, the redistribution of savings increases the size of the step function because the add-ons increase costs per car across single-car and multi-car shipments, but do not apply to unit train shipments.6

    6 For example, under the current system, the costs are increased in proportion to the number of cars. If the shortfall redistribution for a one-car shipment is $1,000, then the shortfall redistribution for a 49-car shipment is $49,000. But because the add-ons do not apply to unit train shipments, there is no redistribution of costs to a 50-car shipment.

    These break points, or steps, create the opportunity for parties to use URCS to manipulate regulatory outcomes. The same problem occurs with locomotive unit-mile (LUM) allocation, which also produces a step function between multi-car and unit train shipments. The NPR proposed to address these concerns regarding the make-whole adjustment and LUM allocation. Rather than refining the make-whole adjustment in Phase III, the NPR proposed to reflect the impact of economies of scale in calculating the system-average unit costs in Phase II, thereby eliminating the need for a modification of those costs in Phase III. To that end, the NPR proposed changes to switching costs related to switch engine minutes, equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned equipment during switching, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs, as well as other related changes to URCS. The NPR also proposed changes to the LUM allocation.

    To assist commenters in evaluating those proposals, the Board issued a decision on April 25, 2013, in which it made available certain information, including the uncosted and costed 2011 Waybill Sample, the source code used to cost the Waybill Sample and the intermediate outputs that result from using the source code, a small record set, and descriptions to changes in the calculations of certain Phase III line items. The Board received comments and reply comments on June 20, 2013, and September 5, 2013, respectively.7 After considering the comments, the Board is modifying its earlier proposal.

    7 The following parties filed comments in this proceeding: Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC); Association of American Railroads (AAR); BNSF Railway Company (BNSF); Montana Grain Growers Association (Montana Grain); Samuel J. Nasca, on behalf of United Transportation Union-New York State Legislative Board; Tom O'Connor Group; Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP); Western Coal Traffic League (WCTL). Additionally, joint comments were filed by the American Chemistry Council and others (referred to collectively as ACC) as well as by the Alliance for Rail Competition and others (referred to collectively as ARC).

    General Comments

    Commenters expressed two general concerns about the NPR, which the Board has considered in creating the revised proposal set forth in this Supplemental NPR. First, some commenters cautioned against pursuing “piece-meal” changes to URCS, arguing that piece-meal changes run the risk of skewing results and that the Board should consider a more comprehensive review of URCS.8 Second, a number of commenters expressed the concern that the proposals in the NPR lack empirical support and would change long-standing cost allocation factors that were derived from industry studies. To that end, many of the commenters propose that the Board conduct special studies that will provide the empirical support necessary for the proposed changes.

    8 AAR Comment 9, 21; V.S. O'Connor & Legieza 10-11; UP Comment 2, 18.

    We understand the arguments about piece-meal changes to URCS, but we do not believe that improvements to our costing system should be ignored when incremental changes can be implemented to address specific problems or concerns that have been identified with a portion of that system. Nor do we believe that it is necessary for the Board to have the types of empirical data suggested by commenters in order to move forward with the specific changes to URCS proposed in this rulemaking. The changes proposed here can be properly supported by reasonable economic judgments based on sound principles of cost causation and cost allocation. Moreover, both the need for improvement and the extent to which changes can be implemented without undue burden must be considered. The special studies that would reexamine all of the underlying empirical studies would primarily place a burden on both the rail industry's and the agency's resources. Because the modest changes proposed here can be made to correct or mitigate specific problems with the make-whole adjustment and the related LUM and train mile allocations without such studies,9 the Board believes this is the prudent course of action. In taking this approach, the Board is guided by the “practicality principle” set forth in the Final Report of the Railroad Accounting Principles Board (RAPB), which states that “cost and related information . . . must generate benefits that exceed the costs of providing it.” 10 As the Board has previously stated,

    9 Although the NPR did not include a proposal on train miles, the Board is addressing train mile allocation in this Supplemental NPR because, as explained below, it has the possibility of producing a step function.

    10 RAPB Final Report 17. See also Adoption of the Uniform R.R. Costing Sys. As A General Purpose Costing Sys. For All Regulatory Costing Purposes, 5 I.C.C.2d 894, 909 (1989); 49 U.S.C. 11162(b)(3), (4).

    [i]n considering costing modifications, [the Board] cannot demand perfection. Rather, [the Board bases its] decision on whether a proposed change represents an improvement over current costing procedures, and whether such a change can be implemented at a reasonable cost and without undue burden on the railroad industry, the shipping public or the agency. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., 2 S.T.B. 659, 660-61 (1997).

    The NPR in this proceeding focused on an identified problem in URCS: The occurrence of break points, between shipment sizes, that do not appropriately reflect operating costs and economies of scale, and the problematic allocation of LUMs that also creates break points. Several commenters acknowledge these current flaws in URCS.11 Our goal here, as in the past, is to make “an improvement over current costing procedures.” As discussed above, it is possible to modify URCS to address these issues without conducting special studies, which, under the circumstances, could place an undue burden on “the railroad industry, the shipping public, or the agency.” However, the comments received argued that our proposed methodologies for calculating certain Phase II costs did not properly reflect the causation factors for those costs.

    11 AAR Comment 13; BNSF Comment 5; Montana Grain Comment 1; UP Comment 3; WCTL Comment 7.

    As discussed more fully later in this decision, the Board has determined that certain of the NPR's proposals for changing the method of calculating the costs of various types of operations in Phase II, such as switching costs, raised legitimate concerns about cost causation and inadvertently affected other outputs of Phase III. After considering the comments and engaging in further analysis, we now believe that, with modifications to the NPR's proposals, the existing efficiency adjustments and cost relationships in Phase III can form the basis for changes that remedy the problems in the current make-whole adjustment and related Phase III outputs. Therefore, the Board proposes in this Supplemental NPR certain modifications to inputs in Phase II and calculations in Phase III that would more appropriately adjust system-average unit costs.

    To assist commenters in reviewing this revised proposal, the Board will make its workpapers (which contain confidential information from the Waybill Sample) available subject to our customary Confidentiality Agreement. 49 CFR 1244.9.12 The workpapers contain sample calculations and supporting data related to: (1) Switch Engine Minutes, (2) Railroad-Owned Equipment, (3) Station Clerical, (4) Car-Miles, and (5) Other Related Changes.

    12 To obtain the workpapers, parties should submit a written request to the Board's Office of Economics and reference this proceeding. Parties may seek a protective order for subsequent pleadings using this information. If participants are permitted to file their pleadings under seal, they also will be required to file a public version with confidential information redacted.

    Revised Proposal

    The revised proposal would eliminate the need for the make-whole adjustment and address additional step functions in URCS relating to LUMs and train miles. Below, proposed changes to the current efficiency adjustments—switching costs, railroad-owned equipment costs, station clerical costs, and car-mile costs—are first discussed. Other related proposals are then discussed.

    1. Switching Costs Related to Switch Engine Minutes

    The NPR proposed to adjust how URCS calculates the operating costs for switching cars, regardless of car ownership. These costs are referred to as “switch engine minute” (SEM) costs. Currently, in Phase II, URCS calculates SEM costs on a per-carload basis, which does not reflect economies of scale as shipment size increases. In the NPR, the Board stated that, operationally, a shipment of rail cars is generally connected into a contiguous block of cars, and is handled as a contiguous block from origin to destination. The Board therefore proposed to calculate SEM unit costs in Phase II on a per-shipment basis for all five types of switching accounted for by URCS.13

    13 Those five types of switching are: (1) Industry switching; (2) interchange switching; (3) intraterminal switching; (4) interterminal switching; and (5) inter-train & intra-train (I&I) switching. Industry switching is switching that occurs at origin or destination points. Interchange switching is switching that occurs at intermediate yards between different carriers, as opposed to I&I switching, which occurs on a rail carrier's own lines. Intraterminal switching is the switching of cars by one carrier within a rail terminal, and interterminal switching is the switching of cars between carriers within a rail terminal. For purposes of costing the Waybill Sample, only movements that travel a total distance of less than 8.5 miles are considered intraterminal or interterminal switching.

    Although certain commenters acknowledge that allocating SEMs on a purely per-carload basis may not be appropriate, they also object to the NPR's proposed allocation of SEMs on a purely per-shipment basis because switching costs are, to some extent, dependent upon the number of cars in the block.14 Specifically, commenters argue that there is both a time component and an event component to switching, and that the time required to switch cars is influenced by the number of cars in the shipment.15 Several commenters therefore recommend that the Board allocate a portion of switching costs on a per-shipment basis and a portion on a per-carload basis. Such an approach would require a determination of the appropriate percentage split between carloads and shipments and likely involve statistical studies that would be time-consuming and costly. While such studies might be justifiable if there were no less costly alternative to address the problem, the Board has concluded that the cost relationships used to develop the Phase III efficiency adjustments can be used to recognize and quantify the time- and event-related components of switching costs in Phase III in a way that eliminates the problems with the existing make-whole adjustment.

    14See, e.g., AAR Comment 12, 13, 16; ACC Comment 8; BNSF Comment 7-8; UP Comment 4-5.

    15 For example, if the switching movement requires moving cars from one track to another, or if it requires the cars to be inspected and the air brakes to charge, then the amount of time it takes to switch will be dependent on the number of cars.

    Thus, rather than changing the calculation of SEM unit costs in Phase II as proposed in the NPR, the Supplemental NPR would adjust how Phase III allocates SEMs to account for economies of scale and recognize the fact that switching costs include both a time component and an event component. Under the revised proposal, Phase III would adjust the system-average unit costs by incorporating both the time component of switching (carload basis) and the event component of switching (shipment basis). In this way, the efficiency adjustments that are reflected in Phase III would no longer result in a step function and would reflect economies of scale for every different shipment size.

    Several commenters argued that the efficiency adjustments in Phase III were developed using empirical data,16 and that these existing cost relationships in URCS should be maintained. This proposal maintains the existing cost relationships in URCS to the extent practicable. This Supplemental NPR proposes to incorporate the current efficiency adjustments, which were developed using empirical data, by maintaining the percentage reduction for unit train traffic currently embodied in the Phase III efficiency adjustments.17 For example, for industry switching, URCS currently applies a 75% reduction in assigned SEMs for unit train traffic, and a 50% reduction in assigned SEMs for multi-car traffic, by way of a step function. The proposal would continue applying the 75% reduction for unit train traffic, but would now achieve this reduction by way of an asymptotic curve. The efficiency reductions for single-car and multi-car traffic would no longer apply; rather, the efficiencies associated with such movements would be allocated through the asymptotic curve.

    16See AAR Comment 16; ACC Comment 2; BNSF Comment 11-12.

    17 Although the current make-whole adjustment for unit train traffic is applied starting at 50 cars, the Supplemental NPR proposes to apply these revised adjustments starting at 75 cars. See infra p. 25.

    In order to create this asymptotic curve, the Board would employ a new concept called the Carload Weighted Block (CWB) Adjustment. The CWB Adjustment applies a weighting to a block of cars based on a percentage of the number of cars in that block.18 The CWB value is calculated as the number of cars in a block multiplied by the percentage by which switching varies by carload, plus the number of blocks multiplied by the percentage by which switching varies by block—thus reflecting the fact that switching costs are dependent in part on the number of cars in a block, due to the time and event components of switching.

    18 A “block” is defined as the number of cars on the waybill moved as a contiguous unit from origin to destination. For carload traffic, the number of blocks is always one.

    To determine the appropriate percentages by carload and block in the CWB value, while also maintaining the existing cost relationships in URCS, the Supplemental NPR proposes to solve for the values that cause SEMs to be reduced at the minimum unit train level by the same amount as is currently done by URCS.19 This determination would be done annually, by railroad, using data in the Waybill Sample for each type of switching. Then, to convert system-average SEMs from Phase II to SEMs in Phase III that reflect economies of scale, the Supplemental NPR proposes the following calculation, where the CWB Ratio represents SEMs per CWB divided by SEMs per carload:

    19 To illustrate, for carload industry switching, the appropriate carload and block percentages would be calculated by solving for a 75% reduction at 75 cars (the proposed definition of unit train). See infra p. 25 (proposing to define unit train starting at 75 cars).

    Phase III Adjusted SEMs = (Phase II System Average SEMs) * (CWB Ratio) * (CWB)

    These calculations represent the proposed relationship between current Phase II calculations, which are done on a per-carload basis, and the proposed Phase III calculations, which are done on a per-CWB basis. As explained, these calculations eliminate the current step function and incorporate current URCS efficiency adjustments at the unit train level. This adjustment is referred to as the CWB Adjustment.

    The CWB Adjustment is more appropriate than the current make-whole adjustment for several reasons. Although the current methodology generally reflects economies of scale between single-car and multi-car shipments and between multi-car and unit train shipments, it does not reflect any economies of scale within those shipment sizes. The CWB Adjustment does reflect increasing economies of scale as shipment size increases. It also has the advantage over the current methodology of not producing a step function and not requiring an add-back of the shortfall. Finally, with the possible exception of I&I switching, discussed below, the CWB Adjustment better reflects the cost causality principle from the RAPB's Final Report 20 because of the changing economies of scale for every different shipment size.

    20 “Causality is the primary criterion for cost assignment. Cost is the amount (usually expressed in monetary terms) of input resources used to achieve a specified quantity of activity or service. Causality links cost with an activity or service.” (RAPB Final Report 9.)

    This revised proposal, which makes changes to Phase III through the CWB Adjustment rather than Phase II, obviates the need for changes to the Board's reporting requirements by the railroads. Thus, the NPR's proposed changes to the Annual Report of Cars Loaded and Cars Terminated (Form STB-54) and the Quarterly Report of Freight Commodity Statistics (Form QCS) are no longer necessary under the revised proposal.

    Below, two specific issues related to the CWB Adjustment are discussed: I&I switching and the definition of “shipment.”

    I&I Switching

    The CWB Adjustment for I&I switching would be applied as described above. However, unlike the other types of switching, application of the CWB Adjustment as described above to I&I switching results in decreasing total I&I switching costs as shipment size increases.21 In other words, the total I&I costs for a two-car shipment would be slightly less than for a one-car shipment, a three-car shipment would be slightly less than a two-car shipment, a four-car shipment would be slightly less than a three-car shipment, and so on until the total I&I cost for a unit train shipment is zero.

    21 This negative slope would not be reflected in URCS Phase III switching costs when I&I switching is combined with industry switching. See workpaper “EP431S4_SEMs_IndustryAndI&I.xlsx.” Since not all movements receive the other types of switching, see supra note 14, a graph of I&I switching and industry switching depicts whether total switching costs for a movement will have a negatively or positively sloped curve.

    The CWB Adjustment solution produces a negative slope in total I&I switching costs because URCS currently assumes a 100% efficiency reduction (i.e., zero I&I switching) for unit train shipments, reflecting the assumption in URCS that there is no I&I switching associated with unit trains. The CWB Adjustment proposes to maintain the existing efficiency reductions for unit trains by solving for the values that cause SEMs to be reduced at the unit train level by the same amount as is currently done by URCS. Because the I&I cost curve goes from a positive value for a one-car shipment to a value of zero for a unit train shipment, it results in a negative total I&I cost curve. This is in contrast to the other types of switching, which have an efficiency reduction of less than 100% at the unit train level, thus resulting in a positive value and total cost curve.

    Although this negative slope for I&I switching may not be perfectly reflective of costs for actual railroad operations, the Board has considered alternative solutions and found this proposal to be the most appropriate solution under the circumstances. For instance, one alternative solution could be to reconsider the current URCS assumption that unit train shipments receive no I&I switching.22 However, for the reasons stated earlier, the Board seeks to avoid the unwarranted administrative and public burden associated with a special study to establish a new efficiency adjustment for I&I switching where modifications that account for these impacts can be made without such studies. Parties may, however, submit evidence on I&I switching for unit train traffic for the Board's consideration, if they so choose. Another solution would be to have a methodology that produces a positively sloped I&I switching cost curve for single- and multi-car shipments; however, any such solution would, by definition, require a negative step function in order for the cost to drop to zero for unit trains. Because a major goal of this Supplemental NPR is to eliminate step functions, the Board believes the use of the CWB Adjustment for I&I switching is superior.

    22 Evidence submitted by parties in rate cases has suggested anecdotally that certain unit trains may receive I&I switching for bad-order cars. See, e.g., Tex. Mun. Power Agency v. BNSF Ry., NOR 42056, slip op. at 45 (STB served Mar. 24, 2003); Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo. v. BNSF Ry., NOR 42057, slip op. at 128 (STB served June 7, 2004). However, such evidence is not broad enough to be used to develop a new efficiency adjustment for I&I switching in this proceeding.

    a. Definition of “Shipment”

    As noted in the NPR, any proposal to calculate SEM costs on a per-shipment basis (whether entirely or in part) requires the Board to define “shipment.” The NPR proposed to define “shipment” as a block of one or more cars moving under the same waybill from origin to destination. Some commenters suggested that this definition was inappropriate because how traffic moves operationally and how it is waybilled are not necessarily synonymous.23 In particular, commenters argued that, while the Board's definition may be sufficient for carload traffic, it was inappropriate for intermodal traffic.24

    23 AAR Comment 13-15; ACC Comment 7-8; ACC Reply, V.S. Mulholland 4.

    24 AAR Comment 14-15; ACC Comment 7-8; BNSF Comment 9-10.

    BNSF and AAR contend that the Board should undertake a special study to determine how to define intermodal shipments for costing purposes.25 In the alternative, BNSF suggests that the Board could require each Class I to report annually the average number of intermodal flatcars moving together as a block and use that reported number (annualized over three years) as that carrier's number of flatcars in a “shipment.” 26 In their joint verified statement, AAR's witnesses, Baranowski and Fisher, estimated the average size of an intermodal shipment to be 10 intermodal flat cars, though they did not provide their methodology for how this figure was developed.27

    25 AAR Comment 14-15; BNSF Comment 9-10.

    26 BNSF further states that, in 2012, it had an average of 5.29 containers per flatcar. BNSF Comment 9 (citing 2012 BNSF R-1 report, Schedule 755).

    27See AAR Comment, V.S. Baranowski & Fisher 13.

    The Board does not believe that a special study is required in order to define a shipment. In the NPR, the Board stated that, operationally, a shipment of rail cars is generally connected into a contiguous block of cars. Although the terms “shipment” and “block” are sometimes used interchangeably, the former is generally a billing concept, while the latter is generally an operational concept. For the purposes of discussing intermodal shipments, the distinction is important, as an intermodal shipment may, for costing purposes, use only a partial block, as further described below.

    As noted, switching is performed on a block of cars. For carload shipments, the number of blocks for a shipment is always one. For intermodal shipments, however, the number of trailer container units (TCUs) in a shipment may not fill an entire car, such that the time, and thus costs, to switch the number of TCUs in an intermodal shipment should be prorated. For example, if the average number of TCUs per flatcar is four, the time required to switch a shipment of one TCU should be prorated to 25% of the time required to switch the entire flatcar. As another example, a shipment of six TCUs will require two flatcars in a block, though the time to switch the block should be prorated to 75% for that shipment, as the number of TCUs in the shipment only accounts for six of the eight available TCU spaces in the block of two flatcars.

    Thus, the Supplemental NPR proposes to adjust the NPR's definition slightly by defining a shipment as a block of one or more cars or TCUs moving under the same waybill from origin to destination. The Board believes that such a definition is appropriate for both carload traffic and intermodal traffic, and that the difference between the two is that the time, and thus costs, to switch an intermodal shipment may need to be prorated based on the number of TCUs in the block being switched. To perform this calculation, the Supplemental NPR proposes to use the average number of TCUs per flatcar that is reported by the railroads on line 134 of R-1 Schedule 755.

    Some commenters pointed out that intermodal trailers or containers typically move under a separate waybill even if the TCUs are placed on flatcars that move in multiple flatcar blocks. We take this to mean that, even if multiple TCUs are traveling together from origin to destination, each TCU may be billed individually on a separate waybill. AAR further pointed out that “this distinction ha[d] not been relevant to URCS costs . . . calculated on a per car basis,” but that the Board's proposal in the NPR “to rely on a per shipment costs” highlighted “the disconnect” between how traffic moves operationally and how it is waybilled.28 The Board's Supplemental NPR eliminates this concern because the CWB Adjustment for intermodal switching now finds that intermodal switching is based on 100% of the number of cars. As such, there is no difference between the proposal in this Supplemental NPR and how URCS currently treats intermodal switching (i.e., on a per car basis).

    28 AAR Comment 14.

    It is worth noting that, under the proposal and proposed definition of a shipment, billing multiple TCUs individually rather than as a shipment may increase the allocation of station clerical costs to those TCUs. However, we perceive no misallocation of costs in this outcome because such a practice would require more clerical resources to process multiple waybills rather than a single waybill.

    2. Equipment Costs for the Use of Railroad-Owned Cars During Switching

    Another category of system-average unit costs associated with switching pertains to the equipment costs for the use of railroad-owned cars. These costs are distance- and time-related.29 In the NPR, the Board concluded that these costs are properly accounted for on a per-car basis and therefore proposed to continue calculating these costs on a per-car basis. However, the NPR would have affected the calculation of these costs by eliminating the Phase III efficiency adjustment.

    29 In other words, the costs for using a railroad-owned car are based both on the distance it travels and the time it is being used during the switching process. For example, if a railroad-owned car travels two miles during an interchange switch, and is held at the interchange for three days, the costs for the use of that car will be based both on the two-miles it traveled and the three-days it was held.

    Commenters disagree with the Board's proposal to eliminate the Phase III efficiency adjustments for these costs.30 They argue that URCS currently recognizes certain efficiencies that were derived from special studies conducted by the ICC, and that there is no evidence that these efficiencies have been reduced or eliminated. As such, commenters argue that the Board's proposal should account for these efficiencies. UP and BNSF, for example, recommend that the Board divide costs into an event-related component and a shipment size-related component, similar to SEM costs.31 WCTL asks the Board to retain the efficiency adjustment, and acknowledges that this would necessitate the retention of a make-whole factor.32

    30See AAR Comment 17; BNSF Comment 11-12; UP Comment 11-12; WCTL Comment 8-9.

    31See BNSF Comment 11-12; UP Comment 11-12.

    32See WCTL Comment 9; WCTL Reply 9.

    Additionally, AAR and BNSF ask that, regardless of whether the Board proceeds with its proposals in the NPR, it fix what they describe as a “flaw” or “misallocation problem” in how URCS calculates the costs for railroad-owned equipment when applying the make-whole adjustment.33 They argue that URCS improperly distributes cost savings associated with the efficiency of one car type to other car types. AAR's witnesses, for example, argue that because the costs for railroad-owned cars are composed primarily of ownership and lease costs that are specific to individual car types, URCS is distributing ownership costs for one car type to shipments using a different car type.34

    33See AAR Reply 7; BNSF Reply 4-5.

    34 AAR Reply, V.S. Baranowski & Fisher 11.

    Because commenters urge retention of the existing cost relationships to the extent that the efficiency adjustments in URCS were developed using empirical data, we have incorporated those adjustments into the revised proposal to the extent practicable. However, we also agree that the current efficiency adjustments are distributing savings from a few equipment types that have a high percentage of unit train service onto the costs of other types of equipment that have a high percentage of single-car service. By doing so, URCS overstates the equipment costs of equipment moving in single-car service and understates the equipment costs of equipment moving in unit train service.

    Accordingly, the Board now proposes to modify the Phase II inputs for car-days and car-miles to reflect the current efficiency adjusted values for the predominant shipment size of each particular car type. Specifically, the Supplemental NPR proposes the following: (1) If a majority of shipments for one car type (greater than 50%) move by unit train, then the Supplemental NPR proposes to use the efficiency adjusted inputs for car-days and car-miles; (2) if the predominant shipment size for that car type is single-car, then the Supplemental NPR proposes to use the unadjusted inputs for car-days and car-miles; and (3) if there is no majority of shipments moving by a particular shipment size, the Supplemental NPR proposes to apply the efficiency adjustments depending on whether the particular adjustment reduces costs for multi-car shipments or not.

    Under this proposal, not only would the step function that results from application of the make-whole adjustment be eliminated, but the misallocation identified by AAR and BNSF also would be corrected and the efficiency adjustments currently reflected in URCS would be maintained.

    Because this proposal incorporates the current efficiency adjustments into the Phase II inputs, the Phase II unit costs for some equipment will increase depending on the equipment's assigned efficiency adjustment. Specifically, for any equipment that receives an efficiency adjustment, this proposal would reduce the Phase II inputs for that equipment (e.g., from two car-days to one car-day for car-days loading and unloading). This, in turn, would increase the unit costs for that equipment because the same equipment expenses would be divided by a smaller number of units. There would be no change to the unit costs in Phase II for equipment whose inputs do not change.

    These changes in unit costs in Phase II would flow through to the variable costs calculated in Phase III. Although the change in Phase II unit costs may be offset by the concurrent reduction in car-days or car-miles, equipment whose unit costs have increased in Phase II may still see an increase in variable costs because this proposal corrects the misallocation described above. In other words, the efficiency savings currently applied to that equipment will no longer be transferred to other equipment. For equipment whose Phase II unit costs would not change, the Phase III variable costs for that equipment would nonetheless also be impacted by this proposal for the same reason. That is, the variable costs for that equipment would decrease in Phase III because this proposal corrects the aforementioned misallocation associated with railroad-owned equipment.

    Station Clerical Costs

    The NPR proposed to adjust how URCS calculates station clerical costs, which are the administrative costs associated with a shipment. Currently, in Phase II, URCS calculates station clerical costs on a per-car basis, which does not reflect economies of scale. As a result, in Phase III, URCS applies an efficiency adjustment for multi-car and unit train shipments and adds those efficiency savings onto single-car shipments.

    In the NPR, the Board proposed to calculate station clerical costs in Phase II on a per-shipment basis. Although commenters agreed that there are economies of scale associated with station clerical costs, they objected to the Board's proposal. Some commenters agreed with the Board's proposal on theoretical grounds, but objected because the proposal was not supported by empirical evidence.35 Others argued that allocating station clerical costs on a purely per-shipment basis would be inappropriate because there are in fact some costs that vary with the number of carloads.36 As with SEM switching costs, AAR, BNSF, and UP recommend that the Board adopt an approach that splits station clerical costs into a time-related component and an event-related component.37

    35See ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 12; WCTL Comment 10-11.

    36See ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 12; UP Comment 10-11; WCTL Comment 10-11.

    37See AAR Comment 16; BNSF Comment 12-13; UP Comment 10-11.

    After considering the comments, we propose here to continue calculating station clerical costs on a per-car basis in Phase II and, for multi-car and unit train shipments, continue applying the same efficiency adjustments that URCS applies now in Phase III. Unlike SEM costs or railroad-owned equipment costs, the adjustment currently applied by URCS for station clerical costs does not include a break point between multi-car and unit train shipments because the reduction is based on a function where 75% of costs are based on the carloads and 25% of costs are based on the shipment, resulting in an asymptotic curve.

    However, there is a large break point between single-car and multi-car shipments because URCS applies an efficiency adjustment to multi-car shipments, but not to single-car shipments. Additionally, URCS adds the efficiency savings of larger shipment sizes onto single-car shipments, thus increasing the size of the step function. To eliminate this break point, Phase III would be adjusted to allocate station clerical costs in single-car shipments to account for economies of scale by applying the concept of the CWB Adjustment discussed earlier. To determine the appropriate percentage split between carload and block in the CWB value for single-car shipments only, the Supplemental NPR proposes to solve for the values that cause station clerical costs to be reduced at the six-car level by the same amount as is currently done by URCS. As with SEMs, this determination would be done annually, by railroad, using data in the Waybill Sample. Thus, by applying the CWB Adjustment, the Supplemental NPR proposes to eliminate the current step between single-car and multi-car shipments while also maintaining the current URCS efficiency adjustments for multi-car and unit train shipments.

    For intermodal shipments, URCS currently applies a station clerical efficiency adjustment starting at six flatcars. As with carload traffic, the Supplemental NPR proposes to continue to use the current efficiency adjustments for multi-car and unit train shipments. However, for intermodal shipments with fewer than six flatcars, the Supplemental NPR proposes to apply the CWB Adjustment and solve for the smallest multi-car shipment in order to match the current efficiency adjustment at six cars.38

    38 The Board also declines to make the further refinement to URCS proposed by AAR's witnesses with regard to station clerical costs for intermodal shipments. AAR's witnesses argued that URCS may currently over-allocate station clerical costs, and asked the Board to confirm that URCS allocations are aligned with the reporting of expenses in Schedules 410 and 417 of the R-1 reports. (AAR Reply, V.S. Baranowski & Fisher 13-14.) The costs associated with station clerical are found in R-1 Schedule 410 (lines 518 to 526). The costs associated with loading and unloading of TCUs onto or off of intermodal cars are found in R-1 Subschedule 417, which is a refinement of the costs found in R-1 Schedule 410 (lines 507-517). Although the URCS worktable cited by the witnesses (Worktable D7 Part 7A) does refer to Subschedule 417, that particular worktable does not involve station clerical costs at issue here. URCS develops station clerical expenses in a separate worktable (Worktable D5 Part 1). As such, the expenses from these two schedules are properly aligned with the separate calculations of URCS station clerical expenses and intermodal loading/unloading expenses.

    As with SEM costs, this revised proposal, which makes changes to Phase III rather than Phase II, obviates the need for adjustments to the Board's reporting requirements of the railroads. Thus, the NPR's proposed changes to the Annual Report of Cars Loaded and Cars Terminated (Form STB-54) and the Quarterly Report of Freight Commodity Statistics (Form QCS) are no longer necessary under the revised proposal.

    3. Car-Mile Costs

    In order to calculate car-mile costs, URCS uses what is referred to as the Empty/Loaded Ratio (E/L Ratio) to adjust the number of miles in a particular movement. The E/L Ratio is used when costing all movements because, although there are costs associated with both empty miles and loaded miles, URCS only requires a user to input loaded miles to cost a movement. Thus, to account for the costs of a carrier's total miles, URCS multiplies loaded miles by the E/L Ratio. The E/L Ratio, which can be described as total miles divided by loaded miles, is a figure computed by URCS based on data supplied by the Class I carriers.

    Currently, in Phase III, URCS uses the E/L Ratio for single-car and multi-car movements based on actual data supplied by the railroads. For unit train movements, however, URCS applies an E/L Ratio of 2.0 to reflect the assumption that, for unit train movements, a loaded car will return to its origination location, such that empty miles are equal to loaded miles.39 Thus, even if a rail carrier's actual E/L Ratio is less than 2.0 (i.e., there are fewer empty miles than loaded miles and thus more efficiencies), URCS currently disregards that more efficient E/L Ratio as to unit train movements and applies the less efficient value of 2.0.40

    39 As explained earlier, supra note 5 and accompanying text, URCS currently assumes movements of 50 cars or more are unit train movements due to its handling of the E/L Ratio. URCS also assumes such movements to be unit train movements because it uses certain unit train statistics reported in the R-1 reports when costing those movements (e.g., train miles, locomotive unit-miles, car-miles, and gross ton-miles). The R-1 reports ask railroads to report unit train, way train, and through train data, and defines unit train service as “a specialized scheduled shuttle type service in equipment (railroad- or privately-owned) dedicated to such service, moving between origin and destination.” (R-1 Schedule 755 Instructions at 92.)

    40 A unit train movement's E/L Ratio might be greater or less than 2.0 for a variety of reasons, including whether the shipment at issue is moved in railroad-owned cars or privately-owned cars. In the case of railroad-owned cars, where the rail carrier typically controls the movement of its cars across its network, a shipment may travel from point A (loading origin) to point B (unloading destination) to point C (next loading origin). If point C is closer to point B than point A, then the E/L Ratio would be less than 2.0. If, however, point C is farther from point B than point A, then the E/L Ratio would be greater than 2.0. This is in contrast, for example, to the situation involving a unit train of privately-owned cars that continually cycles between point A and point B, such that the movement's E/L Ratio would be equal to 2.0.

    In the NPR, the Board stated that the actual E/L Ratio computed from data supplied by the carriers is the best reflection of a railroad's actual operations and that it should not be replaced by an assumed E/L Ratio of 2.0 in the case of a unit train movement. It therefore proposed to adjust URCS so that the actual E/L Ratio would apply to all types of movements, such that URCS would no longer treat all unit train movements as having equal empty and loaded car-miles.

    While some commenters supported or did not object to the proposal,41 others disagreed. Several commenters argue that the Board should continue to use the 2.0 figure for dedicated shuttle trains.42 ARC recommends that the Board consider requiring railroads to identify dedicated shuttle trains in the Waybill Sample so that the Board could properly apply the 2.0 figure to those movements.43 WCTL argues that the NPR's proposal was flawed because reported car type data does not distinguish between the type of service that a car is used to provide, and that car data supplied by carriers can include data for single-car, multi-car, and unit train shipments, without distinguishing between the type of service. As such, WCTL recommends that the Board create a new shipment entry in Phase III for dedicated shuttle trains and retain the use of the 2.0 figure for those moves.44 ACC argued that the Board's proposal cannot be adequately assessed until it determines the ratio of the equipment type used in unit train service versus non-unit train service.45

    41See, e.g., AAR Comment 7 n.12 (does not object to Board's proposal); UP Comment 12-13 (supports use of E/L Ratio). See generally AECC Comment; BNSF Comment.

    42 ACC Reply, V.S. Mulholland 13-14; ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 12-14; WCTL Comment 2, 11-13.

    43 ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 12-14.

    44 WCTL Comment 2, 11-13.

    45 ACC Comment 9.

    The Board continues to believe that URCS should apply the actual E/L Ratio as computed from the carriers' data to all shipment sizes, including unit train movements. URCS's current use of the 2.0 figure for unit train movements is meant to reflect efficiencies of that service. However, as noted, even if the reported, actual E/L Ratio for a car type used in unit train service is less than 2.0 (such that efficient service is reflected), URCS will nonetheless apply the less efficient value of 2.0, which increases the cost of that supposedly more efficient movement. The E/L Ratios as reported by the Class I railroads in 2012 and 2013 for car types that are often used in unit train service were reviewed.46 That review indicates that, of the E/L Ratios reported in 2013 for car types primarily used in unit train service, the reported percentage of unit train car-miles with E/L Ratios less than 2.0 was 65% and 48% for the eastern and western Class I carriers, respectively. Of the E/L Ratios reported in 2012, the percentage of unit train car-miles with E/L Ratios less than 2.0 was 66% and 10% for the eastern and western Class I carriers, respectively.47 This demonstrates that such shipments in those equipment types are indeed having their costs increased by the current efficiency adjustment. Moreover, that negative efficiency adjustment is then being added back onto single- and multi-car movements, which decreases costs for those smaller movements. The current application of 2.0 instead of the system-average E/L Ratio thus undermines the purpose of the efficiency adjustment.

    46 Privately-owned and railroad-owned plain gondola, general service open-top hopper, and special service open-top hopper were reviewed.

    47 The percentage of E/L Ratios less than 2.0 weighted by unit train car-miles is calculated by dividing unit train car-miles for E/L Ratios less than 2.0 by the total unit train car-miles for all reported E/L Ratios.

    Additionally, making changes to the Waybill Sample that would distinguish dedicated unit train service is beyond the scope of this rulemaking (which is principally focused on eliminating the make-whole adjustment in URCS and improving related allocations), and is not necessary in order to apply theE/L Ratio to unit train service for purposes of this proceeding. The E/L Ratio is reported by equipment type, and certain types of equipment are used predominantly in unit train service, such that the E/L Ratio for those equipment types will reflect unit train service. For example, the 2012 and 2013 Waybill Samples were analyzed using the proposed definition of unit train (i.e., 75 cars or more, as discussed infra) to determine the percentage of car-miles by car type moving in single-car, multi-car, and unit train service. That analysis showed that certain car types are often used in the same type of service, particularly for those car types often used in unit train service (plain gondolas, general service open-top hoppers, and special service open-top hoppers). Therefore, the Board continues to believe that URCS should apply the E/L Ratio as computed from the carriers' data to all types of service.

    4. Other Related Changes

    In addition to the above changes, this Supplemental NPR also proposes the following changes related to the make-whole adjustment and/or step functions: I&I switching mileage, definition of unit train, LUMs, and train miles.

    I&I Switching Mileage. Currently, URCS assumes that single-car and multi-car shipments of carload traffic (i.e., non-intermodal traffic) receive I&I switching every 200 miles. Some years ago, the Board noted that this figure appeared to be outdated but that, without conducting a special study, it was unable to propose another figure to use in its place. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., 2 S.T.B. 659, 665 n.18 (1997).

    In the NPR, the Board proposed to update this figure to reflect the fact that, since the mergers of the 1990s, the average length of haul on individual railroads has increased. The Board noted that, based on a comparison of the average length of haul for the Class I railroads in 1990 (pre-mergers) and 2011 (post-mergers), it observed a 60% increase in the overall length of haul. The Board therefore proposed to increase the distance between I&I switches for carload traffic by 60%, from 200 miles to 320 miles. The Board also encouraged interested parties to submit data and comments on whether a 60% increase is appropriate, or whether the Board should consider a larger increase.

    The few comments on this proposal generally argued that the Board should change the I&I switching mileage for carload traffic based on empirical data from the railroads.48 In particular, ACC argued that the Board's proposal was based on a flawed assumption. ACC points out that the average length of haul is based on both unit train and non-unit train traffic, of which only the latter receives I&I switching. ACC argues that the Board assumed without basis that the ratio of unit train to non-unit train traffic has remained constant since 1990 and that the number of I&I switches on non-unit train traffic has remained constant since 1990.

    48 ACC Comment 9-10; ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 14; ARC Reply, V.S. Fauth 8-9.

    UP supports the Board's attempt to update the carload I&I switching mileage, but also argues that an increase in length of haul does not necessarily equate to an increase in the carload I&I switching mileage. UP argues that the Board should base any changes to this figure on actual railroad data. To that end, UP states that it studied single-car and multi-car shipments (excluding intermodal) on its system over two years and determined that, on average, I&I switching for those shipments happens every 250 miles.49 UP asks the Board to adopt this 250-mile figure rather than the 320-mile figure proposed in the NPR.50 No party specifically commented on UP's study or proposed figure.

    49 Based on tables attached to its comment, it appears UP calculated this figure by dividing the average haul miles by the average number of switches for commodity categories at the two-digit Standard Transportation Commodity Code level in 2011 and 2012. (See UP Comment, App. C.)

    50 UP Comment 13; UP Reply 4.

    We disagree with the implication that there is no link between an increase in length of haul and an increase in I&I switching mileage. More than 70 years ago, when the ICC published the 200-mile value currently applied to carload I&I switching, the agency recognized that a longer distance in I&I switching could be explained by a greater length of haul. See S. Doc. No. 78-63, at 119 (1943). Since then, the railroad industry has developed significant technological improvements, has consolidated through mergers, and has optimized and reconfigured networks and yards. These, as well as other changes, allow for longer distances between I&I switches. Taken together, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that an increase in length of haul correlates to an increase in the distance between I&I switches.

    In response to the comments, the Board has updated its analysis of the length of haul change between 1990 and 2011 to exclude unit train shipments, which currently do not receive I&I switching in URCS, and intermodal shipments, for which I&I occurs at a much greater distance (as explained below). Based on this revised analysis, the Board has calculated a revised average length of haul between I&I switches for carload traffic of 268 miles rather than 320 miles. See workpaper “EP431S4_Length of Haul_I&I Switching.xlsx” (calculating length of haul between 1990 and 2011). This number is close to the result of UP's study and is greater than the 200 mile value for I&I switching currently used by URCS, which may be outdated. See 2 S.T.B. at 665 n.18. The fact that the results from UP's study (i.e., 250 miles) and the Board's revised methodology (i.e., 268 miles) produced similar results suggests that these numbers provide reasonable estimates of the appropriate I&I switching mileage.51 We encourage parties to submit additional data and comment on this topic, and specifically request comment on whether the 250-mile figure proposed by UP or the Board's 268-mile figure appropriately reflects I&I switching in railroad operations.

    51 Although UP's study provides empirical evidence on this issue, questions remain regarding the study. For example, UP did not explain its specific methodology and underlying assumptions, nor did it explain why its study excluded certain two-digit STCC groups. Therefore, the Board is requesting comments on UP's study.

    Next, AAR and BNSF state that there is a technical error in URCS Phase II related to I&I switching. Currently, URCS assumes an I&I switch every 4,162 miles in Phase III for intermodal shipments. However, in calculating the system-wide I&I switches for allocation in Phase II, URCS uses the 200-mile figure for intermodal that should be used only for carload shipments. AAR and BNSF ask the Board to correct this inconsistency.52 ACC, however, objects to this request, arguing that this change is outside the scope of the present proceeding.53

    52 AAR Comment 20-21; BNSF Comment 11 n.8.

    53 ACC Reply 12; ACC Reply, V.S. Mulholland 18.

    AAR and BNSF have identified what appears to be an administrative error in fully implementing a 1997 Board decision regarding URCS. The Board believes it is appropriate to correct that error in this proceeding. As pointed out by AAR and BNSF, although URCS should apply a distance between I&I switches of 4,163 miles in Phase II, as adopted by the Board in 1997, it does not.54 Instead, it applies the 200-mile I&I switching distance (which is used for single-car and multi-car shipments) for intermodal cars. In addition, for some time now, URCS Phase III (both the Board's waybill costing program and the interactive Phase III movement costing program) has applied a 4,162-mile I&I switching distance for intermodal movements, which is off by one mile.

    54 In 1997, the Board determined that intermodal shipments receive less switching than general single-car traffic, for which the distance between I&I switches was assumed to be every 200 miles. Based on data submitted by AAR, the Board adopted a 4,163-mile I&I switching distance for intermodal movements. Review of Gen. Purpose Costing Sys., 2 S.T.B. 754, 755 (1997).

    In order to correct the treatment of I&I switching, an issue addressed earlier in the Supplemental NPR and therefore within the scope of this proceeding, the Supplemental NPR proposes to apply the 4,163 switching factor previously adopted by the Board for intermodal shipments in Phase II as well as Phase III. As discussed later in this decision, the Board will be issuing a revised Phase III movement costing program that conforms that program to the Board's 1997 decisions in Review of the General Purpose Costing System, 2 S.T.B. 659 (1997) and 2 S.T.B. 754 (1997). We will also conform the figure applied in the Board's waybill costing program to what was adopted by the Board in 1997.

    Definition of Unit Train. 55 In the NPR, the Board proposed to increase the number of cars in a unit train movement from the current 50 or more cars to 80 or more cars. In this Supplemental NPR, the Board is proposing to reduce the number of cars in unit train movements to 75 or more.

    55 Although the NPR used the term “trainload,” because URCS treats these movements as unit train, this Supplemental NPR uses the term “unit train” to reflect how those shipments are costed.

    In justifying the originally proposed increase to 80 or more cars, the Board noted that train lengths have increased over the years due to a variety of factors, including higher horsepower locomotives and advances in distributive power. The Board then reviewed the 2010 Waybill Sample and determined that, for shipment sizes between 50 and 90, there was a higher occurrence of 80-car movements than any other shipment size. The Board thus found that the empirical evidence supported the 80-car figure, but also sought comment on whether the Board should consider an alternate figure in defining unit train.

    Although many parties either support or do not object to the Board's proposal,56 ACC, ARC, and AECC either oppose or raise concerns regarding the proposed change. First, ACC asserts that the Board should perform a study to more appropriately determine the point at which shipments are transported as unit train shipments and the variation of this definition across commodities and regions.57 However, as stated earlier, the Board does not believe it is necessary to commit its limited resources to conduct the type of study that ACC appears to advocate, particularly when there are other means of accounting for these impacts.

    56 AAR Comment 7 n.12; Montana Grain Comment 1; UP Comment 14; WCTL Comment 13. See generally BNSF Comment (no specific comment).

    57 ACC Comment 10; ACC Reply, V.S. Mulholland 15.

    Second, ARC's witness, Fauth, argues that changing the definition of unit train to 80 cars, as was proposed in the NPR, could impact a significant amount of traffic and would likely result in increases in variable costs for shipments ranging from 50 to 79 cars and perhaps would “deregulate” this traffic from the Board's rate reasonableness jurisdiction.58 It is worth noting, however, that setting the definition of unit train too low would incorrectly assign greater efficiencies to shipments in the 50 to 79 car range which would understate the costs of those shipments and inappropriately distribute those efficiencies onto single-car shipments. Both of these concerns are addressed by the Supplemental NPR's proposed definition of unit train. Specifically, the Supplemental NPR proposes to change the definition to better reflect current railroad operations so that efficiencies in URCS better reflect the principle of cost causation as articulated in the RAPB,59 regardless of which traffic group may or may not be affected.60 The Board, therefore, believes that the proposed unit train definition is a neutral solution that would more appropriately distribute efficiencies than current URCS does.

    58 ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 15-17.

    59 In other words, costs would be assigned based on the operations of a service. For further discussion of cost causation, see supra note 21 and the accompanying text.

    60 Fauth also notes that NSR initiated a 75-car shuttle train program, which would not be considered unit train under the NPR's proposal. ARC Comment, V.S. Fauth 16. ARC and Fauth do not provide any further detail on this program; however, as discussed in this section, the Board's revised proposal would treat these 75-car shipments as unit train traffic.

    Finally, AECC argues that shipments of fewer than 80 cars are not combined with other shipments, such that the 80-car standard does not reflect current operations.61 AECC cites to the Board's data showing that, aside from UP, none of the other major Class I railroads have an average through train length of over 58.8 cars. In its comments, AECC analyzes the through train data for three Class I carriers, which shows an average through train length of 54.4 cars.

    61 AECC Comment 8-10.

    AECC's analysis, however, accounts only for R-1 data for through trains, ignoring unit train data. The R-1 Schedule 755 Instructions define “through train” as “those trains operated between two or more major concentration or distribution point,” and “unit trains” as “a specialized scheduled shuttle type service in equipment (railroad- or privately-owned) dedicated to such service, moving between origin and destination.” The instructions also state that “unit trains” data is not to be included in “through” or “way” train statistics.62 As a result, AECC's analysis of through train data (showing an average through train length of 54.4 cars) is not an appropriate basis for determining the definition of unit train service.63

    62 The R-1 Schedule 755 Instructions define “way train” as “trains operated primarily to gather and distribute cars in road service and move them between way stations or way points.”

    63 Using the methodology applied and the data source cited by AECC, but instead using unit train data, an average unit train length is calculated to be 104.7 cars, which also suggests that the current unit train definition of 50 cars is too low.

    The Board continues to believe that the existing definition of a unit train at 50 or more cars should be increased.64 However, in light of parties' comments and further evaluation of the available data, we propose to define unit train as consisting of 75 or more cars rather than 80 or more cars. The Board believes that defining the minimum size for unit train shipments as starting at 75 cars is appropriate for two reasons. First, the Board looks to the data reported in the R-1 reports for through trains and unit trains. In the R-1 reports, unit train data is aggregated, which prohibits the minimum size of unit train from being determined. As a result, the Board is using the weighted average train size of through train and unit train data to determine the break point between these two train lengths and, accordingly, determine the lower-end size of unit train service.65 As evidenced in workpaper “EP431S4_Unit Train Definition.xlsx,” the weighted average of through train and unit train R-1 data for the Class I carriers based on 2012 data is 77.5 cars and the weighted average based on 2013 data is 73.9 cars. Both figures support the Board's proposed definition of 75 cars.

    64 The NPR explained that, despite the fact that the E/L Ratio would no longer be adjusted exclusively for unit train movements, the definition of unit train would continue to play a role because URCS assumes that unit train movements receive no I&I switching. Slip op. at 8. Additionally, the unit train definition determines which movements use the unit train statistics reported by the railroads and, under this revised proposal, is used in the CWB Adjustment to cause SEMs to be reduced by the same amount as is currently done by the make-whole adjustment.

    65 Through trains are assumed to be shorter than unit trains. Therefore, the weighted average train size of through and unit train data should determine the lower-end size of unit train service.

    Second, the Board found that, using the NPR's initial methodology of reviewing the Waybill Sample, there is a high occurrence of 75-car movements compared to other shipment sizes between 50 cars and 90 cars according to 2012 and 2013 data.66 Thus, based on the comments and review of available data, the Board finds that it is more appropriate to define unit train service as 75 cars or more and revises its proposal accordingly.

    66 The Waybill Sample reports the number of carloads in the shipment for all rail traffic.

    Locomotive Unit-Miles (LUMs). The NPR expressed concern that the current allocation for LUMs produced a step function between multi-car and unit train shipments, and therefore proposed two modifications—one for unit train shipments and one for non-unit train shipments. In this Supplemental NPR, the Board proposes a different modification that would cap the LUMs associated with multi-car shipments to be less than or equal to the LUMs allocated to the definition of a unit train shipment.

    Currently, URCS calculates total LUMs by multiplying the distance of a particular movement by the average number of locomotives for that type of train. URCS then allocates these LUMs to the movement by multiplying total LUMs by a ratio of gross tons of the shipment to average gross tons of the train, such that the allocation of LUMs is based on the weight of the shipment.67

    67 The average gross tons for different types of trains are calculated by dividing gross ton-miles by train miles, both of which are reported by Class I carriers in Schedule 755 of the R-1 reports.

    Although the calculation of total LUMs is the same for all shipment size categories, two values in the calculation are derived from the R-1 reports and are specific to train type (i.e., way train, through train, or unit train)—the average number of locomotives and the average gross tons per train. For single-car or multi-car shipments, URCS derives these two values from a combination of the reported way and through train data. For unit train shipments, URCS derives these two values from the reported unit train data. However, URCS applies the same unit cost per LUM (which is based on an average value of way, through, and unit trains also derived from the R-1 reports) to both unit train and non-unit train shipments. The result is that URCS shifts from one cost curve to another when moving from a multi-car shipment to a unit train shipment. Thus, as explained in the NPR, a step function occurs between multi-car and unit train shipments, such that the LUM costs assigned to large multi-car shipments are higher than the LUM costs assigned to unit train shipments.68

    68 The step function does not occur on intermodal shipments, as URCS applies only through train data to intermodal shipments. Therefore, all intermodal shipments are treated alike, regardless of the number of TCUs in the shipment.

    To eliminate this step function, as noted, the NPR proposed two modifications to how URCS allocates LUM costs. With regard to unit train shipments, the NPR proposed to allocate the entire train's LUM costs to the trainload shipment, regardless of the gross tons of the unit train shipment relative to the average gross tons of a particular train. With regard to non-unit train shipments, the NPR proposed to base the allocation of LUM costs for single- and multi-car shipments on the number of cars in the shipment relative to the minimum number of cars of a unit train shipment.

    Most commenters objected to the Board's LUMs proposals. With regard to unit train shipments, commenters argued that ignoring the relationship between a shipment's gross tons and the average gross tons of the train was problematic because it means that the weight of the train would not be factored into URCS. In particular, URCS currently assigns more LUM costs to heavier trains because heavier trains require more locomotives and consume more fuel. Commenters argued that ignoring differences in train weight would produce less appropriate costing results, and that the step function observed by the Board is not a function of the trailing weight adjustment at all. Commenters also noted that the Board's proposal was not based on empirical studies that disprove the longstanding assumption that heavier trains incur higher locomotive costs.69

    69 AAR Comment 17-19; BNSF Comment 13-15; UP Comment 14-15.

    With regard to the modification for non-unit train movements, many commenters argued that the Board's proposal would produce less appropriate results because a car-based method is less appropriate than a shipment-weight based method. Commenters also argued that the Board's proposal had no empirical basis and that the Board's proposed adjustment did not actually solve the concern stated by the Board in the NPR.70

    70 AAR Comment 17-19; BNSF Comment 13-15; UP Comment 15-16.

    Having reviewed the comments, the Board concludes that the NPR's proposed change to LUM costs did not adequately account for shipments with heavier than system-average weights and, therefore, we are withdrawing the NPR's proposals related to LUM costs. However, considering the step function created by the current allocation, the Board finds that it is still appropriate to revise how URCS allocates LUMs.

    To eliminate the step function created by the current LUM allocation, the Board proposes in Phase III to cap the LUMs allocated to multi-car shipments to be less than or equal to those allocated to a 75-car shipment (the minimum number of cars under our proposed definition of unit train).71 Doing this allows for a continuous slope with no break points between the single-multi-car slope and the unit train slope. This proposal otherwise leaves the allocation of LUM costs the same: Unlike the NPR's proposal, the LUMs allocation would generally continue to be based on the gross tons of the shipment relative to the average gross tons of the train for both non-unit and unit train shipments. This is responsive to commenters' concerns that the LUM allocations should continue to account for shipment weight. We believe capping the LUMs is an appropriate method to eliminate the negative step function produced by the current cost allocation for LUMs. It ensures that LUM costs for large multi-car shipments are not higher than for unit train shipments, requires minimal changes to current URCS, and would impact a small percentage of traffic.72

    71 Unlike with SEMs and station clerical, where the Supplemental NPR proposes to apply the CWB Adjustment in Phase III to redistribute efficiencies derived from economies of scale, with respect to LUMs there is no redistribution of efficiencies derived from economies of scale. In Phase II, non-unit train LUMs reflect efficiencies of “way” and “through” trains, and unit-train LUMs reflect the efficiencies inherent in unit train service, but the efficiencies of unit trains are not redistributed or added onto “way” and “through” trains in Phase III. As a result, the Board finds that the CWB Adjustment proposed in this Supplemental NPR is not applicable to LUMs. Instead, the Supplemental NPR seeks only to smooth out the step function for LUMs.

    72 This proposal for LUMs would affect only a small portion of total traffic. Although the exact shipment sizes that would be affected vary depending on, for example, the type of equipment and carrier, the impact would fall on carload shipments generally at the higher end of the multi-car range. Using 2013 Waybill Sample data, the range of shipments that would be affected is 47 to 74. Using this example, the total traffic impacted by the proposal would be less than 0.08%. See workpapers “LUMs Allocation_ClassIs.xlsx” and “LUMs Allocation_Impact.xlsx.”

    Train Miles. Train mile costs have two components: Crew and other than crew. Although the NPR did not include a proposal on train miles, the Board is addressing train mile allocation in this Supplemental NPR because it also has the possibility of producing a negative or positive step function.

    Currently, for single-car and multi-car shipments, URCS allocates train miles in a similar manner to LUMs by multiplying the total train miles by the ratio of the gross tons of a shipment to the average gross tons of the train. That causes train miles to increase as shipment weight increases. Unit train shipments, however, receive all train miles, regardless of the weight of the shipment relative to the average gross tons of unit trains.

    The train mile allocation currently in URCS can produce a negative or positive step function between multi-car and unit train shipments (under the current definition of unit train), such that the train miles assigned to a 49-car shipment are lower or higher than the costs assigned to a 50-car shipment. Whether the step is negative or positive (or whether it exists at all) depends on the characteristics of the particular shipment.73

    73 This step function does not occur on intermodal shipments in URCS's waybill costing program, as all intermodal shipments are treated alike, regardless of the number of TCUs in the shipment.

    To eliminate all instances where a negative step function occurs, the Supplemental NPR proposes in Phase III to cap the train miles allocated to multi-car shipments to be less than or equal to those allocated to a 75-car shipment (the minimum number of cars under our proposed definition of unit train).74 A positive step function is more likely to occur when the gross tons per car of the unit train shipment are very low. As such, a positive step function should rarely happen. Therefore, at this time, it is not necessary to propose a change to train miles that would eliminate the potential for positive step functions.

    74 The CWB Adjustment also is not applicable to the train miles allocation for the same reasons it is not applicable to the LUMs allocation. See supra note 72.

    Other than capping the train miles allocated to multi-car shipments, this proposal would leave the allocation of train miles unchanged: Unit train shipments would continue to be allocated all the train miles, and the allocation for single-car and multi-car shipments would generally continue to be based on the gross tons of the shipment relative to the average gross tons of the train. We believe that capping the train miles as described above is an appropriate method to eliminate in most instances the potential step function for train miles. It ensures that train mile costs for large multi-car shipments are not higher than unit train shipments and requires minimal changes to current URCS.

    5. Requested Modifications

    Some parties made additional requests for modifications to URCS. For example, AAR and BNSF asked the Board to eliminate interterminal and intraterminal switching, but retracted that request on reply and instead requested that the Board correct an underassignment of these costs.75 AAR and UP asked the Board to address regulatory reporting issues as they relate to positive train control and toxic-by-inhalation hazardous materials.76 AECC proposed a number of changes relating to train and engine crew costs, private cars, fuel costs, tare weights, road property investment and depreciation, and locomotives, among others.77 These requested modifications would greatly expand the scope of this proceeding, which the Board declines to do. The primary goal of this proceeding is to address concerns related to the make-whole adjustment and concerns that URCS created step functions, which could create the opportunity for parties to use URCS to manipulate regulatory outcomes. Because the parties have either not shown that these requested modifications are related to the make-whole adjustment or step functions, or that the requested modifications are necessary to appropriately calculate costs in URCS, the Board will not address such additional modifications in this proceeding.

    75 AAR Comment 20; AAR Reply 8-9; BNSF Comment 10-11.

    76 AAR Comment 21; UP Reply 6.

    77 AECC Comment 11-22.

    6. Phase III Movement Costing Program

    URCS calculates the variable costs of a movement in Phase III. There are two versions of Phase III: The waybill costing program, which calculates the variable costs of movements in the Waybill Sample, and the interactive Phase III movement costing program,78 which calculates variable costs based on user-supplied information. The waybill costing program calculates the make-whole factors, whereas the interactive Phase III movement costing program applies the make-whole factors and uses them to estimate movement specific costs. The Board is aware of certain technical inconsistencies between the waybill costing program and the movement costing program (e.g., efficiency adjustments for intermodal shipments), and between both costing programs and the Board's 1997 decisions in Review of General Purpose Costing System, 2 S.T.B. 659 (1997) and 2 S.T.B. 754 (1997) (e.g., the distance between I&I switches for intermodal movements). Because this proceeding addresses issues relating to intermodal movements, and these technical issues pertain to intermodal movements, we note here that the Board will be releasing a revised Phase III movement costing program to reconcile these inconsistencies. Because the technical corrections that will be made would merely implement procedures previously adopted after notice and opportunity for comment, the revised Phase III movement costing program will be effective upon release.

    78 The current version of the Phase III movement costing program (titled “URCS Phase III Railroad Cost Program”) is available at http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/urcs.html. See also supra note 2.

    The revised Phase III movement costing program will not include the proposals in this Supplemental NPR. The Board will release a further revised Phase III movement costing program to implement any modifications adopted by final rule in this proceeding.

    7. Implementation

    Several commenters noted that the NPR did not address how its proposal, if adopted, would be implemented.79 The proposal here would impact calculations that use multiple years of URCS data. For example, the Board's Office of Economics annually calculates the Class I carriers' revenue shortfall allocation methodology (RSAM) figure and revenue-to-variable cost greater than 180% (R/VC>180) ratios, as well as their four-year averages. See, e.g., Simplified Standards for Rail Rate Cases—2013 RSAM & R/VC>180 Calculations, EP 689 (Sub-No. 6) (STB served Sept. 3, 2015). For these types of annual calculations, the Board proposes to apply the proposed changes prospectively. This means that, for calculations that require multiple years of data—such as RSAM or R/VC>180—there would be a brief period where the averages include data calculated under URCS' current methodology and under the proposed methodology described herein. The Board does not believe that the changes proposed here need to be applied retroactively to these types of calculations. Although the Board believes these proposals will improve our current costing procedures, the proposed changes are simply refinements to URCS, which has been in effect for over 20 years and has been relied on by industry participants and the public. Therefore, the prior URCS calculations using the current costing procedures will remain in effect. As the Board strives to improve various aspects of URCS, we see no reason to revisit otherwise final calculations that have been and are relied upon by the public. See, e.g., AEP Tex. N. Co. v. BNSF Ry., NOR 41191 (Sub-No. 1), slip op. at 7-10 (STB served May 15, 2009).

    79 AAR Comment 19-20; ACC Comment 4, V.S. Mulholland 6-7; BNSF Comment 15; UP Comment 18.

    Conclusion

    We believe that the revised proposals described above would remedy most concerns about step functions currently in URCS, generally produce costs that better reflect the current state of rail industry operations, and are responsive to parties' criticisms of the NPR. We therefore invite public comment on each of the proposals described herein.

    Additional information supporting the Board's revised proposal is contained in the Board's decision (including appendices) served on August 4, 2016. To obtain a copy of this decision, visit the Board's Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov or contact the Board's Office of Public Assistance, Governmental Affairs, and Compliance at (202) 245-0238.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, generally requires a description and analysis of new rules that would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In drafting a rule, an agency is required to: (1) Assess the effect that its regulation will have on small entities; (2) analyze effective alternatives that may minimize a regulation's impact; and (3) make the analysis available for public comment. 5 U.S.C. 601-604. In its notice of proposed rulemaking, the agency must either include an initial regulatory flexibility analysis, 603(a), or certify that the proposed rule would not have a “significant impact on a substantial number of small entities,” 605(b).

    Because the goal of the RFA is to reduce the cost to small entities of complying with federal regulations, the RFA requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis of small entity impacts only when a rule directly regulates those entities. In other words, the impact must be a direct impact on small entities “whose conduct is circumscribed or mandated” by the proposed rule. White Eagle Coop. Ass'n v. Conner, 553 F.3d 467, 478, 480 (7th Cir. 2009). An agency has no obligation to conduct a small entity impact analysis of effects on entities that it does not regulate. United Dist. Cos. v. FERC, 88 F.3d 1105, 1170 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

    This proposal will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities, within the meaning of the RFA. The purpose of our changes to URCS is to improve the Board's general purpose costing system, which is used to develop regulatory cost estimates for the Class I rail carriers. These changes will result in more appropriate estimates of Class I carrier variable costs. Therefore, the Board certifies under 49 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the RFA.

    Paperwork Reduction Act

    In the NPR, the Board proposed changes to two of its reporting requirements, and therefore sought comment on two collections of information pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3549. Those modified collections were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Because we are no longer proposing changes to the Board's reporting requirements, we are withdrawing the Board's requests to OMB for approval of those modifications.

    It is ordered:

    1. The Board proposes to adjust URCS as detailed in this decision. Notice of this decision will be published in the Federal Register.

    2. To assist commenters in reviewing this revised proposal, the Board will make its workpapers available to commenters subject to the customary Confidentiality Agreement.

    3. Comments are due by October 11, 2016; replies are due by November 7, 2016.

    4. A copy of this decision will be served upon the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration.

    5. This decision is effective on its service date.

    Decided: August 2, 2016.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Miller, and Commissioner Begeman.

    Tia Delano, Clearance Clerk.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18806 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077; 4500030113] RIN 1018-BB34 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Texas Hornshell AGENCY:

    Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to list the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii), a freshwater mussel species from New Mexico and Texas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (Act). If we finalize this rulemaking as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species.

    DATES:

    We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before October 11, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by September 26, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking on “Comment Now!”

    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.

    We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see Public Comments, below, for more information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chuck Ardizzone, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office, 17629 El Camino Real #211, Houston, TX 77058; by telephone 281-286-8282; or by facsimile 281-488-5882. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, if a species is determined to be an endangered or threatened species throughout all or a significant portion of its range, we are required to promptly publish a proposal in the Federal Register and make a determination on our proposal within 1 year. Critical habitat shall be designated, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, for any species determined to be an endangered or threatened species under the Act. Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species and designations and revisions of critical habitat can only be completed by issuing a rule.

    This rulemaking proposes the listing of the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii) as an endangered species. The Texas hornshell is a candidate species for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing regulation has been precluded by other higher priority listing activities. This proposed rule reassesses all available information regarding the status of and threats to the Texas hornshell.

    The basis for our action. Under the Act, we can determine that a species is an endangered or threatened species based on any of five factors, acting alone or in combination: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We have determined that the Texas hornshell is in danger of extinction due to habitat loss from loss of water flow, decreased water quality, and increased accumulation of fine sediments (Factor A) and predation (Factor C).

    We will seek peer review. We will seek comments from independent specialists to ensure that our determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to comment on our listing proposal. Because we will consider all comments and information we receive during the comment period, our final determination may differ from this proposal.

    We prepared a species status assessment report (SSA report) for the Texas hornshell. The SSA report documents the results of the comprehensive biological status review for the Texas hornshell and provides an account of the species' overall viability through forecasting of the species' condition in the future (Service 2016, entire). We received feedback from four scientists with expertise in freshwater mussel biology, ecology, and genetics as peer review of the SSA report. The reviewers were generally supportive of our approach and made suggestions and comments that strengthened our analysis. The SSA report and other materials relating to this proposal can be found at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077.

    Information Requested Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, Native American tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

    (1) The Texas hornshell's biology, range, and population trends, including:

    (a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including habitat requirements for feeding and spawning;

    (b) Genetics and taxonomy;

    (c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;

    (d) Historical and current population levels, and current and projected trends; and

    (e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its habitat, or both.

    (2) Factors that may affect the continued existence of the species, which may include habitat modification or destruction, overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors.

    (3) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning any threats (or lack thereof) to this species and existing regulations that may be addressing those threats.

    (4) Additional information concerning the historical and current status, range, distribution, and population size of this species, including the locations of any additional populations of this species, particularly in Mexico.

    (5) Information related to climate change within the range of the Texas hornshell and how it may affect the species' habitat.

    (6) The reasons why areas should or should not be designated as critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    (7) Specific information on:

    (a) The amount and distribution of habitat for the Texas hornshell;

    (b) What areas, that are currently occupied and that contain the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the Texas hornshell, should be included in a critical habitat designation and why;

    (c) Special management considerations or protection that may be needed for the essential features in potential critical habitat areas, including managing for the potential effects of climate change; and

    (d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species and why.

    Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you include.

    Please note that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an endangered or threatened species must be made “solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.”

    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.

    If you submit information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the Web site. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Public Hearing

    Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days after the date of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register (see DATES, above). Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the hearing.

    Peer Review

    In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert opinions of five appropriate and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure that our listing determination is based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invite comment from the peer reviewers during the public comment period on this proposed rule.

    Previous Federal Actions

    We identified the Texas hornshell as a Category 2 candidate species in our January 6, 1989, Review of Vertebrate Wildlife (54 FR 554). Category 2 candidates were defined as species for which we had information that proposed listing was possibly appropriate, but conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a proposed rule at the time. The species remained a Category 2 candidate in subsequent annual candidate notices of review (CNOR) (56 FR 58804, November 21, 1991, and 59 FR 58982, November 15, 1994). In the February 28, 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the designation of Category 2 species as candidates; therefore, the Texas hornshell was no longer a candidate species.

    Subsequently, in 2001, the Texas hornshell was added to the candidate list (66 FR 54808, October 30, 2001). Candidates are those fish, wildlife, and plants for which we have on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to support preparation of a listing proposal, but for which development of a listing rule is precluded by other higher priority listing activities. The Texas hornshell was included in all of our subsequent annual CNORs (67 FR 40657, June 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005; 71 FR 53756, September 12, 2006; 72 FR 69034, December 6, 2007; 73 FR 75176, December 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104; November 22, 2013; 79 FR 72450, December 5, 2014; and 80 FR 80584, December 24, 2015). On May 11, 2004, we were petitioned to list the Texas hornshell, although no new information was provided in the petition. Because we had already found the species warranted listing, no further action was taken on the petition.

    On September 9, 2011, the Service entered into two settlement agreements regarding species on the candidate list at that time (Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation, No. 10-377 (EGS), MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, 2011)). This proposed listing rule fulfills the requirements of those settlement agreements for the Texas hornshell.

    Background

    A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, ecology, and overall viability of the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii) is presented in the Species Status Assessment Report for the Texas Hornshell (SSA report) (Service 2016; available at http://www.regulations.gov). The SSA report documents the results of the comprehensive biological status review for the Texas hornshell and provides an account of the species' overall viability through forecasting of the species' condition in the future (Service 2016, entire). In the SSA report, we summarized the relevant biological data and a description of past, present, and likely future stressors and conducted an analysis of the viability of the species. The SSA report provides the scientific basis that informs our regulatory decision regarding whether this species should be listed as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. This decision involves the application of standards within the Act, its implementing regulations, and Service policies (see Determination, below). The SSA report contains the risk analysis on which this determination is based, and the following discussion is a summary of the results and conclusions from the SSA report. We solicited peer review of the draft SSA report from five qualified experts. We received responses from four of the reviewers, and we modified the SSA report as appropriate.

    Species Description

    The Texas hornshell is a medium sized (3 to 4 inches long) freshwater mussel with a dark brown to green, elongate, laterally compressed shell (Howells et al. 1996, p. 93; Carman 2007, p. 2). The Texas hornshell was described by Lea (1857, p. 102) from the Devils River in Texas and Rio Salado in Mexico. Currently, the Texas hornshell is classified in the unionid subfamily Ambleminae (Campbell et al. 2005, pp. 140, 144) and is considered a valid taxon by the scientific community (Turgeon et al. 1998, p. 36).

    Freshwater mussels, including the Texas hornshell, have a complex life history. Males release sperm into the water column, which are taken in by the female through the incurrent siphon (the tubular structure used to draw water into the body of the mussel). The sperm fertilizes the eggs, which are held during maturation in an area of the gills called the marsupial chamber. The developing larvae remain in the gill chamber until they mature and are ready for release. These mature larvae, called glochidia, are obligate parasites (cannot live independently of their hosts) on the gills, head, or fins of fishes (Vaughn and Taylor 1999, p. 913). Glochidia die if they fail to find a host fish, attach to a fish that has developed immunity from prior infestations, or attach to the wrong location on a host fish (Neves 1991, p. 254; Bogan 1993, p. 599). Glochidia encyst (enclose in a cyst-like structure) on the host's tissue, draw nutrients from the fish, and develop into juvenile mussels weeks or months after attachment (Arey 1932, pp. 214-215).

    For the Texas hornshell, spawning generally occurs from March through August (Smith et al. 2003, p. 335), and fertilized eggs are held in the marsupial chambers of females for 4 to 6 weeks (Smith et al. 2003, p. 337). Glochidia are released in a sticky mucous net or string (Carman 2007, p. 9); the host fish likely swim into the nets, and the glochidia generally attach to the face or gills of the fish and become encysted in its tissue (Levine et al. 2012, pp. 1858). The glochidia will remain encysted for about a month through transformation to the juvenile stage. Once transformed, the juveniles will excyst from the fish and drop to the substrate. The known primary host fishes for the Texas hornshell are river carpsucker (Carpiodes carpio), grey redhorse (Moxostoma congestum), and red shiner (Cyprinella lutrensis) (Levine et al. 2012, pp. 1857-1858).

    Mussels are generally immobile but experience their primary opportunity for dispersal and movement within the stream as glochidia attached to a mobile host fish (Smith 1985, p. 105). Upon release from the host, newly transformed juveniles drop to the substrate on the bottom of the stream. Those juveniles that drop in unsuitable substrates die because their immobility prevents them from relocating to more favorable habitat. Juvenile freshwater mussels burrow into interstitial substrates and grow to a larger size that is less susceptible to predation and displacement from high flow events (Yeager et al. 1994, p. 220). Throughout the rest of their life cycle, mussels generally remain within the same small area where they excysted from the host fish.

    Life span is not known for the Texas hornshell, although two adult individuals were captured and marked in the Black River in New Mexico in 1997, and were recaptured 15 years later (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 5). Species in the subfamily Ambleminae, which includes Texas hornshell, commonly live more than 20 years (Carman 2007, p. 9), so we assume the Texas hornshell can live at least 20 years.

    Little is known about the specific feeding habits of Texas hornshell. Like all adult freshwater mussels, Texas hornshell are filter feeders, siphoning suspended phytoplankton and detritus from the water column (Yeager et al. 1994, p. 221; Carman 2007, p. 8).

    Habitat and Range

    Adult Texas hornshell occur in medium to large rivers, in habitat not typical for most mussel species: In crevices, undercut riverbanks, travertine shelves, and under large boulders adjacent to runs (Carman 2007, p. 6; Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8), although in the Devils River, the species is found in gravel beds at the heads of riffles and rapids (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8). Small-grained material, such as clay, silt, or sand, gathers in these crevices and provides suitable anchoring substrate. These crevices are considered to be flow refuges from the large flood events that occur regularly in the rivers this species occupies. Texas hornshell are able to use these flow refuges to avoid being swept away as large volumes of water move through the system, as there is relatively little particle movement in the flow refuges, even during flooding (Strayer 1999, p. 472). Texas hornshell are not known from lakes, ponds, or reservoirs.

    The Texas hornshell historically ranged throughout the Rio Grande drainage in the United States (New Mexico and Texas) and Mexico as well as Mexican Gulf Coast streams south to the northern Mexican state of Veracruz (Johnson 1999, p. 23). Currently, five known populations of Texas hornshell remain in the United States: Black River (Eddy County, New Mexico), Pecos River (Val Verde County, Texas), Devils River (Val Verde County, Texas), Lower Canyons of the Rio Grande (Brewster and Terrell Counties, Texas), and Lower Rio Grande near Laredo (Webb County, Texas) (Map 1). They are described briefly below.

    EP10AU16.000

    Black River: The Black River, in Eddy County, New Mexico, originates from several groundwater-fed springs and flows approximately 30 miles (mi) (48 kilometers (km)) through the Chihuahuan Desert until its confluence with the Pecos River (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 3) near Malaga, New Mexico. Extensive population monitoring (Lang 2001, entire; 2006, entire; 2010, entire; 2011, entire) and a long-term mark-recapture study (Inoue et al. 2014, entire) have yielded significant information about the population size and extent. Texas hornshell occur in approximately 8.7 mi (14.0 km) of the middle Black River, between two low-head (small) dams (Lang 2001, p. 20). The total population size has been estimated at approximately 48,000 individuals (95 percent confidence interval: 28,849-74,127) (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 7), with a diversity of size classes, primarily aggregated in flow refuges within narrow riffles. The population remained relatively stable over the 15 year study period from 1997 to 2012 (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 6).

    Pecos River: In the Pecos River, inundation from Amistad Reservoir has resulted in the extirpation of Texas hornshell from the lower reaches of the river. Additionally, salinity levels are too high for freshwater mussel habitation in much of the Pecos River from the confluence with the Black River in New Mexico, downstream to the confluence with Independence Creek. However, three live Texas hornshell were collected from a small section of the Pecos River downstream of the confluence with Independence Creek and upstream of Amistad Reservoir near Pandale in Val Verde County, Texas, as well as 37 shells (Bosman et al. 2016, p. 6; Randklev et al. 2016, p. 9). Farther downstream, only dead shells were found in 2016, although they were numerous (Bosman et al. 2016, p. 6; Randklev et al. 2016, p. 9). Live individuals had not been collected at this location since 1973 (Randklev et al. 2016, p. 4).

    Because the sample size of live individuals is so small (three live individuals found in recent months), it is difficult to draw many conclusions about the population. The population appears to be extremely small, and no evidence of reproduction was noted.

    Devils River: Texas hornshell were historically found in the Devils River and were known to occupy only the lower reaches of the river, which are currently inundated by Amistad Reservoir (Neck 1984, p. 11; Johnson 1999, p. 23; Burlakova and Karatayev 2014, p. 19). In recent years, 11 individuals were collected from upstream in the Devils River between 2008 and 2014 (Burlakova and Karatayev 2014, p. 16; Karatayev et al. 2015, p. 4). More intensive surveys conducted in 2014 and 2015, including 11 sites, have yielded 48 individuals at two sites: All from The Nature Conservancy's Dolan Falls Preserve except for a singleton at the Devils River State Natural Area's Dan A. Hughes Unit (formerly known as the Big Satan Unit) (Randklev et al. 2015, pp. 6-7). Because of the increased number of individuals collected in 2014 and 2105, it is likely that the Devils River population is more numerous than previously thought, although we do not expect that this population is particularly large based on the limited number of collections to date. Interestingly, Texas hornshell in the Devils River occupy different habitats than those in the rest of the range; instead of being found under rock slabs and in travertine shelves, they occupy gravel beds at the heads of riffles or in clean-swept pools with bedrock (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8). Even though the number of collected individuals is small, several young individuals were found, as well as females brooding glochidia (gravid females) (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8), indicating reproduction and recruitment (offspring survive to join the reproducing population) are occurring in the Devils River population.

    Rio Grande—Lower Canyons: One of two remaining populations of Texas hornshell in the Rio Grande is found in the Lower Canyons, just downstream of Big Bend National Park, in Terrell County, Texas. Burlakova and Karatayev (2014, p. 16) found the species in low density (approximately 40 individuals per km) in this region of the Rio Grande. Subsequent surveys by Randklev et al. (2015, entire) confirmed the presence of Texas hornshell in approximately 18.5 mi (30 km) of the Lower Canyons in two sections, finding that the species occupies approximately 63 percent of sites with suitable (rocky) habitat. For purposes of this analysis, we presume the entire section between these collections, approximately 62 mi (100 km), is occupied. Sites in the Rio Grande—Lower Canyons reach vary in density, with the densest sites near Sanderson Canyon, Terrell County, Texas, and decreasing downstream (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 13); the average density of Texas hornshell at each site is lower compared to the Black River and Rio Grande—Laredo (5 ± 14 individuals per site). Texas hornshell may occur between the known occupied sections, near the confluence with San Francisco Creek (Howells 2001a, p. 6), but limited access has prevented recent surveys from determining current occupancy of this reach. Young individuals and gravid females have been found throughout the Lower Canyons reach, indicating recruitment is occurring (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8).

    Rio Grande—Laredo: The largest Texas hornshell population occurs from Laredo, Texas (near La Bota Ranch just northwest of Laredo), upstream approximately 56 mi (90 km) (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 7). The density in this reach is high, with some habitat patches containing more than 8,000 individuals (Karatayev et al. 2015, p. 4) and 100 percent of surveyed patches of suitable habitat containing Texas hornshell (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 7). Throughout this reach, the density of Texas hornshell is estimated 170 ± 131 individuals per suitable (rocky) habitat site (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 7). Young individuals and gravid females have been found throughout the Laredo reach, indicating reproduction and recruitment are occurring (Randklev et al. 2015, p. 8). No live Texas hornshell have been found downstream of the city of Laredo in recent years.

    Mexico: A large portion of the Texas hornshell's estimated historical range is in Mexico. The species occurred in the Rio Salado basin, which is a tributary to the Rio Grande in Mexico, and in approximately 15 rivers that flow into the Gulf of Mexico. At one time, one-half to two-thirds of the species' range may have been in Mexico. Unfortunately, the most recent live collections of Texas hornshell in Mexico occurred in the 1980s (Mussel Project 2015, entire), and we have very few records of surveys with positive or negative collection data since that time. We have no information on population size or extent during those times of collection, and we also have no information on whether populations of Texas hornshell still occur in one or more of these streams; therefore, we have very low confidence in the species' current condition throughout most of the Mexican range. One or more of these populations may still be extant, or they may all be extirpated.

    Species Needs

    Texas hornshell need seams of fine sediment in crevices, undercut riverbanks, travertine shelves, and large boulders in riverine ecosystems with flowing water and periodic cleansing flows to keep the substrate free of fine sediment accumulation. They need water quality parameters to be within a suitable range (i.e., dissolved oxygen above 3 milligrams/liter (mg/L), salinity below 0.9 parts per thousand, and ammonia below 0.7 mg/L (Sparks and Strayer 1998, p. 132; Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2574; Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2025; Carman 2007, p. 6)) and phytoplankton as food. Finally, Texas hornshell need host fish to be present during times of spawning.

    We describe the Texas hornshell's viability by characterizing the status of the species in terms of its resiliency (ability of the populations to withstand stochastic events), redundancy (ability of the species to withstand large-scale, catastrophic events), and representation (the ability of the species to adapt to changing environmental conditions). Using various time frames and the current and projected resiliency, redundancy, and representation, we describe the species' level of viability over time. For the Texas hornshell to maintain viability, its populations or some portion thereof must be resilient. A number of factors influence the resiliency of Texas hornshell populations, including occupied stream length, abundance, and recruitment. Elements of Texas hornshell habitat that determine whether Texas hornshell populations can grow to maximize habitat occupancy influence those factors, thereby increasing the resiliency of populations. These resiliency factors and habitat elements are discussed here.

    Occupied Stream Length: Most freshwater mussels, including Texas hornshell, are found in aggregations, called mussel beds, that vary in size from about 50 to greater than 5,000 square meters (m2) (540 to greater than 53,800 square feet (ft2)), separated by stream reaches in which mussels are absent or rare (Vaughn 2012, p. 983). Resilient Texas hornshell populations must occupy stream reaches sufficient in length such that stochastic events that affect individual mussel beds do not eliminate the entire population. Repopulation by fish infested with Texas hornshell glochidia from other mussel beds within the reach, if present and connected, can allow the population to recover from these events.

    Abundance: Mussel abundance in a given stream reach is a product of the number of mussel beds times the density of mussels within those beds. For populations of Texas hornshell to be resilient, there must be many mussel beds of sufficient density (~200 individuals per 150 m2 (1,614 ft2); see SSA report for more discussion) such that local stochastic events do not necessarily eliminate the bed(s), allowing the mussel bed and the overall population in the stream reach to recover from any one event. We measure Texas hornshell abundance by the number of beds within the population, and the estimated density of Texas hornshell within each.

    Reproduction: Resilient Texas hornshell populations must also be reproducing and recruiting young individuals into the reproducing population. Population size and abundance reflects previous influences on the population and habitat, while reproduction and recruitment reflect population trends that may be stable, increasing, or decreasing. Detection of very young juvenile mussels during routine abundance and distribution surveys happens extremely rarely due to sampling bias; sampling for this species involves tactile searches, and mussels below about 35 millimeters (mm) (1.4 inches (in)) are very hard to detect. Therefore, reproduction is verified by repeatedly capturing small-sized individuals near the low end of the detectable range size (about 35 mm (1.4 in)) over time and by capturing gravid females during the reproductively active time of year (generally, March through August (Smith et al. 2003, p. 335)).

    Substrate: Texas hornshell occur in flow refuges such as crevices, undercut riverbanks, travertine shelves, and large boulders. These refuges must have seams of clay or other fine sediments within which the mussels may anchor, but not so much excess sediment that the mussels are smothered. Those areas with clean-swept substrate with seams of fine sediments are considered to have suitable substrate, and those with copious fine sediment both in crevices and on the stream bottom are considered less suitable.

    Flowing Water: Texas hornshell need flowing water for survival. They are not found in lakes or in pools without flow, or in areas that are regularly dewatered. River reaches with continuous flow are considered suitable habitat, while those with little or no flow are considered not suitable.

    Water Quality: Freshwater mussels, as a group, are sensitive to changes in water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, salinity, ammonia, and pollutants (i.e., dissolved oxygen above 3 mg/L, salinity below 0.9 parts per thousand, and ammonia below 0.7 mg/L (Sparks and Strayer 1998, p. 132; Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2574; Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2025; Carman 2007, p. 6)). Habitats with appropriate levels of these parameters are considered suitable, while those habitats with levels outside of the appropriate ranges are considered less suitable.

    Maintaining representation in the form of genetic or ecological diversity is important to maintain the Texas hornshell's capacity to adapt to future environmental changes. Texas hornshell populations in the Rio Grande and Devils River (and, presumably, the Pecos River, due to its proximity to Rio Grande populations) have distinct variation in allele frequencies from those in the Black River (Inoue et al. 2015, p. 1916). We expect additional variation was present in Mexican populations. Mussels, like Texas hornshell, need to retain populations throughout their range to maintain the overall potential genetic and life-history attributes that can buffer the species' response to environmental changes over time (Jones et al. 2006, p. 531). The Texas hornshell has likely lost genetic diversity as populations have been extirpated. As such, maintaining the remaining representation in the form of genetic diversity may be important to the capacity of the Texas hornshell to adapt to future environmental change.

    Finally, the Texas hornshell needs to have multiple resilient populations distributed throughout its range to provide for redundancy, the ability of the species to withstand catastrophic events. The more populations, and the wider the distribution of those populations, the more redundancy the species will exhibit. Redundancy reduces the risk that a large portion of the species' range will be negatively affected by a catastrophic natural or anthropogenic event at a given point in time. Species that are well-distributed across their historical range are considered less susceptible to extinction and have higher viability than species confined to a small portion of their range (Carroll et al. 2010, entire; Redford et al. 2011, entire).

    Summary of Biological Status and Threats

    The Act directs us to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any factors affecting its continued existence. We completed a comprehensive assessment of the biological status of the Texas hornshell, and prepared a report of the assessment, which provides a thorough account of the species' overall viability. In this section, we summarize the conclusions of that assessment, which can be accessed at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077 on http://www.regulations.gov.

    Risk Factors

    We reviewed the potential risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) that could be affecting the Texas hornshell now and in the future. In this proposed rule, we will discuss only those factors in detail that could meaningfully impact the status of the species. Those risks that are not known to have effects on Texas hornshell populations, such as collection and disease, are not discussed here. The primary risk factors (i.e., threats) affecting the status of the Texas hornshell are: (1) Increased fine sediment (Factor A from the Act), (2) water quality impairment (Factor A), (3) loss of flowing water (Factor A), (4) barriers to fish movement (Factor E), and (5) increased predation (Factor C). These factors are all exacerbated by climate change. Finally, we reviewed the conservation efforts being undertaken for the species.

    Increased Fine Sediment

    Texas hornshell require seams of fine sediment under boulders and bedrock and in streambanks in order to anchor themselves into place on the stream bottom; however, too much fine sediment can fill in these crevices and smother any mussels within those spaces. Under natural conditions, fine sediments collect on the streambed and in crevices during low flow events, and they are washed downstream during high flow events (also known as cleansing flows). However, the increased frequency of low flow events (from groundwater extraction, instream surface flow diversions, and drought), combined with a decrease in cleansing flows (from reservoir management and drought), has caused sediment to accumulate to some degree at all populations. When water velocity decreases, which can occur from reduced streamflow or inundation, water loses its ability to carry sediment in suspension; sediment falls to the substrate, eventually smothering mussels that cannot adapt to soft substrates (Watters 2000, p. 263). Sediment accumulation can be exacerbated when there is a simultaneous increase in the sources of fine sediments in a watershed. In the range of Texas hornshell, these sources include streambank erosion from agricultural activities, livestock grazing, and roads, among others.

    Interstitial spaces (small openings between rocks and gravels) in the substrate provide essential habitat for juvenile mussels. Juvenile freshwater mussels burrow into interstitial substrates, making them particularly susceptible to degradation of this habitat feature. When clogged with sand or silt, interstitial flow rates and spaces may become reduced (Brim Box and Mossa 1999, p. 100), thus reducing juvenile habitat availability.

    All populations of Texas hornshell face the risk of fine sediment accumulation to varying degrees. Elimination of Texas hornshell from mussel beds due to large amounts of sediment deposition has been documented on the Black River in two locations in recent years. In the future, we expect this may continue to occur sporadically. Fine sediments are also accumulating at the Rio Grande—Laredo population. Low water levels on the Devils River will likely lead to additional sediment accumulation at this population, as well. In the future, we expect lower flows to occur more often at all populations and for longer periods due to climate change.

    Water Quality Impairment

    Water quality can be impaired through contamination or alteration of water chemistry. Chemical contaminants are ubiquitous throughout the environment and are a major reason for the current declining status of freshwater mussel species nationwide (Augspurger et al. 2007, p. 2025). Chemicals enter the environment through both point and nonpoint discharges, including spills, industrial sources, municipal effluents, and agricultural runoff. These sources contribute organic compounds, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, and a wide variety of newly emerging contaminants to the aquatic environment. Ammonia is of particular concern below water treatment plants because freshwater mussels have been shown to be particularly sensitive to increased ammonia levels (Augspurger et al. 2003, p. 2569). It is likely for this reason that Texas hornshell are not found for many miles downstream of two wastewater treatment plants that discharge into the Rio Grande: at Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and at Eagle Pass, Texas (Karatayev et al. 2015, p. 14).

    An additional type of water quality impairment is alteration of water quality parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature, and salinity levels. Dissolved oxygen levels may be reduced from increased nutrients in the water column from runoff or wastewater effluent, and juveniles seem to be particularly sensitive to low dissolved oxygen (Sparks and Strayer 1998, pp. 132-133). Increased water temperature from climate change and from low flows during drought can exacerbate low dissolved oxygen levels as well as have its own effects on both juvenile and adult mussels. Finally, salinity appears to be particularly limiting to Texas hornshell. The aquifer near Malaga, New Mexico, contains saline water. As the saline water emerges from the ground, it is diluted by surface flow. As surface flow decreases, however, the concentration of salinity in the river increases. Additionally, aquifers have become increasingly saline due to salinized water recharge (Hoagstrom 2009, p. 35). Irrigation return flows exacerbate salinity levels as salts build up on irrigated land and then are washed into the riverway. The Pecos River from the confluence with the Black River to the confluence with Independence Creek has become particularly saline in the past few decades, with levels at 7 parts per million (ppm) or higher, which is too high for freshwater mussel habitation. Additionally, the Black River downstream of the Texas hornshell population has had salinity levels in the range of 6 ppm, which may be one reason the population has been extirpated from the downstream reach.

    Contaminant spills are also a concern. In particular, the Black River population is vulnerable to spills from the high volume of truck traffic crossing the river at low water access points (Bren School of Environmental Management 2014, p. 26). Due to the topography and steep slopes of these areas, spilled contaminants and contaminated soils could directly enter the surface water of the river and negatively impact the species (Boyer 1986, p. 300) and downstream habitat. For the smaller populations (Black, Devils, Pecos rivers), a single spill could eliminate the entire population.

    A reduction in surface flow from drought, instream diversion, or groundwater extraction concentrates contaminant and salinity levels, increases water temperatures in streams, and exacerbates effects to Texas hornshell.

    Poor water quality affects most Texas hornshell populations currently to some degree, and future water quality is expected to decrease due to decreasing river flow and increasing temperatures. The Pecos River experiences very high salinity levels upstream of the existing population, and we expect that the observed high mortality of the Pecos River population is due to salinity pulses. Rangewide, as water flow is expected to decrease due to climate change, water quality will decline.

    Loss of Flowing Water

    Texas hornshell populations need flowing water in order to survive. Low flow events (including stream drying) and inundation can eliminate appropriate habitat for Texas hornshell, and while the species can survive these events if they last for a short time, populations that experience these events regularly will not persist.

    Inundation has primarily occurred upstream of dams, both large (such as Amistad, Falcon, and Red Bluff Dams) and small (low water crossings and diversion dams, such as those on the Black River). Inundation causes an increase in sediment deposition, eliminating the crevices this species inhabits. In large reservoirs, deep water is very cold and often devoid of oxygen and necessary nutrients. Cold water (less than 11 degrees Celsius (°C) (52 degrees Fahrenheit (°F))) has been shown to stunt mussel growth (Hanson et al. 1988, p. 352). Because glochidial release may be temperature dependent, it is likely that relict individuals living in the constantly cold hypolimnion (deepest portion of the reservoir) in these reservoirs may never reproduce, or reproduce less frequently. Additionally, the effects of these reservoirs extend beyond inundation and fragmentation of populations; the reservoirs are managed for flood control and water delivery, and the resultant downstream releases rarely mimic natural flow regimes, tempering the natural fluctuations in flow that flush fine sediments from the substrate.

    At the Rio Grande—Laredo population, a low-water weir has been proposed for construction (Rio Grande Regional Water Planning Group 2016, p. 8-8). The dam would be located just downstream of the La Bota area, which contains the largest known and most dense Texas hornshell bed within the Rio Grande—Laredo population and rangewide. The impounded area would extend approximately 14 mi (22.5 km) upstream, effectively eliminating habitat for Texas hornshell from 25 percent of the currently occupied area and likely leading to extirpation of the densest sites within this population.

    Very low water levels are detrimental to Texas hornshell populations, as well. Effects of climate change have already begun to affect the regions of Texas and New Mexico where the Texas hornshell occurs, resulting in higher air temperatures, increased evaporation, increased groundwater pumping, and changing precipitation patterns such that water levels rangewide have already reached historic lows (Dean and Schmidt 2011, p. 336; Bren School of Environmental Management 2014, p. 50). The rivers inhabited by Texas hornshell have some resiliency to drought because they are spring-fed (Black and Devils Rivers) and very large (Rio Grande), but drought in combination with increased groundwater pumping and regulated reservoir releases may lead to lower river flows of longer duration than have been recorded in the past. Streamflow in the Rio Grande downstream of the confluence with the Rio Conchos (near the Rio Grande-Lower Canyons population) has been declining since the 1980s (Miyazono et al. 2015, p. A-3), and overall river discharge for the Rio Grande is projected to continue to decline due to increased drought as a result of climate change (Nohara et al. 2006, p. 1087). The Rio Conchos contributes more than 90 percent of the flow of the lower Rio Grande (Dean and Schmidt 2011, p. 4). However, during times of drought (such as between 1994 and 2003), Mexico has fallen short of its water delivery commitments, and so the contribution of the Rio Conchos has fallen to as low as 40 percent (Carter et al. 2015, p. 15). The Rio Grande—Lower Canyons population is downstream of the confluence with the Rio Conchos and is at risk from these reduced deliveries. The Rio Grande—Lower Canyons is very incised (in other words, has vertical banks), and the population occurs in crevices along the steep banks. Due to the habitat characteristics of this population, reductions in discharge in this area may lead to a higher proportion of the Texas hornshell population being exposed than would be found in other populations experiencing similar flow decreases.

    In the Black River, surface water is removed from the river for irrigation, including the Carlsbad Irrigation District's Black River Canal at the diversion dam. Studies have shown that flows in the river are affected by groundwater withdrawals, particularly those from the Black River Valley. Groundwater in the Black River watershed is also being used for hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas activities. Between 4.3 acre-feet (187,308 ft3 (5,304 m3)) and 10.7 acre-feet (466,091 ft3 (13,198 m3)) of water is used for each hydraulic fracturing job (Bren School of Environmental Management 2014, p. 91). Overall, mean monthly discharge has already declined since the mid-1990s, and mean monthly temperatures have increased over the past 100 years (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 7). In the Black River, survivorship is positively correlated with discharge (Inoue et al. 2014, p. 9); as mean monthly discharge decreases, we expect Texas hornshell survivorship to decrease, as well. The Black River is expected to lose streamflow in the future due to air temperature increases, groundwater extraction, and reduced precipitation.

    In the Devils River, future water withdrawals from aquifers that support spring flows in the range of the Texas hornshell could result in reduction of critical spring flows and river drying. In particular, there have been multiple proposals to withdraw water from the nearby aquifer and deliver the water to municipalities (e.g., Val Verde Water Company 2013, pp. 1-2). To date, however, none have been approved.

    As spring flows decline due to drought or groundwater lowering from pumping, habitat for the Texas hornshell is reduced and could eventually cease to exist. While Texas hornshell may survive short periods of low flow, as low flows persist, mussels face oxygen deprivation, increased water temperature, and, ultimately, stranding.

    Barriers to Fish Movement

    Two of the Texas hornshell's primary host fish species (river carpsucker and red shiner) are known to be common, widespread species. We do not expect the distribution of host fish to be a limiting factor in Texas hornshell distribution. However, the barriers that prevent fish movement upstream and downstream affect the viability of Texas hornshell.

    Texas hornshell were likely historically distributed throughout the Rio Grande, Pecos River, Devils River, and Black River in Texas and New Mexico, as well as throughout the rivers draining to the Gulf of Mexico from which the species was known when few natural barriers existed to prevent migration (via host species) among suitable habitats. The species colonized new areas through movement of infested host fish, and newly metamorphosed juveniles would excyst from host fish in new locations. Today, the remaining populations are significantly isolated from one another such that recolonization of areas previously extirpated is extremely unlikely if not impossible due to existing contemporary barriers to host fish movement. The primary reason for this isolation is reservoir construction and unsuitable water quality. The Black River is isolated from the rest of the populations by high salinity reaches of the Pecos River, as well as Red Bluff Reservoir, and is hundreds of river miles from the nearest extant population. Amistad Reservoir separates the three Texas populations from each other, isolating the Rio Grande—Lower Canyons, Devils River, and Rio Grande—Laredo populations. There is currently no opportunity for interaction among any of the five extant U.S. populations.

    The overall distribution of mussels is, in part, a function of the dispersal of their host fish. Small populations are more affected by this limited immigration potential because they are susceptible to genetic drift (random loss of genetic diversity) and inbreeding depression. At the species level, populations that are eliminated due to stochastic events cannot be recolonized naturally, leading to reduced overall redundancy and representation.

    Increased Predation

    Predation on freshwater mussels is a natural ecological interaction. Raccoons, snapping turtles, and fish are known to prey upon Texas hornshell. Under natural conditions, the level of predation occurring within Texas hornshell populations is not likely to pose a significant risk to any given population. However, during periods of low flow, terrestrial predators have increased access to portions of the river that are otherwise too deep under normal flow conditions. High levels of predation during drought have been observed on the Devils River, and muskrat predation has also been reported on the Black River. As drought and low flow conditions are predicted to occur more often and for longer periods due to the effects of climate change, the Black and Devils Rivers are expected to experience additional predation pressure into the future. Predation is expected to be less of a concern for the Rio Grande populations, as the river is significantly larger than the Black and Devils Rivers and Texas hornshell are less likely to be found in exposed or very shallow portions of the stream.

    Effects of Climate Change

    Climate change in the form of the change in timing and amount of precipitation and air temperature increase is occurring, and continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates will cause further warming (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013, pp. 11-12). Warming in the Southwest is expected to be greatest in the summer (IPCC 2013, pp. 11-12), and annual mean precipitation is very likely to decrease in the Southwest (Ray et al. 2008, p. 1; IPCC 2013, pp. 11-12). In Texas, the number of extreme hot days (high temperatures exceeding 95 °F (35 °C) are expected to double by around 2050 (Kinniburgh et al. 2015, p. 83), and Texas is considered one of the “hotspots” of climate change in North America; west Texas is an area expected to show greater responsiveness to the effects of climate change (Diffenbaugh et al. 2008, p. 3). Even if precipitation and groundwater recharge remain at current levels, increased groundwater pumping and resultant aquifer shortages due to increased temperatures are nearly certain (Loaiciga et al. 2000, p. 193; Mace and Wade 2008, pp. 662, 664-665; Taylor et al. 2012, p. 3). Increased water temperature can cause stress to individuals, decrease dissolved oxygen levels, and increase toxicity of contaminants. Effects of climate change, such as air temperature increases and an increase in drought frequency and intensity, have been shown to be occurring throughout the range of Texas hornshell (Kinniburgh et al. 2015, p. 88), and these effects are expected to exacerbate several of the stressors discussed above, such as water temperature and flow loss (Wuebbles et al. 2013, p. 16). As we projected the future condition of the Texas hornshell and which stressors are likely to occur, we considered climate change to be an exacerbating factor in the increase of fine sediments, changes in water quality, and loss of flowing water.

    Due to the effects of ongoing climate change, we expect the frequency and duration of cleansing flows to decrease, leading to the increase in fine sediments and reduced water levels at all populations. More extreme climate change projections lead to further increases in fine sediment within the populations. Similarly, as lower water levels concentrate contaminants and cause unsuitable temperature and dissolved oxygen levels, we expect water quality to decline to some degree in the future.

    Conservation Actions and Regulatory Mechanisms

    About 7 percent of known occupied habitat for the Texas hornshell is in New Mexico, and the Service is collaborating with water users, oil and gas developers, landowners, and other partners to develop candidate conservation agreements (CCAs) for the species on State, Federal, and private lands. These agreements are currently under development, and the potential purpose is to provide voluntary conservation that would reduce threats to the species while improving physical habitat and water quality. The key conservation measures in the agreements will be designed to limit oil and gas development to areas outside of the Black and Delaware River floodplains, minimize erosion, and maintain minimum water flows in the rivers. Along with these measures, the partners to the agreement are evaluating alternatives to the multiple low water crossings on the Black River. Partners are considering alternate crossing locations, which could include bridges designed to allow host fishes to pass through in addition to decreasing potential contamination events. Because these agreements have not been completed, we are not considering the conservation actions in our present evaluation of the status of Texas hornshell.

    The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish has begun Texas hornshell reintroduction efforts into the Delaware River, which is within the historical range of the species. Adults and infested host fish were released in suitable habitat in the Delaware River in 2013 and 2015. Many of the released adults have been subsequently located, and success of the reintroduction will be determined in the coming years. We expect the reintroduction effort to continue over the next several years, but we are not considering the action to have been successful to date.

    In Texas, The Nature Conservancy and Texas Parks and Wildlife Department manage lands under their purview in the Devils River watershed for native communities, including Texas hornshell. The large amount (over 200,000 acres) of land in conservation management in the Devils River watershed reduces the risks to Texas hornshell from sediment inputs and contaminants.

    In the Rio Grande, we are not aware of any management actions for Texas hornshell. The Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts has established an Endangered Species Task Force and has funded much of the recent research in Texas on Texas hornshell, which has led to greater understanding of the species' distribution in the State.

    Current Condition

    Overall, there are five known remaining populations of Texas hornshell, comprising approximately 15 percent of the species' historical range in the United States (see Map 1, above). Historically, most Texas hornshell populations were likely connected by fish migration throughout the Rio Grande, upstream through the Pecos River, and throughout the tributaries, but due to impoundments and river reaches with unsuitable water quality (for example, high salinity) they are currently isolated from one another, and repopulation of extirpated locations is unlikely to occur without human assistance. Here we discuss the current condition of each known population, taking into account the risks to those populations that are currently occurring, as well as management actions that are currently occurring to address those risks. We consider low levels of climate change to be currently occurring, resulting in reduced timing and amount of streamflow, increased stream temperatures, and increased accumulation of fine sediments.

    Black River: The Black River population is quite dense and recruitment appears to be high, but the short size (8.7 mi (14.0 km)) of the occupied reach limits this population's resiliency. Accumulation of fine sediment in the substrate has already occurred due to increased sediment input into the river from road crossings, culverts, and cattle grazing, combined with a decreased frequency of cleansing river flows. The current level of climate change will continue to reduce flow in the river from groundwater extraction and drought, resulting in fewer cleansing flows and increased fine sediments. The distribution of Texas hornshell in the Black River will remain small, and the risk of a contaminant spill will remain high, resulting in a high likelihood that water quality will become unsuitable and reduce abundance of Texas hornshell significantly. Therefore, taking into account the current threats to the population and its distribution within the river, the Texas hornshell population in the Black River has low resiliency.

    Pecos River: The Pecos River population is extremely small and exhibits no evidence of reproduction. The few number of live individuals among the very high number of dead shells indicates a population in severe decline; this is likely due to high salinity levels in the river upstream of the population. There is a high likelihood this population will be extirpated in the near future due to water quality alone. Therefore, the Pecos River population of Texas hornshell has very low resiliency.

    Devils River: The Devils River population has low abundance and has exhibited some evidence of reproduction. The current level of climate change will continue to reduce flow in the Devils River due to groundwater extraction and drought. The low flows this population experiences during dry times will continue to become more frequent and prolonged. Because Texas hornshell in the Devils River occur at the heads of riffles, they are vulnerable to complete flow loss when water levels drop. The reduction in cleansing flows will also result in the accumulation of fine sediments, reducing substrate quality. Low flows will also affect water quality parameters such as temperature and dissolved oxygen, causing them to become unsuitable for Texas hornshell. Additionally, the species is already vulnerable to predation from terrestrial predators during times of low flow; predation will occur more frequently as periods of low flow become more common. Overall, because the population is currently small and would be unlikely to grow, the Devils River population has low resiliency.

    Rio Grande—Lower Canyons: The Lower Canyons population has relatively high abundance and evidence of recruitment. Drought and groundwater extraction resulting from currently observed levels of climate change will continue to lower water levels in the Rio Grande—Lower Canyons population of Texas hornshell. We expect that Mexico's management of the Rio Conchos will continue to be an unreliable source of water. This section of the Rio Grande is relatively deep and incised, and the population of Texas hornshell primarily occurs in crevices along the banks. Water flow reductions would expose a high proportion of the existing population; therefore, this reduction in flow will likely have a larger effect on the population size than in other populations, although at a small to moderate decrease in water flow we still expect abundance to be maintained at moderate levels. Overall, the Rio Grande—Lower Canyons population exhibits moderate resiliency.

    Rio Grande—Laredo: Similar to the Lower Canyons population, the Laredo population has numerous mussel beds with high Texas hornshell abundance and evidence of reproduction. However, drought and upstream water management will continue to reduce flows in the Rio Grande. Water quality will continue to decrease due to lower flows, and fine sediments will accumulate. Declining water flow will cause fine sediments to accumulate and water quality to decline, leading to a decline in population abundance. Overall, the Rio Grande—Laredo has moderate resiliency.

    Mexico: We have low confidence in the species' current condition throughout most of the Mexican range. One or more of these populations may still be extant, or they may all be extirpated. We have no recent data on the species' occurrence in Mexico; the last live recordings are from the mid-1980s. Because of this uncertainty, we did not rely on the Texas hornshell's distribution in Mexico when evaluating the viability of the species.

    Future Condition

    As part of the SSA, we also developed multiple future condition scenarios to capture the range of uncertainties regarding future threats and the projected responses by the Texas hornshell. Our scenarios included a status quo scenario, which incorporated the current risk factors continuing on the same trajectory that they are on now. We also evaluated four additional future scenarios that incorporated varying levels of increasing risk factors with elevated negative effects on hornshell populations. However, because we determined that the current condition of the Texas hornshell and the associated status quo projections were consistent with an endangered species (see Determination, below), we are not presenting the results of the other future scenarios in this proposed rule. The additional future scenarios project conditions that are worse for the Texas hornshell. Since the status quo scenario was determined to be endangered, other projected scenarios would also be endangered, as they forecast conditions that are more at risk of extinction than the status quo. Please refer to the SSA report (Service 2016) for the full analysis of future scenarios.

    Determination

    Section 4 of the Act, and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under section 4(b)(1)(a), the Secretary is to make endangered or threatened determinations required by subsection 4(a)(1) solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available to her after conducting a review of the status of the species and after taking into account conservation efforts by States or foreign nations. The standards for determining whether a species is endangered or threatened are provided in section 3 of the Act. An endangered species is any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is any species that is “likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Per section 4(a)(1) of the Act, in reviewing the status of the species to determine if it meets the definition of endangered or of threatened, we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species because of any of the following five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in combination.

    The fundamental question before the Service is whether the species warrants protection as an endangered or threatened species under the Act. To make this determination, we evaluated extinction risk, described in terms of the current condition of populations and their distribution (taking into account the risk factors (i.e., threats, stressors) and their effects on those populations). For any species, as population conditions decline and distribution shrinks, the species' overall viability declines and extinction risk increases.

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the Texas hornshell. Our analysis of the past, current, and future influences on what the Texas hornshell needs for long-term viability revealed that there are five influences that may pose a meaningful risk to the viability of the species. These are primarily related to habitat changes (Factor A from the Act): The accumulation of fine sediments, the loss of flowing water, and impairment of water quality, all of which are exacerbated by the effects of climate change. Predation (Factor C) is also affecting those populations already experiencing low stream flow, and barriers to fish movement (Factor E) prevent recolonization after stochastic events.

    The Texas hornshell has declined significantly in overall distribution and abundance, with the species currently occupying approximately 15 percent of its historical range in the United States. Between one-half and two-thirds of the Texas hornshell's historical range occurred in Mexico; we have very low confidence in the species' current condition throughout most of the Mexican range. The resulting remnant populations occupy shorter reaches compared to presumed historical populations, and they are all isolated from one another.

    The primary historical reason for this reduction in range was reservoir construction and unsuitable water quality. Large reservoirs have been constructed on the Rio Grande and Pecos River, and much of the Pecos River upstream of the confluence with Independence Creek now has salinity levels too high for mussel habitation (Hoagstrom 2009, p. 28). The effects of these reservoirs extend beyond fragmentation of populations; the resultant downstream water releases do not mimic natural flow regimes, and the change in timing and frequency of cleansing flows results in increases in fine sediments, increases in predation, and decreases in water quality. Add to this the exacerbating effects of climate change—increased temperature and decreased stream flow—and the remaining Texas hornshell populations face moderate to high levels of risk of extirpation currently. For the populations occupying the smaller reaches (such as the Black River, Devils River, and Pecos River populations), a single stochastic event such as contaminant spill or drought could eliminate an entire population of Texas hornshell. These effects are heightened at the species level because the isolation of the populations prohibits natural recolonization from host fish carrying Texas hornshell glochidia, which likely happened in the past and allowed for the species to ebb and flow from suitable areas.

    Populations in both large and small reaches face risks from natural and anthropogenic sources. Climate change has already begun to affect the regions of Texas and New Mexico where Texas hornshell occurs, resulting in higher air temperatures, increased evaporation, increased groundwater pumping, and changing precipitation patterns such that water levels rangewide have already reached historic lows. These low water levels put the populations at risk of habitat loss from increased fine sediments, poor water quality, and increased predation risk.

    These risks, alone or in combination, are expected to result in the extirpation of additional populations, further reducing the overall redundancy and representation of the species. Historically, the species, with a large range of interconnected populations, would have been resilient to stochastic events such as drought and sedimentation because even if some populations were extirpated by such events, they could be recolonized over time by dispersal from nearby surviving populations. This connectivity would have made for a highly resilient species overall. However, under current conditions, connectivity is prevented due to large reservoirs and unsuitably high salinity levels between populations. As a consequence of these current conditions, the viability of the Texas hornshell now primarily depends on maintaining the remaining isolated populations.

    Of the five remaining isolated populations, three are small in abundance and occupied stream length and have low to no resiliency. The remaining two are larger, with increased abundance and occupied stream length; however, flow reduction, water quality decline, and habitat loss from sedimentation reduce the abundance and distribution of those populations. We have no information on population status in Mexico. Therefore, the Texas hornshell has no populations that are currently considered highly resilient. The high risk of extirpation of these populations leads to low levels of redundancy (few populations will persist to withstand catastrophic events) and representation (little to no ecological or genetic diversity will persist to respond to changing environmental conditions). Overall, these low levels of resiliency, redundancy, and representation result in the Texas hornshell having low viability, and the species currently faces a high risk of extinction.

    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” and a threatened species as any species “that is likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.” We find that the Texas hornshell is presently in danger of extinction throughout its entire range based on the severity and immediacy of threats currently impacting the species. The overall range has been significantly reduced, and the remaining habitat and populations are threatened by a multitude of factors acting in combination to reduce the overall viability of the species. The risk of extinction is high because the remaining populations have a high risk of extirpation, are isolated, and have limited potential for recolonization. Therefore, on the basis of the best available scientific and commercial information, we propose listing the Texas hornshell as endangered in accordance with sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. We find that a threatened species status is not appropriate for the Texas hornshell because of the currently contracted range (loss of 85 percent of its historic range in the United States, and likely more in Mexico), because the threats are occurring across the entire range of the species, and because the threats are ongoing currently and are expected to continue or worsen into the future. Because the species is already in danger of extinction throughout its range, a threatened status is not appropriate.

    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Because we have determined that the Texas hornshell is endangered throughout all of its range, no portion of its range can be “significant” for purposes of the definitions of “endangered species” and “threatened species.” See the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase “Significant Portion of Its Range” in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of “Endangered Species” and “Threatened Species” (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014).

    Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness, and conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies; private organizations; and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the States and other countries and calls for recovery actions to be carried out for listed species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.

    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act calls for the Service to develop and implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning components of their ecosystems.

    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address continuing or new threats to the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The recovery plan also identifies recovery criteria for review of when a species may be ready for downlisting or delisting, and methods for monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site (http://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal agencies, States, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on Federal lands because their ranges may occur primarily or solely on non-Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and Tribal lands. If this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the academic community, and nongovernmental organizations. In addition, pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the States of Texas and New Mexico would be eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote the protection or recovery of the Texas hornshell. Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species recovery can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/grants.

    Although the Texas hornshell is only proposed for listing under the Act at this time, please let us know if you are interested in participating in recovery efforts for this species. Additionally, we invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it becomes available and any information you may have for recovery planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as an endangered or threatened species and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency must enter into consultation with the Service.

    Federal agency actions within the species' habitat that may require conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding paragraph include management and any other landscape-altering activities on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Park Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal Highway Administration.

    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to endangered wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the Act, codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these) endangered wildlife within the United States or on the high seas. In addition, it is unlawful to import; export; deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to employees of the Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, other Federal land management agencies, and State conservation agencies.

    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities involving endangered wildlife under certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22. With regard to endangered wildlife, a permit may be issued for the following purposes: For scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. There are also certain statutory exemptions from the prohibitions, which are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.

    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify to the maximum extent practicable at the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of a proposed listing on proposed and ongoing activities within the range of the species proposed for listing. Based on the best available information, if we list this species, the following actions are unlikely to result in a violation of section 9, if these activities are carried out in accordance with existing regulations and permit requirements; this list is not comprehensive:

    (1) Normal agricultural and silvicultural practices, including herbicide and pesticide use, which are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations, permit and label requirements, and best management practices; and

    (2) Normal residential landscape activities.

    Based on the best available information, if we list this species, the following activities may potentially result in a violation of section 9 of the Act; this list is not comprehensive:

    (1) Unauthorized handling or collecting of the species;

    (2) Modification of the channel or water flow of any stream in which the Texas hornshell is known to occur;

    (3) Livestock grazing that results in direct or indirect destruction of stream habitat; and

    (4) Discharge of chemicals or fill material into any waters in which the Texas hornshell is known to occur.

    Questions regarding whether specific activities would constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act should be directed to the Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

    Critical Habitat for the Texas Hornshell Background

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:

    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found those physical or biological features:

    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species, and

    (b) Which may require special management considerations or protection; and

    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.

    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.

    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner requests Federal agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions are based on the best scientific data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat.

    Prudency Determination

    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12), require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that the designation of critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other human activity, and identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.

    There is currently no imminent threat of take attributed to collection or vandalism under Factor B for the Texas hornshell, and identification and mapping of critical habitat is not likely to increase any such threat. In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to a species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits of designation include: (1) Triggering consultation under section 7 of the Act in new areas for actions in which there may be a Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur because, for example, it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the species. Therefore, because we have determined that the designation of critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to these species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Texas hornshell.

    Critical Habitat Determinability

    Having determined that designation is prudent, under section 4(a)(3) of the Act we must find whether critical habitat for the species is determinable. Our regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable when one or both of the following situations exist: (1) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the impacts of the designation is lacking, or (2) the biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.

    As discussed above, we have reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological needs of this species and habitat characteristics where this species is located. Because the biological needs are not sufficiently well known to permit identification of critical habitat, we are seeking additional information regarding updated occurrence records for the Texas hornshell, future climate change effects on the species' habitat, and other analyses. Therefore, we conclude that the designation of critical habitat is not determinable for the Texas hornshell at this time. We will make a determination on critical habitat no later than 1 year following any final listing determination.

    Required Determinations Clarity of the Rule

    We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:

    (1) Be logically organized;

    (2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;

    (3) Use clear language rather than jargon;

    (4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and

    (5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.

    If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long, the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

    National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

    References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available in Appendix A of the SSA Report (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Species status assessment report for the Texas hornshell (Popenaias popeii), Version 1.0. Albuquerque, NM), available online at http://www.regulations.gov, under Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2016-0077.

    Authors

    The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of the Texas Coastal Ecological Services Field Office.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

    Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

    PART 17—ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless otherwise noted.

    2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an entry for “Hornshell, Texas” to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in alphabetical order under Clams:
    § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

    (h) * * *

    Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules *         *         *         *         *         *         * Clams *         *         *         *         *         *         * Hornshell, Texas Popenaias popeii Wherever found E [Federal Register citation when published as a final rule.] *         *         *         *         *         *         *
    Dated: July 21, 2016. Stephen Guertin, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18816 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    81 154 Wednesday, August 10, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0012] Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Pomegranates From Peru Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available for the public to review and comment through a previous notice, we have concluded that the application of designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests via the importation of fresh pomegranates from Peru.

    DATES:

    Effective August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. David B. Lamb, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, PPQ, APHIS, USDA, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-2103; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13310, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0012), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk assessment (PRA) that identifies pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States. Based on the PRA, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the pomegranates to mitigate the pest risk. The risk management document recommended the following phytosanitary measures be applied to the importation of pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States:

    1 To view the notice, PRA, RMD, and comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0012.

    • The pomegranates must be imported as commercial consignments only;

    • Each consignment of pomegranates must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru;

    • Each consignment of pomegranates must be treated with irradiation in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

    • Each consignment of pomegranates is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    We solicited comments on the PRA and RMD for 60 days, ending on May 13, 2016. We received eight comments by that date, from an organization of State plant regulatory agencies, importers, the Peruvian Government, a U.S. port of entry, and private citizens.

    Seven of the commenters supported the importation of fresh pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States.

    One commenter interpreted our notice as a proposal to authorize the importation of pomegranates from Peru subject to any of the four phytosanitary measures recommended by the RMD. The commenter suggested the measures need to be jointly applied in order to mitigate the plant pest and noxious weed risk associated with the importation of pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States.

    We agree with the commenter. All four phytosanitary measures identified above must be applied to the importation of pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States in order to address plant pest and noxious weed risk.

    The same commenter stated that irradiation should have to occur in Peru or in States where the plant pests of quarantine significance that we identified as potentially following the pathway of importation of pomegranates from Peru could not become established.

    We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding irradiation of the pomegranates in areas of the United States where quarantine plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway of importation of the pomegranates from Peru could become established. Indeed, our regulations governing the approval of irradiation facilities in the United States, which are found in 7 CFR 305.9, require that, if an irradiation facility is located in a State where quarantine pests that are targeted by irradiation could become established, then it must take additional safeguards, specified within that section, in order to address this pest risk. However, because § 305.9 also allows irradiation treatment for imported commodities to take place within the United States, and does not preclude it from taking place in States where establishment of quarantine pests is possible, we cannot grant the commenter's request.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of pomegranates from Peru into the continental United States subject to the following phytosanitary measures:

    • The pomegranates must be imported as commercial consignments only;

    • Each consignment of pomegranates must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru;

    • Each consignment of pomegranates must be treated with irradiation in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

    • Each consignment of pomegranates is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir/). In addition to these specific measures, pomegranates from Peru will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

    Authority:

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of August, 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18987 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2015-0055] Concurrence With OIE Risk Designations for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to concur with the World Organization for Animal Health's (OIE) bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk designations for 14 regions. The OIE recognizes these regions as being of negligible risk for BSE. We are taking this action based on our review of information supporting the OIE's risk designations for these regions.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Roberta Morales, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Import Export Services, VS, APHIS, 920 Main Campus Drive, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606; (919) 855-7735.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 subpart B, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting BSE Risk Status Classification With Regard to Bovines” (referred to below as the regulations), set forth the process by which the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifies regions for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk. Section 92.5 of the regulations provides that all countries of the world are considered by APHIS to be in one of three BSE risk categories: Negligible risk, controlled risk, or undetermined risk. These risk categories are defined in § 92.1. Any region that is not classified by APHIS as presenting either negligible risk or controlled risk for BSE is considered to present an undetermined risk. The list of those regions classified by APHIS as having either negligible risk or controlled risk can be accessed on the APHIS Web site at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-and-animal-product-import-information/ct_animal_disease_status. The list can also be obtained by writing to APHIS at National Import Export Services, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737.

    Under the regulations, APHIS may classify a region for BSE in one of two ways. One way is for countries that have not received a risk classification from the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) to request classification by APHIS. The other way is for APHIS to concur with the classification given to a country by the OIE.

    If the OIE has recognized a country as either BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS will seek information to support our concurrence with the OIE classification. This information may be publicly available information, or APHIS may request that countries supply the same information given to the OIE. APHIS will announce in the Federal Register, subject to public comment, its intent to concur with an OIE classification.

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on December 4, 2015 (80 FR 75849, Docket No. APHIS-2015-0055), in which we announced our intent to concur with the OIE risk designations for 16 regions. The OIE recognizes these regions as being of negligible risk for BSE. We solicited comments on the notice for 60 days ending on February 2, 2016. We received two comments by that date, from a private citizen and a representative of a foreign government.

    1 To view the notice and the comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2015-0055.

    One commenter stated that if a product is being imported only for use in pet food, then the BSE risk status of the exporting region should not be an issue.

    We disagree that bovine products imported for use in pet food do not pose a risk for introducing or spreading BSE in the United States. It is possible that pet foods could be used for cattle feed, either by accidental misfeeding of pet foods to cattle or by misusing salvage pet food for cattle. Farms that raise multiple species (e.g. dogs, swine, and cattle) present a particular risk for misfeeding.

    The other commenter stated that the United States does not recognize all the OIE's risk designations for BSE, noting that the United States still considers several countries as controlled risk regions though the OIE has classified them as negligible risk.

    As we explained above, § 92.5 of the regulations provides two ways that APHIS may classify a region for BSE. One way is for countries that have not received a risk classification from the OIE to request classification by APHIS. The other way is for APHIS to concur with the classification given to a country by the OIE. If the OIE has recognized a country as either BSE negligible risk or BSE controlled risk, APHIS will seek information to support our concurrence with the OIE classification. This information may be publicly available information, or APHIS may request that countries supply the same information given to the OIE.

    The length of APHIS's review of information in support of concurrence depends on a number of factors, including whether the information is publicly available, and, if it is not publicly available, how quickly a country responds to our request for information. This notice updates APHIS' list of regions recognized as negligible risk for BSE to include all the regions for which we have been able to review information. We intend to announce concurrence with additional countries recognized by the OIE in a future notice.

    One commenter noted that while the OIE guidelines call for removal of specified risk materials (SRMs) from animals older than 30 months of age, our regulations require the removal of SRMs from animals 30 months of age or older. The commenter stated that while this is not a significant difference from an epidemiological perspective, it creates a major problem for certification through the veterinary services of exporting countries and presents a barrier to trade.

    APHIS notes that the wording “30 months of age or older” is consistent with Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations as well as with Canadian regulations. We also note that anyone wishing to import bovine products into the United States must also meet FSIS or FDA requirements as well as APHIS requirements. We do not anticipate that this difference will have a significant impact on trade.

    In the December 2015 notice, we mistakenly announced our intent to recognize Romania as a region of negligible risk for BSE. In December 2014, the OIE suspended Romania's status as a negligible risk region because Romania reported a case of atypical BSE. Since then, the OIE has announced its intent to reinstate Romania's status as a region of negligible risk for BSE. We will be seeking information to verify Romania's status and will announce our intent to concur with the OIE's designation in a future notice.

    Also in the December 2015 notice, we announced our intent to recognize France as a region of negligible risk for BSE in concurrence with the OIE. Since then, France has confirmed a case of classical BSE in a 5-year-old cow. Accordingly, the OIE has suspended France's status as a region of negligible risk for BSE and reinstated its status as a region of controlled risk effective March 25, 2016. For this reason we have removed France from the list of regions of negligible risk for BSE in this document. We will continue to recognize France as a region of controlled risk for BSE.

    Therefore, in accordance with the regulations in § 92.5, we are announcing our decision to concur with the OIE risk classifications of the following countries:

    • Regions of negligible risk for BSE: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, India, Korea (Republic of), Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovakia, and Switzerland.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of August, 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18985 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service [Docket No. APHIS-2016-0011] Notice of Decision To Authorize the Importation of Fresh Figs From Peru Into the Continental United States AGENCY:

    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    We are advising the public of our decision to authorize the importation of fresh figs (Ficus carica) from Peru into the continental United States. Based on the findings of a pest risk analysis, which we made available for the public to review and comment through a previous notice, we have concluded that the application of designated phytosanitary measures will be sufficient to mitigate the risks of introducing or disseminating plant pests via the importation of fresh figs from Peru.

    DATES:

    Effective August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Claudia Ferguson, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, Regulatory Coordination and Compliance, Imports, Regulations, and Manuals, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2352; [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

    In accordance with that process, we published a notice 1 in the Federal Register on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13310-13311, Docket No. APHIS-2016-0011), in which we announced the availability, for review and comment, of a pest risk assessment (PRA) that identifies pests of quarantine significance that could follow the pathway of importation of figs from Peru into the continental United States. Based on the PRA, a risk management document (RMD) was prepared to identify phytosanitary measures that could be applied to the figs to mitigate the pest risk. The RMD recommended that all of the following phytosanitary measures be applied to the importation of figs from Peru into the continental United States:

    1 To view the notice, PRA, RMD, and comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2016-0011.

    • The figs must be imported as commercial consignments only;

    • Each consignment of figs must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the national plant protection organization (NPPO) of Peru;

    • Each consignment of figs must be treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

    • Each consignment of figs is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    We solicited comments on the PRA and RMD for 60 days, ending on May 13, 2016. We received four comments by that date, from a State department of agriculture, the Peruvian Government, the Peruvian embassy, and a U.S. port of entry.

    Three of the commenters supported the importation of fresh figs from Peru into the continental United States.

    One commenter pointed out that the notice would allow figs from Peru to be irradiated in the United States. The commenter expressed concern that this could present a risk of introducing quarantine pests that could follow the pathway of figs from Peru into the United States, and that such introduction would present a significant risk to States in which the pests could become established. For this reason, the commenter stated that irradiation should either have to take place in Peru or in areas of the United States north of the 39th parallel, in which the pests could not become established.

    We appreciate the commenter's concern regarding irradiation of the figs in areas of the United States where quarantine plant pests that could potentially follow the pathway of importation of the figs from Peru could become established. Indeed, our regulations governing the approval of irradiation facilities in the United States, which are found in 7 CFR 305.9, require that, if an irradiation facility is located in a State where quarantine pests that are targeted by irradiation could become established, then it must take additional safeguards, specified within that section, in order to address this pest risk. However, because § 305.9 also allows irradiation treatment for imported commodities to take place within the United States, and does not preclude it from taking place in States where establishment of quarantine pests is possible, such as areas south of the 39th parallel, we cannot grant the commenter's request.

    Therefore, in accordance with § 319.56-4(c)(2)(ii), we are announcing our decision to authorize the importation of figs from Peru into the continental United States subject to all of the following phytosanitary measures:

    • The figs must be imported as commercial consignments only;

    • Each consignment of figs must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the NPPO of Peru;

    • Each consignment of figs must be treated in accordance with 7 CFR part 305; and

    • Each consignment of figs is subject to inspection upon arrival at the port of entry to the United States.

    These conditions will be listed in the Fruits and Vegetables Import Requirements database (available at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/favir/). In addition to these specific measures, figs from Peru will be subject to the general requirements listed in § 319.56-3 that are applicable to the importation of all fruits and vegetables.

    Authority:

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

    Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of August, 2016. Kevin Shea, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18990 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Issuance and Participation Estimates—Recordkeeping for Forms FNS-388 and FNS-388A AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is publishing for public comment a summary of a proposed information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the forms FNS-388, State Issuance and Participation Estimates, and FNS-388A, Project Area Data Format. The reporting burden for forms FNS-388 and FNS-388A were merged in 2015 with the burden for the Food Programs Reporting System (OMB control number 0584-0594, expiration date June 30, 2019). This 60-day notice serves to renew the recordkeeping burden only for these two forms.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to Jane Duffield, Chief, State Administration Branch, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 818, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Ralph Badette at 703-457-7717.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: State Issuance and Participation Estimates.

    Form Number: FNS-388 and FNS-388A.

    OMB Number: 0584-0081.

    Expiration Date: July 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Abstract: Section 18(b) of the Food and Nutrition Act, (the Act) 7 U.S.C. 2027(b), limits the value of allotments paid to SNAP households to an amount not in excess of the appropriation for the fiscal year. If allotments in any fiscal year would exceed the appropriation, the Secretary of Agriculture is required to direct State agencies to reduce the value of SNAP allotments to the extent necessary to stay within appropriated funding limits. Timely State monthly issuance estimates are necessary for FNS to ensure that it remains within the appropriation. The estimates will also have a direct effect upon the manner in which allotments would be reduced if necessary. While benefit reductions have never been ordered in the past under section 18(b) nor are they anticipated based on current data, the Department must continue to monitor actual program costs against the appropriation. The reporting burden for forms FNS-388 and FNS-388A was merged in 2015 with the burden for the Food Programs Reporting System (OMB control number 0584-0594, expiration date June 30, 2019). This 60-day notice serves to renew the recordkeeping burden only for these two forms.

    Section 11(e)(12) of the Food and Nutrition Act, 7 U.S.C. 2020 (e)(12), requires that the State Plan of Operations provide for the submission of reports required by the Secretary of Agriculture. State agencies are required to report on a monthly basis on the FNS-388, State Issuance and Participation Estimates, estimated or actual issuance and participation data for the current month and previous month, and actual participation data for the second preceding month. The FNS-388 report provides the necessary data for an early warning system to enable the Department to monitor actual and estimated costs for all benefit types against the appropriation.

    Disaster SNAP is authorized by sections 402 and 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) and the temporary emergency provisions contained in Section 5 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, and in 7 CFR part 280 of the SNAP regulations. State agencies may request FNS approval to operate a Disaster SNAP in an area that has received a Presidential declaration as a Major Disaster area eligible for Individual Assistance. In accordance with 7 CFR 274.4, State agencies shall keep records and report SNAP participation and issuance totals to FNS.

    State agencies in general only submit one statewide FNS-388 per month, which covers benefits from their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system. The exception is State agencies that choose to operate an approved alternative issuance demonstration project such as a cash-out system submit a separate report for each additional type of issuance system. As a result of the reporting burden for these forms being merged with 0584-0594, the collective burden will be reduced by 5,187 hours. The remaining 17.28 hours represents the State recordkeeping burden for these forms. Per 7 CFR 272.1(f), State agencies are required to retain all records associated with the administration of SNAP for no less than 3 years. The recordkeeping burden has not changed.

    Affected Public: State agencies that administer SNAP.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 53.

    Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 13.58.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: 719.74 rounded up to 720.

    Estimated Hours per Response: .024.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: This revised annual recordkeeping burden for OMB No. 0584-0081, is 17.28 hours. The current burden inventory for this collection is 5,187 hours. This decrease is a result merging the reporting burden to OMB# 0584-0594 collection. See the table below for estimated total annual burden.

    Affected public Forms Number of
  • recordkeepers
  • Frequency of response Total annual records Time per
  • response
  • (hours)
  • Annual
  • recordkeeping
  • hours
  • State Agencies FNS-388 53 11.32 600 .024 14.4 FNS-388A 53 2.26 120 .024 2.88 Record-keeping Burden 53 13.58 720 0.024 17.28
    Dated: July 12, 2016. Audrey Rowe, Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18972 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comments Request—Third Access Participation Eligibility and Certification Study Series (APEC III) AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this proposed information collection. This is a reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired (OMB Number 0584-0530, Expiration Date: 08/31/2015); for the Third Access Participation Eligibility and Certification Study Series (APEC III).

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Devin Wallace-Williams, Ph.D., Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Devin Wallace-Williams, Ph.D. at 703-305-2576 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

    All written comments will be open for public inspection at the office of the Food and Nutrition Service during regular business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Monday through Friday) at 3101 Park Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22302.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Devin Wallace-Williams, Ph.D. at 703-457-6791.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Third Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification Study Series (APEC III).

    Form Number: Not applicable.

    OMB Number: 0584-0530.

    Expiration Date: Not Yet Determined.

    Type of Request: Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.

    Abstract: The purpose of this third study on Access, Participation, Eligibility, and Certification (APEC III) is to provide the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) with key information on the annual error rates and erroneous payments for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP) in school year (SY) 2017-2018. In addition, APEC III will identify School Food Authority (SFA), school, and student/household characteristics that may be related to error rates, and identify strategies and actionable guidance for reducing errors. Specifically, the four study objectives are:

    • Objective 1: Generate a national estimate of the annual amount of erroneous payments based on School Year 2017-2018 by replicating the APEC methodology.

    • Objective 2: Provide a robust examination of the relationship of student (household), school, and SFA characteristics to error rates.

    • Objective 3: Conduct a sub-study on the differences in error rates among SFAs using different implementation strategies in their school meals programs.

    • Objective 4: Perform qualitative analyses examining the reasons for erroneous payments.

    Consistent with APEC methodology, APEC III will collect data to address the study objectives using a multistage-clustered sample design, which will include:

    • A nationally representative sample of SFAs in the contiguous 48 states and the District of Columbia;

    • A stratified sample of schools within each SFA (i.e. sampling from SFAs with Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) schools and from SFAs without CEP schools independently to ensure proportional representation in the final sample); and

    • A random sample of students (households) within each sampled school that applied for free and reduced-price meals (including denied applicants), were categorically eligible for free meals, or were directly certified for free meals.

    APEC III will collect data via in-person visits to SFAs, schools, and households to measure certification, aggregation, and meal claiming errors. Data collection will include (a) abstraction from income eligibility applications, categorical eligibility records and CEP records for determining the identified student percentage (ISP); (b) abstraction of meal count and claiming records from SFAs, schools and FNS administrative data; (c) an SFA director survey; (d) school meal observations; and (e) household surveys. Abstraction of income eligibility data and household surveys will take place three times during the study year to ensure coverage of applicants from different times during the year. APEC III data collection will also include qualitative data collection to help better understand the factors that contribute to errors, including an SFA director interview, a cafeteria manager interview and in-depth interviews with select households. Finally, administrative meal participation data (data on the number of meals served and claimed for sampled students) will be collected as well.

    To measure certification error in non-CEP schools due to administrative errors, APEC III will independently determine certification status based on abstracted application data to assess errors in the SFA determination of certification status. To measure certification error in non-CEP schools due to household reporting errors, APEC III will independently determine certification status based on household survey data. This independent determination will be compared to certification status based on data reported on the application. To measure meal claiming errors, APEC III will conduct observations of a sample of meals served to students to confirm that meals claimed for reimbursement meet the meal pattern requirements. To measure aggregation error APEC III will abstract meal count and claiming records from different sources (school, SFA, State) for a target month, and identify discrepancies in data reported at each stage of the meal counting and claiming process. The following describes the types of error:

    1. Certification errors

    • Certification errors occur when students are certified for levels of benefits for which they are not eligible. Specifically, the student is certified for the wrong meal eligibility category.

    • Because each meal eligibility category is reimbursed at different rates, an error in certification results in an incorrect level of benefit being paid to the SFA—either an overpayment or underpayment.

    • Certification error may result from administrative error on the part of the SFA during application review or it can result from a household reporting error.

    • Certification errors contribute the largest share to the total erroneous payments.

    2. Meal claiming errors

    • Meal claiming errors occur when there is an improper classification of meal reimbursement status based on meal components served.

    • In schools operating with offer versus serve, including all high schools, the student may select fewer meal components/food items and still have a reimbursable meal (provided all components are offered to the student).

    • In schools that are not operating under “offer versus serve,” a complete meal must contain all meal components required under the breakfast or lunch meal patterns.

    3. Aggregation errors

    • Aggregation errors occur in the process of counting, consolidating, and claiming the number of meals served in a given month (by claiming category—free, reduced priced, or paid)

    • This occurs in the transmission of meal count and claim data between school, SFA, State and USDA for reimbursement.

    The sample will include schools participating in the CEP and non-CEP schools. In summary, CEP allows school districts, individual schools, or groups of schools to offer breakfasts and lunches at no charge to all students if at least 40 percent of their students are “Identified Students”—that is, approved for free meals without an application based on participation in programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). In CEP, all meals are free to students. However, the percentage of meals claimed at the free and paid reimbursement level is determined by the Identified Student Percentage (ISP). Thus, the procedures for measuring certification errors in CEP will be focused on independently verifying the ISP and the claiming percentages for free and paid meals.

    The analysis plan includes four components: Calculating error and erroneous payment estimates, comparisons to APEC I and APEC II estimates, quantitative and qualitative analyses to identify factors associated with errors, and developing an error forecasting model. The calculation of estimates from APEC III will include the incidence of error, the total dollar amount of error and the dollar based error rate. The comparisons to prior APEC studies will include tests for significant changes over time. The quantitative and qualitative analyses will examine the sources and causes of errors with a focus on identifying potential policy options for reducing errors. Finally, the estimation modeling will provide both State and National models for estimating errors using econometric forecasting and Bayesian approaches, and small area estimation models (for State level estimates).

    Affected Public: Individuals/Households, State, Local, or Tribal Government, and Businesses and Other for Profit and Not for Profit Organizations. Respondent groups identified include: (1) Child Nutrition (CN) State agencies, (2) School Food Authorities (SFAs), (3) Schools (both CEP schools and non-CEP schools), and (4) parents/guardians of sampled students that are either certified to receive a free or reduced price meal or who applied for but were denied benefits in School Year (SY) 2017-18.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: The total estimated number of respondents is 9,456. This includes 7,606 responding program participants, (b) 1,824 non-responding program participants, and (c) 26 program non-participants. The responding program participants include: 44 State CN agency administrators; 44 State CN data managers; 275 directors at SFAs; 275 staff at SFAs; 275 data managers at SFAs; 625 school principals; 625 school staff; 625 school cafeteria managers; and 4,818 parents or guardians of sampled students. The number of SFA Directors, Cafeteria Managers and parents or guardians that will also complete the qualitative in-depth interviews are included in the counts. Non-responding program participants include: 62 directors at SFAs, 156 school principals, and 1,606 parents or guardians of sampled students. Program non-participants, as part of cognitive pretesting, include: 9 SFA Director Survey Pre-test participants; 3 SFA Director In-Depth Interview Pre-test participants; 2 Cafeteria Manager In-Depth Interview Pre-test participants; 9 Household Survey Pre-test participants; and 3 Household In-Depth Interview Pre-test participants.

    Estimated Frequency of Responses per Respondent: The estimated frequency of response across the entire collection is 6.25. For the respondents, the estimated frequency of response is estimated at 7.01 annually, while the frequency for non-respondents is estimated at 3.09 annually. Administrators at State CN agencies will be contacted up to two times: (1) Initial study contact and (2) a one-time data request for meal count and claiming data submitted by the sampled SFAs for the SY 2017-2018. Data managers at the State CN agencies will be expected to provide a response to the one-time data request.

    The SFAs (SFA directors, staff at the SFAs, and/or data managers at the SFA) will be contacted up to eight times for: (1) Study notification and request for the verification of administrative data (2) to complete a telephone pre-visit interview; (3) an on-site visit to abstract records; (4) a telephone contact to ask for any additional income eligibility applications for new students enrolled during phase 2 of data collection; (5) a telephone contact to ask for any additional income eligibility applications for new students enrolled during phase 3 of data collection; (6) a request for administrative data submitted to the State CN agency; (7) a request to complete a web-based SFA Director Survey; and (8) a telephone contact with a sub-set of 60 SFA Directors that complete the SFA Director Survey to complete a qualitative in-depth interview.

    Schools (principals, staff, and/or cafeteria managers) will be contacted up to three times for: (1) Study notification; (2) to complete a pre-visit telephone interview to help prepare for the in-person data collection visit; and (3) an onsite data collection visit to abstract meal count and claiming records, conduct observations of meal service and to complete a brief interview with the cafeteria manager.

    Parents or guardians of sampled households will be contacted up to three occasions for: (1) Recruitment; (2) to complete a one time in-person household survey; and (3) to complete an in-depth phone interview (with a subset of 60 households that completed the Household Survey).

    There will be approximately 62 non-responding SFAs, 156 non-responding schools, and 1,606 non-responding households. The burden for non-respondents is outlined in the table that follows, and includes the time to review introductory materials and respond to the follow up contact call, as well as data collection activities.

    Program non-participants are contacted only once for the pretesting of survey instruments.

    Estimated Total Annual Responses: The total estimated number of responses for data collection is 59,133. This includes 53,505 for respondents and 5,628 for non-respondents.

    Estimated Time per Response: The estimated time per response is 14.76 minutes (0.246 hours) for respondents, and 2.94 minutes (0.049 hours) for non-respondents. The estimated time of response across the entire collection is 13.62 minutes (0.227 hours). The estimated time of response varies from 1 minute to four hours depending on respondent group, as shown in the table below.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: The total public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated at 13,445 hours (annually). The estimated burden for each type of respondent is given in the table below.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service. BILLING CODE 3410-30-P EN10AU16.003 EN10AU16.004 EN10AU16.005
    [FR Doc. 2016-18983 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-C
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Food and Nutrition Service Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request—Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Agency Options AGENCY:

    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the proposed collection. This is a revision of the currently approved burden for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): State Agency Options information collection.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments may be sent to: Sasha Gersten-Paal, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room 812, Alexandria, VA 22302. Comments may also be submitted via fax to the attention of Ms. Gersten-Paal at 703-305-2507 or via email to [email protected] Comments will also be accepted through the Federal eRulemaking Portal. Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments electronically.

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

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Ms. Gersten-Paal at 703-305-2486

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: State Agency Options.

    OMB Number: 0584-0496.

    Form Number: None.

    Expiration Date: December 31, 2016.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information collection.

    Abstract: The collections covered under OMB Number 0584-0496 address information and burden estimates associated with the following State Agency Options: Establishing and reviewing standard utility allowances and establishing methodology for offsetting cost of producing self-employment income.

    This notice revises the State Agency Options information collection for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to reflect changes in the number of States that have implemented the options herein and the change in burden since the previous revision. Federal regulations implementing SNAP application and certification procedures are contained in parts 271, 272 and 273 of title 7 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The regulations addressing State agency options specified in this collection are contained in 7 CFR 273.

    Using FNS-388 and 388A, (approved under OMB# 0584-0594 expiration date 6/30/2019), States send aggregate level data on participation, benefits issued, and other basic program information to FNS using the Food Programs Reporting System (FPRS) via this Web site: https://fprs.fns.usda.gov. These FNS approved forms are used as supplemental data only and this collection is not seeking any additional burden hours for the use of these forms.

    Since the last renewal, there have been changes in the number of States that implement the options in this collection. This collection revises the number of State agencies that have implemented the options herein as well as the burden associated with the collection.

    Establishing and Reviewing Standard Utility Allowances

    The regulations at 7 CFR 273.9(d)(6)(iii) allow State agencies to establish standard utility allowances (SUA) in place of the actual utility costs incurred by a household. State agencies are required to review and adjust SUAs annually to reflect changes in the costs of utilities. State agencies are required to submit the amounts of standards when they are changed and methodologies used to develop and update the standards to FNS for approval when they are developed or changed.

    Estimates of burden: FNS estimates 53 State agencies will submit one request each to adjust the SUAs, for a total annual response of 53 requests at a minimum of 2.5 hours annually (53 State agencies × 1 SUAs request = 53 total annual responses × 2.5 hours = 132.5 hours). The total burden for this provision is estimated to be 132.5 hours per year. This is an increase of 2.5 hours from the previous submission, due to an increase in State agencies implementing this option.

    Self-Employment Costs

    The regulations at 7 CFR 273.11(b) allow self-employment income to be reduced by the cost of producing such income. The regulations allow the State agencies, with approval from FNS, to establish the methodology for offsetting the costs of producing self-employment income, as long as the procedure does not increase program costs.

    Estimates of burden: Based on the information provided in the Twelfth Edition of the SNAP State Options Report, out of the 53 State agencies, 21 State agencies have incorporated a methodology for determining the cost of doing business in self-employment cases. This is an increase from 18 States in the previously approved information collection. It is estimated that these 21 States will submit one request each, totaling 21 annual responses. States will incur a burden of at least 10 working hours gathering and analyzing data, developing the methodology, determining the cost implication and submitting a request to FNS, for a total burden of 210 hours annually (21 State agencies × 1 request = 21 total annual responses × 10 working hours = 210 burden hours). This is an increase of 30 burden hours from the previous submission.

    Record Keeping Burden Only

    All 53 State agencies are required to keep and maintain one record of the information gathered and submitted to FNS for the SUA and self-employment options. It is estimated that this process will take 7 minutes or .1169 hours per year for each State agency, resulting in a total annual burden of 6 hours (53 State agencies × 1 record = 53 total annual records × .1169 hours = 6 hours). This burden remains unchanged from the previous submission.

    The following table illustrates the burden estimates associated with the State agency options included in this collection.

    Respondent and reporting activities Estimated number of
  • respondents
  • Responses annually per respondent Total annual responses Estimated
  • average
  • number of
  • hours per
  • response
  • Estimated
  • total hours
  • (Col. dxe)
  • Reporting Burden—Establishing and Reviewing Standard Utility Allowances (SUAs) State, Local or Tribal Agencies 53 1 53 2.50 132.5 Reporting Burden—Establishing Self-Employment Costs Methodology State, Local or Tribal Agencies 21 1 21 10 210 Total Reporting Burden 53 74 342.5 Recordkeeping Burden State, Local or Tribal Agencies 53 1 53 0.1169 6 Total Recordkeeping Burden 53 53 6 Total Burden Summary for Reporting and Recordkeeping 53 127 348.5
    Dated: August 2, 2016. Yvette S. Jackson, Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18980 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-30-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Withdrawal of Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement; Sand Lick Fork Watershed Restoration Project; Daniel Boone National Forest, KY AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of Withdrawal.

    SUMMARY:

    In the Tuesday, September 11, 2012 Federal Register (FR) Vo. 77, No. 176, pages 55796-55798, the Forest Service announced its intention to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321 (NEPA) to improve water quality and reduce soil loss on the Daniel Boone National Forest. The draft environmental impact statement expected in December 2012 was not completed. The Forest Service withdraws the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS because public involvement discussions revealed a need for additional collaboration. This withdrawal does not preclude future proposals for Forest Service management within the project area.

    DATES:

    This action is effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jonathan Kazmierski at 606-784-6428 or via email at [email protected] Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

    Jonathan Kazmierski, District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18690 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee Meeting AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Tehama County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Red Bluff, California. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/pts/specialprojects/racweb.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on August 25, 2016, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

    All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the Tehama County Farm Bureau, 275 Sale Lane, Red Bluff, California. 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 USDA Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 North Humboldt Avenue, Willows, California. Please call ahead at 530-934-3316 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator by phone at 530-934-3316, 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 discuss current or completed projects and present new projects for review. 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 18, 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 Randy Jero, Committee Coordinator, USDA Mendocino National Forest, Grindstone Ranger District, 825 North Humboldt Avenue, Willows, California 95988; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 530-934-7384.

    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: August 3, 2016. Eduardo Olmedo, District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18824 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-M
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Newspapers Used for Publication of Legal Notices by the Intermountain Region; Utah, Idaho, Nevada, and Wyoming AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice lists the newspapers that will be used by the ranger districts, forests and regional office of the Intermountain Region to publish legal notices required under 36 CFR 214, 219, and 218. The intended effect of this action is to inform interested members of the public which newspapers the Forest Service will use to publish notices of proposed actions and notices of decision. This will provide the public with constructive notice of Forest Service proposals and decisions provide information on the procedures to comment, object or appeal, and establish the date that the Forest Service will use to determine if comments or appeals/objection were timely.

    DATES:

    Publication of legal notices in the listed newspapers will begin on or after July 2016. The list of newspapers will remain in effect until June 2017, when another notice will be published in the Federal Register.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Kris Rutledge, Regional Appeals/Objection Coordinator, Intermountain Region, 324 25th Street, Ogden, UT 84401 and phone (801) 625-5146.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The administrative procedures at 36 CFR 214, 219, and 218 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 214, 219 and 218. In general, the notices will identify: The decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or appeals/objection. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or appeal/objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:

    Regional Forester, Intermountain Region Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Idaho: Idaho Statesman Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Nevada: Reno Gazette-Journal Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Wyoming: Casper Star-Tribune Regional Forester decisions affecting National Forests in Utah: Salt Lake Tribune Regional Forester decisions that affect all National Forests in the Intermountain Region: Salt Lake Tribune Ashley National Forest Ashley Forest Supervisor decisions: Vernal Express District Ranger decisions for Duchesne, Roosevelt: Uintah Basin Standard Flaming Gorge District Ranger for decisions affecting Wyoming: Rocket Miner Flaming Gorge and Vernal District Ranger for decisions affecting Utah: Vernal Express Boise National Forest Boise Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman Cascade District Ranger decisions: The Star-News Emmett District Ranger decisions: Messenger-Index District Ranger decisions for Idaho City and Mountain Home: Idaho Statesman Lowman District Ranger decisions: Idaho World Bridger-Teton National Forest Bridger-Teton Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Casper Star-Tribune Caribou-Targhee National Forest Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Caribou portion: Idaho State Journal Caribou-Targhee Forest Supervisor decisions for the Targhee portion: Post Register District Ranger decisions for Ashton, Dubois, Island Park, Palisades and Teton Basin: Post Register District Ranger decisions for Montpelier, Soda Springs and Westside: Idaho State Journal Dixie National Forest Dixie Forest Supervisor decisions: The Spectrum District Ranger decisions for Cedar City, Escalante, Pine Valley and Powell: The Spectrum. Fremont (formerly Teasdale) District Ranger decisions: Richfield Reaper Fishlake National Forest Fishlake Forest Supervisor and District Ranger decisions: Richfield Reaper Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions that encompass all or portions of both the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests: Reno Gazette-Journal Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Humboldt portion: Elko Daily Free Press Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Supervisor decisions for the Toiyabe portion: Reno Gazette-Journal Austin District Ranger decisions: The Battle Mountain Bugle Bridgeport and Carson District Ranger decisions: Reno Gazette-Journal Ely District Ranger decisions: The Ely Times District Ranger decisions for Jarbidge, Mountain City and Ruby Mountains: Elko Daily Free Press Santa Rosa District Ranger decisions: Humboldt Sun Spring Mountains National Recreation Area District Ranger decisions: Las Vegas Review Journal Tonopah District Ranger decisions: Tonopah Times Bonanza-Goldfield News Manti-La Sal National Forest Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor decisions: Sun Advocate Ferron District Ranger decisions: Emery County Progress Moab District Ranger decisions: Times Independent Monticello District Ranger decisions: San Juan Record Price District Ranger decisions: Sun Advocate Sanpete District Ranger decisions: Sanpete Messenger Payette National Forest Payette Forest Supervisor decisions: Idaho Statesman Council District Ranger decisions: Adams County Record District Ranger decisions for Krassel, McCall and New Meadows: Star News Weiser District Ranger decisions: Signal American Salmon-Challis National Forest Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Salmon portion: The Recorder-Herald Salmon-Challis Forest Supervisor decisions for the Challis portion: The Challis Messenger District Ranger decisions for Lost River, Middle Fork and Challis-Yankee Fork: The Challis Messenger District Ranger decisions for Leadore, North Fork and Salmon-Cobalt: The Recorder-Herald Sawtooth National Forest Sawtooth Forest Supervisor decisions: The Times News District Ranger decisions for Fairfield and Minidoka: The Times News Ketchum District Ranger decisions: Idaho Mountain Express Sawtooth National Recreation Area: The Challis Messenger Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest Forest Supervisor decisions for the Uinta portion, including the Vernon Unit: Provo Daily Herald Forest Supervisor decisions for the Wasatch-Cache portion: Salt Lake Tribune Forest Supervisor decisions for the entire Uinta-Wasatch-Cache: Salt Lake Tribune District Ranger decisions for the Heber-Kamas, Pleasant Grove and Spanish Fork Ranger Districts: Provo Daily Herald District Ranger decisions for Evanston and Mountain View: Uinta County Herald District Ranger decisions for Salt Lake: Salt Lake Tribune District Ranger decisions for Logan: Logan Herald Journal District Ranger decisions for Ogden: Standard Examiner Dated: July 13, 2016. Mary Farnsworth, Acting Deputy Regional Forester.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18961 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census National Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public virtual meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a virtual meeting of the National Advisory Committee (NAC). The Committee will address the 2017 Census Tribal Enrollment Reinterview Questions and the Integrated Partnership and Communications Working Group will make recommendations to the NAC. The NAC will meet virtually on Monday, August 22, 2016. Last minute changes to the schedule are possible, which could prevent giving advance public notice of schedule adjustments. Please visit the Census Advisory Committees Web site for the most current meeting agenda at: http://www.census.gov/cac/.

    DATES:

    August 22, 2016. The virtual meeting will begin at approximately 1:00 p.m. ET and end at approximately 3:00 p.m. ET.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held via teleconference. To attend, participants should call the following phone number to access the audio portion of the meeting: (888) 946-8391. When prompted, please use the following password: 7631920. The meeting will be available via WebEx at the following URL link: https://census.webex.com/census/j.php?MTID=m57428baace6aa969295c94ccb1763171.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Advisory Committee Branch Chief, Customer Liaison and Marketing Services Office, [email protected], Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H177, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233, telephone 301-763-5222. For TTY callers, please use the Federal Relay Service 1-800-877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The NAC was established in March 2012 and operates in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, section 10). NAC members are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau, and consider topics such as hard to reach populations, race and ethnicity, language, aging populations, American Indian and Alaska Native tribal considerations, new immigrant populations, populations affected by natural disasters, highly mobile and migrant populations, complex households, rural populations, and population segments with limited access to technology. The Committee also advises on data privacy and confidentiality, among other issues.

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on August 22. Individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “August 22 2016 NAC Virtual Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to the Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H179, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    Dated: August 4, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18956 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [Order No. 2010] Expansion of Subzone 149C; Phillips 66 Company; Brazoria County, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:

    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for “. . . the establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for other purposes,” and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs and Border Protection ports of entry;

    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR part 400) provide for the establishment of subzones for specific uses;

    Whereas, Port Freeport, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 149, has made application to the Board to expand Subzone 149C on behalf of Phillips 66 Company to include additional acreage at existing Site 5 in Brazoria County, Texas (FTZ Docket B-82-2015, docketed December 4, 2015);

    Whereas, notice inviting public comment has been given in the Federal Register (80 FR 76443, December 9, 2015) and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and,

    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the examiner's memorandum, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations are satisfied;

    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby approves the expansion of Subzone 149C on behalf of Philipps 66 Company, as described in the application and Federal Register notice, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13.

    Signed at Washington, DC, August 2, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18941 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [S-49-2016] Approval of Subzone Status; Rooms to Go (PR), Inc.; Toa Baja, Puerto Rico

    On April 20, 2016, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Puerto Rico Trade & Export Company, grantee of FTZ 61, requesting subzone status subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 61, on behalf of Rooms to Go (PR), Inc., in Toa Baja, Puerto Rico.

    The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 24563, April 26, 2016). The FTZ staff examiner reviewed the application and determined that it meets the criteria for approval.

    Pursuant to the authority delegated to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary (15 CFR Sec. 400.36(f)), the application to establish Subzone 61R is approved, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.13, and further subject to FTZ 61's 1,821.07-acre activation limit.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18942 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-21-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 46G—Cincinnati, Ohio, Authorization of Production Activity, Givaudan Flavors Corporation, (Flavor Products), Cincinnati, Ohio

    On April 1, 2016, Givaudan Flavors Corporation submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ 46—Subzone 46G in Cincinnati, Ohio.

    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal Register inviting public comment (81 FR 24563, April 26, 2016). The FTZ Board has determined that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification is authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations, including section 400.14.

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18919 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-51-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 126—Reno, Nevada, Notification of Proposed Production Activity, Tesla Motors, Inc., Subzone 126D; (Lithium-Ion Batteries, Electric Motors and Stationary Energy Storage Systems), Sparks, Nevada

    The Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada, grantee of FTZ 126, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf Tesla Motors, Inc. (Tesla), operator of Subzone 126D, for its facility located in Sparks, Nevada. The notification conforming to the requirements of the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR 400.22) was received on July 20, 2016.

    The facility is used for the production of lithium-ion batteries, electric motors and stationary energy storage systems. Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and components and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (as described below) and subsequently authorized by the FTZ Board.

    Production under FTZ procedures could exempt Tesla from customs duty payments on the foreign-status materials and components used in export production. On its domestic sales, Tesla would be able to choose the duty rates during customs entry procedures that apply to lithium-ion batteries/cells/modules, electric motors, and stationary energy storage systems (duty rates—2.8% or 3.4%) for the foreign-status inputs noted below. Customs duties also could possibly be deferred or reduced on foreign-status production equipment.

    The components and materials sourced from abroad include: Carbon black; silicon oxide; nickel cobalt aluminum cathode material; coolants; ethyl methyl carbonate; ethylene carbonate; n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone; preparations based on carbon black; lubricants for gears; automatic transmission fluid lubricants; grease; adhesives; epoxy hardeners; graphite; joint compound; battery electrolyte; carbon black solution (AB paste); sealants; methacrylate-butadiene-styrene (MBS) copolymers; polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF); carboxymethylcellulose (CMC); electrical tape; polyethylene separators; polypropylene separators; plastic tubing/fittings for hoses/gap pads/bags/caps and closures/plugs/trays/baffle inserts/brackets/cable supports/cable ties/clips/fasteners/gaskets/heatshrink/mounts and fittings/o-rings/seals/pipes for stators/covers for converters; plastic self-adhesive sheets in rolls/tapes/films/labels/strips; butadiene-styrene-alkyl-methacrylate copolymer; styrene-butadiene rubber (SBR); rubber hoses/o-rings/seals/bumpers/grommets/isolator bushings; labels; nickel-plated steel sheets; steel pipes for rotors/pipe bends and elbow fittings/other pipe fittings/tubefittings/mesh/bolts/screws/locknuts/nuts/plugs/studs/washers/dowel pins/springs/caps/clamps/clips/retainer plates/rings; copper profiles for rotors/bars for rotors/shield plates/foil/ferrules; brass standoffs; nickel alloy plates; nickel copper tabs (copper ribbon); aluminum alloy bonding wire and sheets; aluminum foil/tube fittings/spacers/discs/clamps/plugs/cooling tubes/capacitors; tubular keys; metal hinges/brackets for motor vehicles/fittings for motor vehicles/brackets and mounts suitable for buildings/brackets/fittings/mounts/latches/spacers for rotors; braze rings; displacement pumps; electric oil pumps; centrifugal pumps; compressors; fans; parts of compressors; battery chillers; heat exchangers; radiator/condenser assemblies; parts of heat exchangers; parts of radiators; oil filters; housings for air filters; parts of air filters; parts of oil filters; air particle separators; pressure relief valves; check valves; breather valves; coolant manifolds; parts of breather valves; valve bodies; drive unit assemblies; bearing endbells; heat sinks for drive units; housings for motors; inverter gearcases; laminations for stators; motor gearcases; parts of bearing endbells; parts of encoders; parts of gearcases; parts of heat sinks to drive units; other parts of motors; rotor endcaps; rotor shafts; rotor stacks; rotors; stator stacks; stators; electrical transformers; drive inverters; power supplies; ferrite beads; power inductors; doors for thermal power supplies; housings for drive inverters; parts of drive inverters; parts of manifolds for inverters; parts of power supplies; printed circuit board assemblies for converters; printed circuit board assemblies for power supplies; magnets; finished lithium-ion batteries; finished lithium-ion batteries for electrically powered vehicles; battery exhaust ducts; connectors for batteries; enclosures for finished battery packs (and parts thereof); fittings for lithium-ion battery cells; fittings for lithium-ion battery modules; insulators for lithium-ion battery modules; layer and aramid heat resistance layers (separators); lithium-ion battery cells; lithium-ion battery modules; multilayer laminated film layered by polyolefin base; parts of heat sinks to lithium-ion batteries, parts of lithium-ion battery cells and modules; side rails for lithium-ion battery enclosures; steel enclosures for batteries (and parts thereof); terminal plates; top plates for lithium-ion battery cells; vents; capacitors; single layer ceramic dielectrics; multilayer ceramic dielectrics; fixed film resistors; fixed resistors; thermistors; flexible printed circuit board assemblies; fuses; grounding wires; electrical relays; electrical switches; connectors for printed circuit board assemblies; pin receptacles; wire harness connectors; busbars; electrical connectors; junction boxes; lug connectors; terminal lugs; terminals; controller boards; switchboards; housings for controllers; housings for junction boxes; housings for plastic connectors; metal contacts; molded parts for printed circuit board assemblies; parts of connectors; parts of fuses; plates for junction boxes; printed circuit board assemblies for controllers; printed circuit board assemblies; diodes; transient voltage suppression (TVS) diodes; transistors; LED lights; programmable integrated circuits; operational amplifiers; other integrated circuits; crystal oscillators; encoder wheels; wire harnesses; thermal barriers; ceramic insulators; plastic insulating fittings; cross shafts; gear box coolers; intermediate shafts; parts of gears; pinion gears; differential roll pins; differentials; housings for differentials; parts of differentials; parts of drive shafts; baffles for oil pans; sensors; and, thermal regulators (duty rate ranges from free to 8.5%).

    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 19, 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 FTZ Board's Web site, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.

    For further information, contact Diane Finver at [email protected] or (202) 482-1367.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18917 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [C-489-806] Pasta From Turkey: Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty Administrative Review; 2014 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) preliminarily determines that countervailable subsidies are being provided to producers and exporters of certain pasta from Turkey. The period of review is January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results of review.

    DATES:

    Effective August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Jennifer Shore or Mark Kennedy, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2778 or (202) 482-7883, respectively.

    Scope of the Order

    The product covered by this administrative review is pasta from Turkey. For a full description of the scope of this order see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.1

    1See Memorandum, “Decision Memorandum for Preliminary Results of Countervailing Duty 2014 Administrative Review of Pasta from Turkey,” dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice (Preliminary Decision Memorandum).

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this countervailing duty (CVD) administrative review in accordance with section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found countervailable, we preliminarily determine that there is a subsidy (i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that gives rise to a benefit to the recipient) and that the subsidy is specific.2 For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    2See sections 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Act regarding financial contribution; section 771(5)(E) of the Act regarding benefit; and section 771(5A) of the Act regarding specificity.

    A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix I to this notice.

    The Preliminary 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 Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    Preliminary Results of Review

    As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine a net countervailable subsidy rate of 2.21 percent ad valorem for Bessan Makarna Gida San. Ve Tic. A.Ş, for the period January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    The Department intends to disclose to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with these preliminary results within five days of the date of publication of this notice.3 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 30 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results of review. Parties who submit arguments are requested to submit with the argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.4 Rebuttals to case briefs may be filed no later than five days after the deadline for filing case briefs, and all rebuttal comments must be limited to comments raised in the case briefs.5 Case and rebuttal briefs should be filed electronically using ACCESS.6

    3See 19 CFR 351.224(b).

    4See 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2).

    5See 19 CFR 351.309(d).

    6See 19 CFR 351.303.

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully, and in its entirety, by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the party's name, address, and telephone number; the number of participants; and a list of the issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, the Department intends to hold the hearing at the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a date, time, and specific location to be determined. Parties will be notified of the date, time, and location of any hearing. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act, the Department will issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised in any written briefs, not later than 120 days after the date of publication of this notice, pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

    Assessment Rates

    Upon issuance of the final results, the Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. We intend to issue instructions to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

    Cash Deposit Instructions

    The Department also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount shown above. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This administrative review and notice are in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Scope of the Order IV. Subsidy Valuation Information V. Analysis of Programs VI. Recommendation
    [FR Doc. 2016-19017 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-428-840] Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Court Decision Not in Harmony With Amended Final Results and Notice of Second Amended Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2009-2010 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is notifying the public that the Court of International Trade's (CIT or Court) final judgment in this case is not in harmony with the Department's amended final results and is therefore amending for a second time the final results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany with respect to the rate assigned to Papierfabrik August Koeher AG (Koehler).

    DATES:

    Effective: July 16, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    James Terpstra, 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) 482-3965.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On April 9, 2012, the Department published the final results of the second administrative review of the antidumping duty order on lightweight thermal paper from Germany, covering the period November 1, 2009, through October 31, 2010.1 On May 16, 2012, the Department amended the AR2 Final Results to correct a ministerial error.2 As a result, the Department assigned Koehler a weighted-average dumping margin of 4.33 percent.3 Subsequently, Koehler and Appvion, Inc.4 challenged the AR2 Amended Final Results in the CIT.5 While that litigation was pending, the Department published the final results of the third review of the Order in which it found that Koehler had engaged in a transshipment scheme, which began in the prior, second review period, and withheld requested information.6 As a result, in the AR3 Final Results the Department found that Koehler had failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's requests for information and assigned Koehler a total adverse facts available (AFA) rate of 75.36 percent.7 In light of the AR3 Final Results, in the litigation concerning the AR2 Amended Final Results, the Department sought a voluntary remand to reconsider the AR2 Amended Final Results, which the Court granted.

    1See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 21082 (April 9, 2012) (AR2 Final Results); see also Antidumping Duty Orders: Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany and the People's Republic of China, 73 FR 70959 (November 24, 2008) (Order).

    2See Lightweight Thermal Paper From Germany: Notice of Amended Final Results of the 2009-2010 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 77 FR 28851 (May 16, 2012) (AR2 Amended Final Results).

    3See id., 77 FR at 28851.

    4 Formerly known as Appleton Papers Inc.

    5See Consol. Court No. 12-00091.

    6See Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2010-2011, 78 FR 23220 (April 18, 2013) (AR3 Final Results). The CIT affirmed the AR3 Final Results in their entirety. See Papierfabrik August Koehler SE v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2014). Koehler's appeal of that decision before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) is pending. See Court No. 15-1489.

    7See AR3 Final Results, 78 FR at 23221.

    On June 16, 2014, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand.8 The Department determined that, based on the transshipment scheme which began in the second review period and had been uncovered in the third review, Koehler had failed to cooperate to the best of its ability in complying with the Department's requests for information in the second review.9 As a result, the Department assigned Koehler an AFA rate of 75.36 percent, and corroborated the rate using Koehler's transaction-specific margins from the second review.10

    8See Final Remand Redetermination Pursuant to Court Remand, Lightweight Thermal Paper from Germany, Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00091 (June 16, 2014) (AR2 Final Remand).

    9Id.

    10Id.

    On July 6, 2016, the Court affirmed the AR2 Final Remand, finding that the Department had properly reconsidered the AR2 Amended Final Results and applied total AFA in light of the nature of Koehler's conduct.11 In addition, although the Court found that the rate of 75.36 percent was not properly corroborated by the highest transaction-specific margin on the record of the second review, it found that, under the circumstances, the Department was within its discretion in relying on the 75.36 percent rate, the highest rate in any previous segment of the proceeding.12 Thus, the Court affirmed the AFA rate of 75.36 percent as applied to Koehler.13

    11See Papierfabrik August Koehler AG v. United States, Consol. Court No. 12-00091, Slip Op. 16-67 (July 6, 2016) (Koehler) at 13-24.

    12Id., at 33 (“The court declines to construe the corroboration requirement so as to eliminate the discretion Commerce must possess to confront the serious misconduct it encountered in this case, in which Koehler undermined the integrity of the proceeding Commerce conducted and prevented Commerce from fulfilling its statutory responsibility.”).

    13Id., at 34.

    Timken Notice

    Consistent with its decision in Timken, 14 as clarified by Diamond Sawblades15 the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. On July 6, 2016, the CIT sustained the Department's final results of redetermination pursuant to remand in Koehler. 16 The CIT's judgment in Koehler sustaining the AR2 Final Remand constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the AR2 Amended Final Results. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or if appealed, pending a final and conclusive court decision.

    14See Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Timken).

    15See Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, 626 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (Diamond Sawblades).

    16See Koehler at 13-24, and 34.

    Second Amended Final Results

    Because there is now a final court decision, we are amending the AR2 Amended Final Results with respect to the rate assigned to Koehler as follows:

    Company AR2 amended
  • final results
  • dumping
  • margin
  • Second
  • amended
  • final results
  • dumping
  • margin
  • Papierfabrik August Koehler AG 4.33 percent 75.36

    In the event the CIT's July 6, 2016, decision in Koehler is not appealed, or is upheld by a final and conclusive court decision, the Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to assess antidumping duties on unliquidated entries of subject merchandise based on the revised rate listed above.

    Cash Deposit Requirements

    As a result of the determination by the International Trade Commission that revocation of the Order would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act, the Department revoked the Order, effective November 24, 2013, and stopped collecting cash deposits under the Order. 17 Therefore, the cash deposit requirement for Koehler will not be changed as a result of these amended final results.

    17See Lightweight Thermal Paper From the People's Republic of China and Germany: Continuation of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on the People's Republic of China, Revocation of the Antidumping Duty Order on Germany, 80 FR 5083, 5084 (January 30, 2015).

    Notification to Interested Parties

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(e)(1), 751(a)(1), and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Ronald K. Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19008 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology [Docket Number: 160725650-6650-01] Information on Current and Future States of Cybersecurity in the Digital Economy AGENCY:

    National Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice; Request for Information (RFI).

    SUMMARY:

    The Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity requests information about current and future states of cybersecurity in the digital economy. As directed by Executive Order 13718, “Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity” (the “Executive Order”), the Commission will make detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State and local government and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. The Secretary of Commerce was tasked by the Exective Order to direct the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to provide the Commission with such expertise, services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission.

    Responses to this RFI—which will be posted at http://www.nist.gov/cybercommission—will inform the Commission as it develops its detailed recommendations.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be submitted by mail to Nakia Grayson, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2000, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. Online submissions in electronic form may be sent to [email protected] in any of the following formats: HTML; ASCII; Word; RTF; or PDF. Please submit comments only and include your name, organization's name (if any), and cite “Input to the Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity” in all correspondence. Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials.

    All comments received in response to this RFI will be posted at http://www.nist.gov/cybercommission without change or redaction, so commenters should not include information they do not wish to be posted (e.g., personal or confidential business information).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions about this RFI contact: Kevin Stine, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone (301) 975-4483, or [email protected] Please direct media inquiries to NIST's Office of Public Affairs at (301) 975-2762.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The digital economy has been a driver of innovation and productivity for several decades. The Internet is used every day by individuals, businesses, and government to make purchases, store sensitive data, and provide critical information services. These services and infrastructure have come under attack in recent years in the form of identity and intellectual property theft, deliberate and unintentional service disruption, and stolen data. Steps must be taken to enhance existing efforts to increase the protection and resilience of the digital ecosystem, while maintaining a cyber environment that encourages efficiency, innovation, and economic prosperity.

    In order to enhance cybersecurity awareness and protections at all levels of Government, business, and society, to protect privacy, to ensure public safety and economic and national security, and to empower Americans to take better control of their digital security, the President issued Executive Order 13718,1 Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, in February 2016.

    1 Exec. Order No. 13718, Commission on Enhancing National Cybersecurity, 81 FR 7441 (February 9, 2016).

    The Commission will make detailed recommendations to strengthen cybersecurity in both the public and private sectors, while protecting privacy, ensuring public safety and economic and national security, fostering discovery and development of new technical solutions, and bolstering partnerships between Federal, State, and local government and the private sector in the development, promotion, and use of cybersecurity technologies, policies, and best practices. According to the Executive Order, the Commission's recommendations should address actions that can be taken over the next decade to accomplish these goals.

    The Secretary of Commerce was tasked by the Executive Order to direct the Director of NIST to provide the Commission with such expertise, services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support services as may be necessary to carry out its mission.

    To accomplish its mission, the Commission shall, among other approaches, reference and, as appropriate, build on successful existing cybersecurity policies, public-private partnerships, and other initiatives; consult with cybersecurity, national security and law enforcement, privacy, management, technology, and digital economy experts in the public and private sectors; and seek input from those who have experienced significant cybersecurity incidents to understand lessons learned from these experiences, including identifying any barriers to awareness, risk management, and investment. The Commission seeks broad input from individuals and organizations of all sizes and their representatives from sector and professional associations. The Commission also invites submissions from Federal agencies, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, standard-setting organizations, other members of industry, consumers, solution providers, and other stakeholders.

    Request for Information

    The following questions cover the major areas about which the Commission seeks comment. They are not intended to limit the topics that may be addressed. Responses may include information related to or recommendations for other areas the Commission should consider.

    Comments containing references, studies, research, and other empirical data that are not widely published should include copies of the referenced materials. Do not include in comments or otherwise submit proprietary or confidential information, as all comments received in response to this RFI will be made available publically at http://www.nist.gov/cybercommission. The Commission requests that each comment contain an Executive Summary, that is no more than one page in length, which identifies the topic addressed, the challenges, and the proposed solution, recommendation, and/or finding.

    Based on the Executive Order and the Commission's initial deliberations, the Commission is seeking information on the following topics:

    • Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity • Cybersecurity Insurance • Cybersecurity Research and Development • Cybersecurity Workforce • Federal Governance • Identity and Access Management • International Markets • Internet of Things • Public Awareness and Education • State and Local Government Cybersecurity

    For each topic area, the Commission solicits information on current and future challenges, promising and innovative approaches to address those challenges, recommendations, and references to inform the work of the Commission. The Commission is specifically seeking input on the topic areas below:

    Topic Area Challenges and Approaches

    1. Current and future trends and challenges in the selected topic area;

    2. Progress being made to address the challenges;

    3. The most promising approaches to addressing the challenges;

    4. What can or should be done now or within the next 1-2 years to better address the challenges;

    5. What should be done over the next decade to better address the challenges; and

    6. Future challenges that may arise and recommended actions that individuals, organizations, and governments can take to best position themselves today to meet those challenges.

    The Commission also seeks input on the following:

    1. Emerging technology trends and innovations; the effect these technology trends and innovations will have on the digital economy; and the effect these technology trends and innovations will have on cybersecurity.

    2. Economic and other incentives for enhancing cybersecurity.

    3. Government-private sector coordination and cooperation on cybersecurity.

    4. The role(s) of the government in enhancing cybersecurity for the private sector.

    5. Performance measures for national-level cybersecurity policies; and related near-term and long-term goals.

    6. Complexity of cybersecurity terminology and potential approaches to resolve, including common lexicons.

    Kevin Kimball, NIST Chief of Staff.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18948 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE759 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Snapper-Grouper Fishery of the South Atlantic; Exempted Fishing Permit AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the receipt of an application for an exempted fishing permit (EFP) from Dr. David Die and Chiara Pacini at the University of Miami, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. If granted, the EFP would authorize the collection of a maximum of 400 juvenile snowy grouper incidentally caught in commercial spiny lobster traps in Federal waters off the Florida Keys in the South Atlantic during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 commercial lobster fishing seasons. The purpose of the EFP would be to estimate and validate age and growth rates for juvenile snowy grouper in the South Atlantic.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on the application by either of the following methods:

    Email: [email protected] Include in the subject line of the email comment the following document identifier: “University of Miami Snowy Grouper EFP”.

    Mail: Mary Vara, Southeast Regional Office, NMFS, 263 13th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701.

    The application and related documents are available for review upon written request to any of the above addresses.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mary Vara, 727-824-5305; email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The EFP is requested under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.), and regulations at 50 CFR 600.745(b) concerning exempted fishing.

    The EFP request involves activities covered by regulations implementing the Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for federally managed fisheries of the South Atlantic Region. The proposed collection for scientific research involves activities that would otherwise be prohibited by regulations at 50 CFR part 622, as they pertain to South Atlantic snapper-grouper managed by the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council). The EFP would exempt this research activity from Federal regulations at § 622.170(a)(1) (Permits and endorsements) and other requirements applicable to snapper-grouper permit holders; § 622.183(b)(8) (Seasonal closures); § 622.187(b)(2)(ii) (Bag and possession limits); and § 622.188(a), (b), and (c) (Required gear, authorized gear, and unauthorized gear); § 622.193(b)(2) (Annual catch limits, annual catch targets, and accountability measures). The purpose of this study is to estimate and validate age and growth rates of juvenile snowy grouper to better understand its early life history.

    The applicant requests authorization to collect juvenile snowy grouper incidentally caught using standard commercial spiny lobster traps in Federal waters off the Florida Keys in the South Atlantic, bounded by Bahia Honda to the south and Upper Matecumbe Key to the north.

    As described in the application, snowy grouper sampling would occur during approximately 15 spiny lobster trips completed during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 commercial spiny lobster fishing seasons. These seasons are from August 6, 2016, through March 31, 2017, and August 6, 2017, through March 31, 2018. Approximately 200 spiny lobster traps would be deployed or retrieved during each commercial spiny lobster trip. A maximum of 200 incidentally caught snowy grouper would be collected each year of the 2-season project duration, for a maximum quantity of 400 snowy grouper. The project would end when either 400 snowy grouper are collected over the 2 spiny lobster seasons or by March 31, 2018, whichever occurs first.

    Gear used for collecting the snowy grouper would be legal commercial spiny lobster traps constructed of wire with wooden tops that are anchored down with concrete slabs to prevent them from moving during storm winds and heavy currents. The traps are standard spiny lobster traps with dimensions of 35.0 inches (88.9 cm) long, 23.6 inches (59.9 cm) wide, and 23.6 inches (59.9 cm) high. The spiny lobster traps being deployed would be a mix of single traps and trawls (traps tethered together). Each trawl would have approximately 15-25 traps connected together with approximately 50-75 yd (46-69 m) of rope between each trap with buoys on each end. Each trap or trawl would also have a vertical line and a buoy attached, along with the vessel identification and permit number etched into the buoy. Single traps would be set in sand in shallow waters less than 75 ft (23 m), and trawls would be set in sand in deeper waters between 100-300 ft (30-91 m). The exact depth and location of the traps or trawls would be recorded after each deployment. Traps would be baited with raw cowhide and dead fish, and would be re-baited and checked approximately every 2 weeks, depending on weather.

    The trap soak time would be approximately 2 weeks. All traps would be retrieved during daylight hours. On retrieval, traps would be hauled slowly to the surface to minimize the risk of barotrauma. Each trap would then be checked for the presence of snowy grouper. If there are snowy grouper present, the trap number, location, depth, length, and date would be documented. Snowy grouper that are longer than 209 mm total length would be released because this study would focus on juvenile snowy grouper. Any other fish collected in the spiny lobster traps would be returned to the water. Before release, fish showing evidence of barotrauma, including snowy grouper longer than 209 mm total length and any other finfish bycatch, would be vented before release. Release cages (or descending devices) would be utilized to aid in fish descent. Lawfully harvested spiny lobster would be retained by the permitted vessel.

    A maximum of 20 of the 200 snowy grouper collected each year of the project would be kept alive in an aerated tank and taken to the University of Miami for further study (for a maximum of 30 days) to validate daily growth rings on otoliths (fish ear bones). The remaining snowy grouper will not be kept alive on the boat, but will be taken to the lab where their otoliths would be removed to estimate age and growth rates. Gut contents from all snowy grouper that are not kept alive for further study would be removed for future analysis. In addition, any bycatch from the spiny lobster traps would be documented before being returned to the water. In this study, bycatch would be any animals other than lawfully harvested spiny lobster and snowy grouper longer than 209 mm total length.

    The vessel to be used for the project would be a commercial spiny lobster fishing vessel with valid licenses and permits to commercially harvest spiny lobster in the Federal waters off Florida. The EFP would not exempt the applicant from the relevant state of Florida regulations for spiny lobster harvest or from the Federal spiny lobster regulations specified at 50 CFR Subpart R. At least one of the applicants would be present during each of the sampling trips. If the EFP is approved, all collections of juvenile snowy grouper would be conducted during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 commercial spiny lobster seasons. All snowy grouper would be collected as part of the vessel's normal commercial spiny lobster fishing trips.

    NMFS finds this application warrants further consideration. Based on a preliminary review, NMFS intends to issue an EFP. Possible conditions the agency may impose on this permit, if it is indeed granted, include but are not limited to, a prohibition of conducting research within marine protected areas, marine sanctuaries, special management zones, or artificial reefs without additional authorization. Additionally, NMFS may require special protections for Endangered Species Act listed species and their critical habitat. A final decision on issuance of the EFP will depend on NMFS' review of public comments received on the application, consultations with the appropriate fishery management agency of the affected state, the Council, and the U.S. Coast Guard, and a determination that it is consistent with all applicable laws.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 5, 2016. Emily H. Menashes, Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18999 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE485 Notice of Availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of a Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS announces the availability of the “Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment (DPEA) for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).” Publication of this notice begins the official public comment period for this DPEA. The purpose of the DPEA is to evaluate, in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research in the North Pacific Ocean and the marine waters off of Alaska.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by no later than September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Comments on the DPEA should be addressed to: DPEA Comments, c/o AFSC Director's Office, 7600 Sand Point Way NE., Building 4, Seattle, WA 98115. Comments via email may be sent to [email protected] NMFS is not responsible for email comments sent to addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via email, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10-megabyte file size. A copy of the DPEA may be obtained by writing to the address specified above, telephoning the contact listed below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT), or visiting the internet at: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/dpea.html.

    Documents cited in this notice may also be viewed, by appointment, during regular business hours, at the aforementioned address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Daniel H. Ito, (206) 526-4232.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) is the research arm of National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in the Alaska region of the U.S. The AFSC conducts research and provides scientific advice to manage fisheries and conserve living marine resources in the North Pacific and marine waters off of Alaska. The AFSC provides scientific data and technical advice to a variety of management organizations and stakeholder groups, including the NMFS Alaska Regional Office, North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), State of Alaska, Alaska coastal subsistence communities, and U.S. representatives participating in international fishery and marine mammal negotiations, as well as the fishing industry, environmental non-governmental organizations and other constituents.

    NMFS has prepared the DPEA under NEPA to evaluate several alternatives for conducting and funding fisheries and ecosystem research activities as the primary Federal action. Additionally in the DPEA, NMFS evaluates a related action—also called a “connected action” under 40 CFR 1508.25 of the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)—which is the proposed promulgation of regulations and authorization of the take of marine mammals incidental to fisheries research under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Additionally, because the proposed research activities occur in areas inhabited by species of marine mammals, birds, and fish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as threatened or endangered, this DPEA evaluates activities that could result in unintentional takes of ESA-listed marine species.

    The following four alternatives are currently evaluated in the DPEA:

    (1) No-Action/Status Quo Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research with Scope and Protocols Similar to Past Efforts (2) Preferred Alternative—Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Mitigation for MMPA and ESA Compliance (3) Modified Research Alternative— Conduct Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research (New Suite of Research) with Additional Mitigation (4) No Research Alternative—No Fieldwork for Federal Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted or Funded by AFSC

    The first three alternatives include a program of fisheries and ecosystem research projects conducted or funded by the AFSC as the primary Federal action. Because this primary action is connected to a secondary Federal action (also called a connected action under NEPA), to consider authorizing incidental take of marine mammals under the MMPA, NMFS must identify as part of this evaluation “(t)he means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat.” (Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA [16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.]). NMFS must therefore identify and evaluate a reasonable range of mitigation measures to minimize impacts to protected species that occur in AFSC research areas. These mitigation measures are considered as part of the identified alternatives in order to evaluate their effectiveness to minimize potential adverse environmental impacts. The three action alternatives also include mitigation measures intended to minimize potentially adverse interactions with other protected species that occur within the action area. Protected species include all marine mammals, which are covered under the MMPA, all species listed under the ESA, and bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

    NMFS is also evaluating a second type of no-action alternative that considers no Federal funding for field fisheries and ecosystem research activities. This is called the No Research Alternative to distinguish it from the No-Action/Status Quo Alternative. The No-Action/Status Quo Alternative will be used as the baseline to compare all of the other alternatives.

    Potential direct and indirect effects on the environment are evaluated under each alternative in the DPEA. The environmental effects on the following resources are considered: Physical environment, special resource areas, fish, marine mammals, birds, invertebrates, and the social and economic environment. Cumulative effects of external actions and the contribution of fisheries and ecosystem research activities to the overall cumulative impact on the aforementioned resources is also evaluated in the DPEA for the three main geographic regions in which AFSC surveys are conducted.

    NMFS requests comments on the DPEA for Fisheries and Ecosystem Research Conducted and Funded by the National Marine Fisheries Service, Alaska Fisheries Science Center. Through this notice, NMFS is notifying the public that a DPEA is available for review so that interested or affected people may participate and contribute to the final decision. NMFS is seeking written public comments on the scope of issues, potential impacts, and alternatives considered in the DPEA. Written comments will be accepted at the address above (see ADDRESSES). Written comments should be as specific as possible to be the most helpful. Written comments received, including the names and addresses of those submitting them, will be considered part of the public record for this proposed action and will be available for public inspection. Please include, with your comments, any supporting data or literature citations that may be informative in substantiating your comment.

    Dated: August 1, 2016. Douglas P. DeMaster, Director, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19002 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION Notice of Availability of Revised Methodology for Determining Average Prime Offer Rates AGENCY:

    Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) announces the availability of a revised methodology statement, entitled the “Methodology for Determining Average Prime Offer Rates.” The methodology statement describes the data and the methodology used to calculate average prime offer rates for purposes of Regulation C and Regulation Z. The statement has been revised to reflect the fact that the Bureau is using a different source of survey data for the one-year variable rate mortgage product to calculate average prime offer rates.

    ADDRESSES:

    The revised methodology statement is available on the Web site of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) at https://www.ffiec.gov/ratespread/newcalchelp.aspx#4.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Terry J. Randall, Counsel, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The average prime offer rates (APORs) are annual percentage rates derived from average interest rates, points, and other loan pricing terms offered to borrowers by a representative sample of lenders for mortgage loans that have low-risk pricing characteristics. APORs have implications for data reporters under Regulation C and creditors under Regulation Z. Regulation C requires covered financial institutions to report, for certain transactions, the difference between a loan's annual percentage rate (APR) and the APOR for a comparable transaction.1 Under Regulation Z, a creditor may be subject to certain special provisions if the difference between a loan's APR and the APOR for a comparable transaction exceeds certain thresholds.2

    1 12 CFR 1003.4(a)(12)(i).

    2 12 CFR 1026.35(a) and 1026.32(a)(1)(i).

    The Bureau calculates APORs on a weekly basis according to a methodology statement that is available to the public. The Bureau has revised the methodology statement to reflect a change in the source of survey data for the one-year variable rate mortgage product that it began using to calculate the weekly APORs on July 7, 2016. The Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey® (PMMS) previously provided survey data for that mortgage product that, together with data for other products from the same survey, has been used to calculate the weekly APORs. Freddie Mac has discontinued publishing the one-year variable rate mortgage data. Beginning on July 7, 2016, the Bureau started using data provided by HSH Associates for the one-year variable rate mortgage product to calculate the weekly APORs, while continuing to derive the other data used by the methodology from the PMMS. The Bureau has revised the methodology statement in light of that change. No other substantive changes have been made to the methodology statement.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Richard Cordray, Director, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18899 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-AM-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army [Docket ID: USA-2016-HQ-0028] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Department of the Army, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of the Army proposes to alter a system of records notice A0690-600 SAMR, entitled “Equal Opportunity and Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Files.” This system is used to ensure complaints are properly investigated and appropriate remedial action initiated to correct inequities. It is also used to collect, record, and maintain racial, ethnic group, and gender data; and complaints statistical data.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before September 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Tracy Rogers, Chief, FOIA and Privacy, Department of the Army, U.S. Army Records Management and Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, Alexandria, VA 22325-3905; telephone (703) 428-7499.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department of the Army's notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or from the Defense Privacy, Civil Liberties and Transparency Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on July 7, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: July 25, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. A0690-600 SAMR System name:

    Equal Opportunity and Equal Employment Opportunity Complaint Files (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10002).

    Changes: System identifier:

    Delete entry and replace with “A0600-20 SAMR.”

    System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Soldiers Equal Opportunity Investigative Files.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Primary location: Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAMR), 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103.

    Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Former and current U.S. Army military service members (active duty, reservist, or National Guard) who submit an Equal Opportunity compliant.”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, unit, race/ethnic group, gender, phone numbers, rank, grade, individual's complaint and supporting documentation, names of parties involved and witness statements, investigatory reports, decisional documents, and correspondence and any additional evidence gathered during the course of the investigation.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 3013, Department of the Army; DoD Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program; DoD Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services; DoD Instruction 1325.06, Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces; and Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy.”

    Purpose(s):

    Delete entry and replace with “To ensure complaints are properly investigated and appropriate remedial action initiated to correct inequities. Demographic (e.g. race, ethnic group, gender) and de-identified complaints data is aggregated for statistical reporting.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may also apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Paper and electronic records storage.”

    Retrievability:

    Delete entry and replace with “By complainant's name.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are maintained in secured areas, accessible only to designated officials having official need in the performance of assigned duties. Access to electronic records is restricted by use of Common Access Cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The systems are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “At the primary location, files are permanent. Two years following closing of case, records are retired to the Washington National Records Center, Suitland, MD. Records at other Army locations are destroyed two years following the final action in the case. Paper records are destroyed by tearing, burning, melting, chemical decomposition, pulping, pulverizing, shredding, or mutilation. Electronic records and media are destroyed by overwriting, degaussing, disintegration, pulverization.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103. Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Individual should provide the full name, and dates pertinent to individual's complaint.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103. Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Individual should provide the full name, and dates pertinent to individual's complaint.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)'.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program, or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “From the individual, witnesses, and Army records and reports.”

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Parts of this system may be exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2) and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 505. For additional information contact the system manager.”

    A0600-20 SAMR System name:

    Soldiers Equal Opportunity Investigative Files.

    System location:

    Primary location: Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAMR), 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103.

    Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Former and current U.S. Army military service members (active duty, reservist, or National Guard) who submit an Equal Opportunity compliant.

    Categories of records in the system:

    Name, unit, race/ethnic group, gender, phone numbers, rank, grade, individual's complaint and supporting documentation, names of parties involved and witness statements, investigatory reports, decisional documents, and correspondence and any additional evidence gathered during the course of the investigation.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 3013, Department of the Army; DoD Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program; DoD Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services; DoD Instruction 1325.06, Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed Forces; and Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy.

    Purpose(s):

    To ensure complaints are properly investigated and appropriate remedial action initiated to correct inequities. Demographic (e.g. race, ethnic group, gender) and de-identified complaints data is aggregated for statistical reporting.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure to the Department of Justice for Litigation Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to any component of the Department of Justice for the purpose of representing the Department of Defense, or any officer, employee or member of the Department in pending or potential litigation to which the record is pertinent.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Army's compilation of systems of records notices may also apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system:

    Storage:

    Paper and electronic records storage.

    Retrievability:

    By complainant's name.

    Safeguards:

    Records are maintained in secured areas, accessible only to designated officials having official need in the performance of assigned duties. Access to electronic records is restricted by use of Common Access Cards (CACs) and is accessible only by users with an authorized account. The systems are maintained in controlled facilities that employ physical restrictions and safeguards such as security guards, identification badges, key cards, and locks.

    Retention and disposal:

    At the primary location, files are permanent. Two years following closing of case, records are retired to the Washington National Records Center, Suitland, MD. Records at other Army locations are destroyed two years following the final action in the case. Paper records are destroyed by tearing, burning, melting, chemical decomposition, pulping, pulverizing, shredding, or mutilation. Electronic records and media are destroyed by overwriting, degaussing, disintegration, pulverization.

    System manager(s) and address:

    Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103. Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Individual should provide the full name, and dates pertinent to individual's complaint.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of the Army Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 103 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 20310-0103. Segments of the system are maintained at Army installations. Official mailing addresses are published as an appendix to the Army's compilation of systems of records notices.

    Individual should provide the full name, and dates pertinent to individual's complaint.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).” If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    Contesting record procedures:

    The Army's rules for accessing records, and for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in 32 CFR part 505, Army Privacy Program, or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    From the individual, witnesses, and Army records and reports.

    Exemptions claimed for the system:

    Parts of this system may be exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2).

    An exemption rule for this system has been promulgated in accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2) and (3), (c) and (e) and published in 32 CFR part 505. For additional information contact the system manager.

    [FR Doc. 2016-18823 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary [Docket ID: DOD-2016-OS-0085] Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records AGENCY:

    Office of the Secretary of Defense, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice to alter a system of records.

    SUMMARY:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense proposes to alter a system of records, DFMP 09, entitled “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Student File.” The system is used to manage administrative and academic functions related to student registration and courses attempted and completed. Records are used to ensure class diversity; input grades; track student progress; advise/counsel as needed; verify attendance; and are used by the academic review board and the Commandant to make decisions regarding the release of students from the program. Records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, and reporting.

    DATES:

    Comments will be accepted on or before September 9, 2016. This proposed action will be effective the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:

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

    * Mail: Department of Defense, Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer, Directorate for Oversight and Compliance, 4800 Mark Center Drive, Mailbox #24, Alexandria, VA 22350-1700.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this Federal Register document. The general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the public is to make these submissions available for public viewing on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mrs. Luz D. Ortiz, Chief, Records, Privacy and Declassification Division (RPD2), 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155, or by phone at (571) 372-0478.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense notices for systems of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, have been published in the Federal Register and are available from the address in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or at the Defense Privacy and Civil Liberties Division Web site at http://dpcld.defense.gov/.

    The proposed systems reports, as required by 5 U.S.C. 552a(r) of the Privacy Act, as amended, were submitted on July 19, 2016, to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to paragraph 4 of Appendix I to OMB Circular No. A-130, “Federal Agency Responsibilities for Maintaining Records About Individuals,” revised November 28, 2000 (December 12, 2000 65 FR 77677).

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Aaron Siegel, Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. DFMP 09 System name:

    Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Student File (February 22, 1993, 58 FR 10227).

    Changes: System identifier:

    Delete entry and replace with “DPR 48.”

    System name:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Integrated Database.”

    System location:

    Delete entry and replace with “Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.”

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Active duty military, Reserve Components, DoD civilians, other Federal Government agency employees, and contractors attending courses at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).”

    Categories of records in the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “Name, Social Security Number (SSN), gender, birth date, race/ethnicity, religious preference, disability information, unit/home address, email, work and home/cell phone numbers; lodging at training location (facility, address, and room number); emergency contact name, address, relationship, and phone number; education level; employment information (military or civilian organization), rank, date of rank, date entered service, pay grade, occupational series, clearance level, duty position; student number, class number, DEOMI test and examination scores, instructor grades, and advisor progress reports.”

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    Delete entry and replace with “10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 5 U.S.C. 4103, Establishment of training programs; DoD Directive (DoDD) 1020.02E, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (EO) in the Department of Defense; DoDD 1322.18, Military Training; DoDD 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program; DoDD 1440.1, The DoD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.”

    Purpose:

    Delete entry and replace with “To manage administrative and academic functions related to student registration and courses attempted and completed. Records are used to ensure class diversity; input grades; track student progress; advise/counsel as needed; verify attendance; and are used by the academic review board and the Commandant to make decisions regarding the release of students from the program. Records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, and reporting.”

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    Delete entry and replace with “In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx”

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Delete entry and replace with “Electronic storage media.”

    Safeguards:

    Delete entry and replace with “Records are stored in a controlled access area in a DoD facility which is protected by base entry security guards and is accessible only to badged personnel. Access to records is restricted to authorized personnel in performance of their official duties through the use of a Common Access Card (CAC) and PIN. Records are stored in an encrypted database and access requires token authentication. Periodic security audits, regular monitoring of user security practices and methods to ensure only authorized personnel access records are applied.”

    Retention and disposal:

    Delete entry and replace with “Cut off on graduation, transfer, withdrawal, or death of student. Destroy 50 years after cut off.”

    System manager and address:

    Delete entry and replace with “Director, Information Systems, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.”

    Notification procedure:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Personnel and Student Services, Attn: Student Services, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.

    Signed, written requests should include full name, SSN or student number, current address, telephone number, and class attended or class number.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.”

    Record access procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act, Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include full name, SSN or student number, current address, telephone number, class attended or class number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: `I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).'

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.”

    Contesting record procedures:

    Delete entry and replace with “The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.”

    Record source categories:

    Delete entry and replace with “Individuals, instructors, facilitators, and examinations.”

    DPR 48 System name:

    Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute Integrated Database.

    System location:

    Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.

    Categories of individuals covered by the system:

    Active duty military, Reserve Components, DoD civilians, other Federal Government agency employees, and contractors attending courses at the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).

    Categories of records in the system:

    Name, Social Security Number (SSN), gender, birth date, race/ethnicity, religious preference, disability information, unit/home address, email, work and home/cell phone numbers; lodging at training location (facility, address, and room number); emergency contact name, address, relationship, and phone number; education level; employment information (military or civilian organization), rank, date of rank, date entered service, pay grade, occupational series, clearance level, duty position; student number, class number, DEOMI test and examination scores, instructor grades, and advisor progress reports.

    Authority for maintenance of the system:

    10 U.S.C. 136, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; 5 U.S.C. 4103, Establishment of training programs; DoD Directive (DoDD) 1020.02E, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (EO) in the Department of Defense; DoDD 1322.18, Military Training; DoDD 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program; DoDD 1440.1, The DoD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program; and E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended.

    Purpose:

    To manage administrative and academic functions related to student registration and courses attempted and completed. Records are used to ensure class diversity; input grades; track student progress; advise/counsel as needed; verify attendance; and are used by the academic review board and the Commandant to make decisions regarding the release of students from the program. Records are also used as a management tool for statistical analysis, tracking, and reporting.

    Routine uses of records maintained in the system, including categories of users and the purposes of such uses:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the records contained herein may specifically be disclosed outside the DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    Law Enforcement Routine Use: If a system of records maintained by a DoD Component to carry out its functions indicates a violation or potential violation of law, whether civil, criminal, or regulatory in nature, and whether arising by general statute or by regulation, rule, or order issued pursuant thereto, the relevant records in the system of records may be referred, as a routine use, to the agency concerned, whether federal, state, local, or foreign, charged with the responsibility of investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing the statute, rule, regulation, or order issued pursuant thereto.

    Congressional Inquiries Disclosure Routine Use: Disclosure from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be made to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from the congressional office made at the request of that individual.

    Disclosure of Information to the National Archives and Records Administration Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a DoD Component may be disclosed as a routine use to the National Archives and Records Administration for the purpose of records management inspections conducted under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    Data Breach Remediation Purposes Routine Use: A record from a system of records maintained by a Component may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) The Component suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of the information in the system of records has been compromised; (2) the Component has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Component or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Components efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.

    The DoD Blanket Routine Uses set forth at the beginning of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) compilation of systems of records notices may apply to this system. The complete list of DoD Blanket Routine Uses can be found online at: http://dpcld.defense.gov/Privacy/SORNsIndex/BlanketRoutineUses.aspx.

    Policies and practices for storing, retrieving, accessing, retaining, and disposing of records in the system: Storage:

    Electronic storage media.

    Retrievability:

    Name, Social Security Number, student number or class.

    Safeguards:

    Records are stored in a controlled access area in a DoD facility which is protected by base entry security guards and is accessible only to badged personnel. Access to records is restricted to authorized personnel in performance of their official duties through the use of a Common Access Card (CAC) and PIN. Records are stored in an encrypted database and access requires token authentication. Periodic security audits, regular monitoring of user security practices and methods to ensure only authorized personnel access records are applied.

    Retention and disposal:

    Cut off on graduation, transfer, withdrawal, or death of student. Destroy 50 years after cut off.

    System manager and address:

    Director, Information Systems, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.

    Notification procedure:

    Individuals seeking to determine whether information about themselves is contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Director, Personnel and Student Services, Attn: Student Services, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 366 Tuskegee Airmen Drive, Building 352, Patrick AFB, FL 32925-3399.

    Signed, written requests should include full name, SSN or student number, current address, telephone number, and class attended or class number.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.

    Record access procedures:

    Individuals seeking access to information about themselves contained in this system should address written inquiries to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Joint Staff Freedom of Information Act, Requester Service Center, Office of Freedom of Information, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155.

    Signed, written requests should include full name, SSN or student number, current address, telephone number, class attended or class number, and the name and number of this system of records notice.

    In addition, the requester must provide a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 1746, in the following format:

    If executed outside the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature).”

    If requesting information about a minor or legally incompetent person, the request must be made by the custodial parent, legal guardian, or person with legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the individual. Written proof of that status may be required before the existence of any information will be confirmed.

    Contesting record procedures:

    The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) rules for accessing records, for contesting contents and appealing initial agency determinations are published in OSD Administrative Instruction 81; 32 CFR part 311; or may be obtained from the system manager.

    Record source categories:

    Individuals, instructors, facilitators, and examinations.

    Exemptions:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-18927 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects AGENCY:

    Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of project deauthorizations.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is publishing the names of water resources projects that have been automatically deauthorized under the provisions of § 1001(a), Public Law 99-662, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 579a(a).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph W. Aldridge, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attention: CECW-IP, Washington, DC 20314-1000. Tel. (202) 761-4130 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 1001(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, 100 Stat. 4082-4273, as amended, provides for the automatic deauthorization of water resource projects that were authorized in Public Law 99-662 and did not have obligations for planning, design, or construction in the five-year period following the date of enactment of Public Law 99-662 (November 17, 1986).

    In accordance with section 1001(a), of WRDA 1986, 24 projects were automatically deauthorized on November 17, 1991. The following table indicates the disposition of the listed projects.

    Table 1—(Automatically Deauthorized Under Section 1001(a) of WRDA 1986) Corps
  • district
  • Projects automatically deauthorized on 17 November 1991 under Section 1001(a) WRDA 1986 Primary state Project
  • purpose
  • POA SOUTH CENTRAL RAILBELT AREA, AK AK HYD SWL LITTLE RIVER, AR AR FRM SPL LITTLE COLORADO RIVER WATERSHED, AZ AZ FRM SPL RILLITO RIVER, EL RIO ANTIGUO, AZ AZ AER SPK SACRAMENTO RIVER, CA CA EI SPL HUNTINGTON HARBOR DREDGING, CA CA AER NWO METROPOLITAN DENVER, CO CO FRM POH WAILUA FALLS, WAILUA RIVER, KAUAI, HI HI HYD LRL WABASH RIVER, IL IL FRM LRC LAKE GEORGE, HOBART, IN IN AER LRL OHIO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, KY & WV KY&WV FRM MVN LAKE CHARLES, LA LA NAV MVK CANEY CREEK, MS MS FRM MVK GREENVILLE HARBOR, MS MS NAV NAN FRESH KILLS IN CARTERET, NJ NJ NAV NAN GREENWOOD LAKE AND BELCHER CREEK, NJ NJ AER NAN PASSAIC RIVER BASIN CHANNEL CLEARING, NJ NJ FRM NAN PASSAIC RIVER, NJ NJ FRM LRP WHEELING CREEK WATERSHED, OH OH AER NAP SCHUYLKILL RIVER BASIN, POTTSTOWN, PA PA FRM NWO JAMES RIVER ND & SD SD FRM MVM MEMPHIS, TN TN&MS FRM SAJ CROWN BAY CHANNEL, ST. THOMAS HARBOR, VI VI NAV NWS LA CONNER, WA WA FRM Total: 24
    U.S. Army Corps Districts LRC Chicago District LRL Louisville District LRP Pittsburgh District MVK Vicksburg District MVM Memphis District MVN New Orleans District NAN New York District NAP Philadelphia District NWO Omaha District NWS Seattle District POA Alaska District POH Honolulu District SAJ Jacksonville District SPK Los Angeles District SPL Albuquerque District SWL Little Rock District Authorized Project Purposes AER Aquatic Ecosystems Restoration EI Environment Infrastructure FRM Flood Risk Management HYD Hydroelectric Power NAV Navigation Authority:

    This notice is required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, section 1001(c), 33 U.S.C. 579a(c).

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    [FR Doc. 2016-19024 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects AGENCY:

    Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of project deauthorizations.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is publishing the name of one water resources project that has been automatically deauthorized under the provisions of § 350(b) of Public Law 106-541.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph W. Aldridge, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attention: CECW-IP, Washington, DC 20314-1000. Tel. (202) 761-4130 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 350(b) of Public Law 106-541, the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, 100 Stat. 2633, provides that a project for which authorization was continued under section 350(a) of Public Law 106-541, notwithstanding section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2)), as amended, was to be deauthorized if no funds had been obligated for the construction (including planning and design) of the project within a 7-year period beginning on the date of enactment.

    In accordance with section 350(b), of WRDA 2000, one (1) project was automatically deauthorized on December 11, 2007. The following table indicates the disposition of the listed project.

    Table 1—(Automatically Deauthorized Under Section 350(b) Pub. L. 106-541) Corps
  • district
  • Projects automatically deauthorized on 11 December 2007 under Section 350(b) Pub. L. 106-541
  • (7-yr provision)
  • Primary state Project
  • purpose
  • SPK SACRAMENTO RIVER FROM CHICO LANDING TO RED BLUFF, CA CA FRM Total: 1
    Corps District: SPK Sacramento District Project Purpose: FRM Flood Risk Management Authority:

    This notice is pursuant to section 350(b) of Public Law 106-541.

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    [FR Doc. 2016-19016 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects AGENCY:

    Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers published a notice in the Federal Register, 74 FR 126 E9-15663 (July 2, 2009) announcing projects deauthorized under Section 1001(b)(2) WRDA 1986, as amended. This correction notice clarifies the deauthorization related to the Reelfoot Lake-Lake No 9 project.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph W. Aldridge, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attention: CECW-IP, Washington, DC 20314-1000. Tel. (202) 761-4130 or [email protected]

    CORRECTION:

    Correct the list in the Federal Register of July 2, 2009, in FR Doc. E9-15663, on page 31714, “Projects Deauthorized on 29 March 2009 Under Section 1001(B)(2) WRDA 1986, as Amended”, by amending the REELFOOT LAKE—LAKE NO 9, TN & KY project name to read REELFOOT LAKE—LAKE NO 9, TN & KY (UNCONSTRUCTED PORTIONS). The notice was intended to deauthorize only the unconstructed portions of this project. The constructed portions of Reelfoot Lake-Lake No 9, TN & KY remain authorized.

    Authority:

    This notice is required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, section 1001(c), 33 U.S.C. 579a(c).

    Dated: July 21, 2016.

    Approved by:

    Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    [FR Doc. 2016-19026 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Deauthorization of Water Resources Projects AGENCY:

    Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

    ACTION:

    Notice of project deauthorizations.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is publishing the names of water resources projects that have been automatically deauthorized under the provisions of § 1001(b)(2), Public Law 99-662, as amended, 33 U.S.C 579a(b)(2).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Joseph W. Aldridge, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Attention: CECW-IP, Washington, DC 20314-1000. Tel. (202) 761-4130 or [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 1001(b)(2) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, 100 Stat. 4082-4273, as amended, provides for the automatic deauthorization of water resource projects and separable elements of projects that are eligible for deauthorization under that section.

    Section 1001(b)(2), 33 U.S.C. 579a(b)(2), requires the Secretary of the Army to annually submit to the Congress a list of unconstructed water resources projects and separable elements of projects for which no funds have been obligated for planning, design or construction during the preceding five full fiscal years. If no funds are obligated to a listed project by end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the project was listed, then the project is automatically deauthorized. Notwithstanding these provisions, projects may be specifically deauthorized or reauthorized by law. (Note: The provision of § 1001(b)(2) prior to the 2007 amendments apply to this action.)

    In accordance with section 1001(b)(2), in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) submitted a list informing Congress of 11 projects and separable elements that would be subject to automatic deauthorization after September 30, 2011, and in FY 2011 submitted a list of 20 projects and separable elements that would be subject to automatic deauthorization after September 30, 2012, and in FY 2012 submitted a list of 2 projects and separable elements that would be subject to automatic deauthorization after September 30, 2013. Of the 33 projects and separable elements included in these three lists, all 33 were in fact automatically deauthorized, in accordance with section 1001(b)(2). The following three tables indicate the disposition of each of the 33 listed projects.

    Table 1 [FY2010 Deauthorization List] Corps district Projects deauthorized on 01 October 2011 under Section 1001(b)(2) WRDA 1986, as amended Primary state Project
  • purpose
  • MVM CACHE RIVER BASIN, AR AR FC MVM LOWER WHITE RIVER, BIG CREEK & TRIBUTARIES, AR AR FC SPL CARNEROS CREEK, CA CA FC SPN NOYO RIVER AND HARBOR (BREAKWATER), CA CA NAV LRH LOGAN, OH OH FC SAC CHARLESTON HARBOR—SHIPYARD RIVER UPPER CHANNEL & UPPER TURNING BASIN, SC SC NAV MVM HARRIS FORK CREEK, TN & KY TN FC MVM NONCONNAH CREEK, ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT, TN & MS TN ENR MVM NONCONNAH CREEK, RECREATION ELEMENT, TN & MS TN ENR MVK RED RIVER WATERWAY, SHREVEPORT, LA TO DAINGERFIELD, TX TX NAV NAO JAMES R OLIN FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT, VA (separable element) VA FC Total: 11
    Table 2 [FY2011 Deauthorization List] Corps district Projects deauthorized on 01 October 2012 under Section 1001(b)(2) WRDA 1986, as amended Primary state Project
  • purpose
  • SWF ST GEORGE HARBOR, AK AK NAV SWL BEAVER DAM TROUT PRODUCTION, AR AR ENV SWL JOHN PAUL HAMMERSCHMIDT VISITOR CENTER, AR AR SPL SANTA MONICA BREAKWATER, CA CA NAV LRL OHIO RIVER ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROGRAM, KY KY ENV NAP DELAWARE RIVER, CHES AND DEL CANAL, DE & MD MD NAV NAP DELAWARE BAY COASTLINE, DE & NJ—OAKWOOD BEACH, NJ NJ FDR SWT PARKER LAKE, OK OK FDR SAJ RIO GRANDE DE LOIZA, PR PR FDR SAJ RIO GUANAJIBO, PR PR FDR SWF AF641-SHOAL CRK., AUSTIN TX TX FDR SWG ARROYO COLORADO, TX TX FDR SWF BIG SANDY LAKE,TX BA519 TX FDR SWF ELM FORK FLOODWAY, MD (BA511) TX FDR SWF FT WORTH STOCKYARDS, TARRANT CO, (BE129) TX FDR SWF LAKE WORTH, TX (AF653) TX FDR SWF MILLICAN LAKE, TX TX FDR SWF ROCKLAND LAKE,TX (AF664) TX FDR SWF SAN GABRIEL RIVER-SOUTH FORK, TX (BE257) TX FDR SWF SOMERVILLE LAKE BE273 TX FDR Total: 20
    Table 3 [FY2012 Deauthorization List] Corps district Projects deauthorized on 01 October 2013 Under Section 1001(b)(2) WRDA 1986, as amended Primary state Project
  • purpose
  • MVS ST LOUIS HARBOR, MO AND IL IL NAV LRB OTTAWA RIVER HARBOR, OH OH NAV Total: 2

    U.S. Army Corps Districts:

    LRB Buffalo District LRH Huntington District LRL Louisville District MVK Vicksburg District MVM Memphis District MVS St. Louis District NAO Norfolk District SAC Charleston District SAJ Jacksonville District SPL Albuquerque District SPN Sacramental District SWF Fort Worth District SWG Galveston District SWL Little Rock District NAP Philadelphia District SWT Tulsa District

    Authorized Project Purposes:

    ENR Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration ENV Environment FC Flood Control FDR Flood Damage Reduction NAV Navigation Authority:

    This notice is required by the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99-662, section 1001(c), 33 U.S.C. 579a(c).

    Dated: July 21, 2016. Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works).
    [FR Doc. 2016-19020 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0089] Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment Request; Federal Direct Loan Program Regulations for Forbearance and Loan Rehabilitation AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), 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 an extension of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 11, 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-0089. 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 2E343, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, 202-377-4018.

    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: Federal Direct Loan Program Regulations for Forbearance and Loan Rehabilitation.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0119.

    Type of Review: An extension of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals or Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 129,027.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 35,094.

    Abstract: This information collection for the Direct Loan (DL) Program is related to regulations for dealing with defaulted loans and forbearance in § 685.205 and reasonable and affordable loan rehabilitation in § 685.211. We are requesting an extension of the current burden calculated for this information collection. These regulations provide additional flexibilities for Direct Loan borrowers and permit oral requests for forbearance, as well as allow a borrower to object to the initially established reasonable and affordable loan repayment amount. In addition, if a borrower incurs changes to his or her financial circumstances, the borrower can provide supporting documentation to change the amount of the reasonable and affordable loan monthly repayment amount. There has been no change to the regulatory language.

    Dated: August 5, 2016. Stephanie Valentine, Acting Director Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19015 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Proposed Agency Information Collection AGENCY:

    U.S. Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Energy (DOE) invites public comment on a proposed collection of information that DOE is developing for submission to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions 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 October 11, 2016. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon as possible.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments may be sent to Linh Truong, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Attn: Linh Truong, Mail Stop: RSF034, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401, or by fax at 303-630-2108, or by email at [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to: Craig Turchi, National Renewable Energy Laboratories, 303-384-7565, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This information collection request contains: (1) OMB No. “New”; (2) Information Collection Request Title: Concentrating Solar Power Solar Advisor Model (SAM) Industry Survey; (3) Type of Request: New collection; (4) Purpose: In an effort to improve the efficiency of Concentrating Solar Plants (CSP), this survey is necessary to collect data for the Department of Energy and the national labs from industry members in order to:

    • Assess how the industry is using the SAM tool and its accuracy

    • Assess opportunities for, and barriers to, national laboratory and industry collaboration on improving the SAM tool

    The information collected in this survey will be published in a report and help to inform new possibilities for the national labs. (5) Annual Estimated Number of Respondents: 100; (6) Annual Estimated Number of Total Responses: 100; (7) Annual Estimated Number of Burden Hours: 25 Hours; (8) Annual Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: $45,000.

    Statutory Authority:

    DOE Org Act (42 U.S.C. 7373).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 4, 2016. Becca Jones-Albertus, Director, Office Director, Solar Energy Technologies Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18991 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-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: RP16-1155-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Remove Terminated NC Agmt from Tariff (Mercuria 1651) and Expired Neg Rate Agmt to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5053.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1156-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company.

    Description: Compliance filing Report of Refund Transco's GSS LSS Customer Share of DTI Penalty Revenue 2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1157-000.

    Applicants: Dauphin Island Gathering Partners.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing 8-2-16 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1158-000.

    Applicants: Gulf Crossing Pipeline Company LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (Devon 10-16) to be effective 8/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5039.

    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: August 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18888 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2227-000] Kelly Creek Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Kelly Creek Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18884 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2234-000] EF Kenilworth LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of EF Kenilworth LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18885 Filed 8-9-16; 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: EC16-149-000.

    Applicants: San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Description: Supplement to July 13, 2016 Application for Authorization of Transaction Pursuant to Section 203 of the Federal Power Act of San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5155.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-162-000.

    Applicants: Aspirity Energy, LLC.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Expedited Consideration and Confidential Treatment of Aspirity Energy, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5152.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG16-131-000.

    Applicants: Patua Acquisition Company, LLC.

    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale Generator Status of Patua Acquisition Company, LLC.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-277-005.

    Applicants: Talen Energy Marketing, LLC.

    Description: Compliance filing: Administratively Cancel Tariff Record ID to be effective 12/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/18/16.

    Accession Number: 20160718-5135.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/8/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1793-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-08-03_CMP Baseline—Attachment LL 2nd Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1794-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-08-03_CMP Baseline—RS 8 MISO-Manitoba Hydro SOA 2nd Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5129.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1795-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-08-03_CMP Baseline—RS 46 Minnkota-MISO Coor Opr Agreement 2nd Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1797-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-08-03_CMP Baseline—MISO-SPP JOA 2nd Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1798-002.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2016-08-03_CMP Baseline—MISO-PJM JOA 2nd Amendment to be effective 7/25/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5123.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1878-001.

    Applicants: Ringer Hill Wind, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: Supplement to Application for Market-Based Rate Authorization to be effective 9/16/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2225-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Report Filing: 2016-07-29 RSG Rhg Supplement Filing to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5045.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2365-000.

    Applicants: All Dams Generation, LLC.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Reactive Power Tariff to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2366-000.

    Applicants: Mahoning Creek Hydroelectric Company, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Tariff Application to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5128.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2367-000.

    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: 2016-08-03_SA 2932 ATC—Wisconsin Power and Light Umbrella GIA to be effective 8/4/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5059.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2368-000.

    Applicants: New Creek Wind LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: New Creek Wind LLC to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/3/16.

    Accession Number: 20160803-5130.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/24/16.

    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: August 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18886 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2307-000] Vista Energy Marketing, L.P.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Vista Energy Marketing, L.P.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18890 Filed 8-9-16; 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: EC16-160-000.

    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Requests for Waivers, Shortened Comment Period and Expedited Consideration of Virginia Electric and Power Company.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5227.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Docket Numbers: EC16-161-000.

    Applicants: R. R. Donnelley & Sons Company, LSC Communications US, LLC.

    Description: Application for authorization under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and request for waivers and expedited action of R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5239.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/22/16.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2306-001.

    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.

    Description: Tariff Amendment: SCE Resubmits Revised Appendix 6.2 to WDAT GIP to be effective 7/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2358-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Original WMPA SA No. 4505, Queue No. Z2-097 to be effective 7/13/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2359-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to First Revised WMPA SA No. 4184, Queue No. Z2-106 to be effective 12/9/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5075.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2360-000.

    Applicants: Great Western Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Great Western Wind Energy Initial MBR Application and Notice Waiver Request to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2361-000.

    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Original WMPA SA No. 4259, Queue No. Z1-110 to be effective 7/22/2015.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5088.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2362-000.

    Applicants: Public Service Company of Colorado.

    Description: Section 205(d) Rate Filing: PSCo-WAPA-Rosedale Const. Agrmt. NOC 378 0.1.0 to be effective 10/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2363-000.

    Applicants: Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Bluestem Wind Energy LLC MBR Application to be effective 10/3/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    Docket Numbers: ER16-2364-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin SKIC 10 Solar, LLC.

    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Order Accepting Initial Tariff to be effective 8/15/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/2/16.

    Accession Number: 20160802-5102.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/23/16.

    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: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18880 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2263-000] Telysium Energy Marketing, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Telysium Energy Marketing, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers,to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18889 Filed 8-9-16; 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 Number: PR16-63-000.

    Applicants: Black Hills Energy Arkansas, Inc.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1) + (g): Application for Approval of New Interruptible Services and Transportation Rates to be effective 7/1/2016; Filing Type: 1300.

    Filed Date: 7/25/2016.

    Accession Number: 20160725-5199 http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/doc_info.asp?accession_num=20160415-5222.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/23/16.

    Docket Number: PR16-59-001.

    Applicants: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(1),: Amendment to Revised Statement of Operating Conditions to be effective 6/16./2016; Filing Type: 1000.

    Filed Date: 7/29/2016.

    Accession Number: 201607295138.

    Comments/Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1113-000.

    Applicants: Questar Overthrust Pipeline Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming TSA No. 5613 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16..

    Accession Number: 20160728-5023

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1114-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—August 2016 Chevron TEAM 2014 Releases to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5025.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1115-000.

    Applicants: Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Clean-Up Filing—July 2016 to be effective 8/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5031.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1116-000.

    Applicants: Kern River Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Negotiated Rate Agreements to be effective 7/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5036.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1117-000.

    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: RAM 2016—Periodic RAM Adjustment to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5046.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1118-000.

    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: SNG Housekeeping Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5054.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1119-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Compliance filing GSS Storage Ratchet and Maximum Storage Balance Update.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5064.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1120-000.

    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 9-1-2016 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5089.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1121-000.

    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreement Update (APS August 2016) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/28/16.

    Accession Number: 20160728-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1122-000.

    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company,

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Cherokee AGL—Replacement Shippers—Aug 2016 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5000.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1123-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing-Mercuria Energy America to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5001.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1124-000.

    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 2016 Negotiated IT Rate Agreement—Oasis to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5050.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1125-000.

    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Fuel and L&U Filing to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5077.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1126-000.

    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: 07/29/16. Negotiated Rates—Mercuria Energy America, Inc.(RTS) 7540-02,-06,-07 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5079.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1127-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (Sempra 46193 to Sempra 46777) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5080.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1128-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (BG 41007 to Shell 46814) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5082.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1129-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Encana 37663 to Texla 46816, ConocoPhillips 46830)) to be effective 6/6/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5083.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1130-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Neg Rate Agmt (QEP 36601-58) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5084.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1131-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Neg Rate Agmt (Shell 46809) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5085.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1132-000.

    Applicants: Elba Express Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: EEC Housekeeping Filing to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5097.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1133-000.

    Applicants: MoGas Pipeline LLC.

    Description: Penalty Revenue Crediting Report of MoGas Pipeline LLC.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1134-000.

    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Gulf Markets Compliance Filing—Docket No. CP15-90-000 to be effective 10/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5229.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1135-000.

    Applicants: Great Lakes Gas Transmission Limited Par.

    Description: Great Lakes Gas Transmission submits its Semi-Annual Transporter's Use Report.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5273.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1136-000.

    Applicants: Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC—Proposed Revisions to FERC Gas Tariff to be effective 8/31/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5065.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1137-000.

    Applicants: Tuscarora Gas Transmission Company.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to RP16-299—Settlement Rates to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5070.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1138-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BBPC Release to EDF contract 791902 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1139-000.

    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation of Second Revised Volume No. 1 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5098.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1140-000.

    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Shell Negotiated Rate to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5100.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1141-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BBPC Release to EDF contract 791914 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5101.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1142-000.

    Applicants: Boardwalk Storage Company, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Tariff Reorganization—Submission of Third Revised Volume No. 1 to be effective 9/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5103.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1143-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmts (Atlanta 8438 to various eff 8-1-16) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5104.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1144-000.

    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Cap Rel Neg Rate Agmt (PH 41455 to Texla 46867) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5106.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1145-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BUG Release to Aggressive contract 791861 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5109.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1146-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—BUG Release to Browns contract 791913 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5114.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1147-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Con Ed Release to Enhanced Energy contract 791915 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5117.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1148-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—ConEd Release to Aggressive contract 791859 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5121.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1149-000.

    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Capacity Release Agreements—8/1/2016 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5124.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1150-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—KeySpan Release to Aggressive contract 791860 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5126.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1151-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—Keyspan Release to Brown's contract 791912 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5136.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1152-000.

    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates—RATIO ENERGY contract 791920 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5140.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1153-000.

    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Superseding Non-conforming Agmt (Mercuria 34366) to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5163.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1154-000.

    Applicants: Enable Mississippi River Transmission, L.

    Description: Section 4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Filing to Amend WRB #3808 8_1_16 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 8/1/16.

    Accession Number: 20160801-5199.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/15/16.

    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 date(s). Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

    Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-440-000.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: Motion Filing: Motion to Place in Effect RP16-440-000 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5092.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-440-004.

    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.

    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to RP16-440-000 to be effective 8/1/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5096.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-748-002.

    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.

    Description: Compliance filing Gulfshore Amendment Filing. to be effective 7/29/2016.

    Filed Date: 7/29/16.

    Accession Number: 20160729-5133.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/10/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    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: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18887 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2360-000] Great Western Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Great Western Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 23, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18891 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2226-000] McHenry Battery Storage, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of McHenry Battery Storage, LLC`s application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18883 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2224-000] Solverde 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Solverde 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 22, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 2, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18882 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2364-000] Algonquin SKIC 10 Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Algonquin SKIC 10 Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 23, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18893 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. ER16-2363-000] Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Bluestem Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 23, 2016.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email [email protected] or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18892 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [Regional Docket Nos. V-2015-2, FRL-9950-53-Region 5] Clean Air Act Operating Permit Program; Action on Petition for Objection to State Operating Permit for Waupaca Foundry Plant 1 AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice of final Order on petition to object to Clean Air Act Title V operating permit.

    SUMMARY:

    This document announces that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator has denied a petition from Philip Nolan asking EPA to object to a Title V operating permit issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to Waupaca Foundry Plant 1 (Waupaca). Sections 307(b) and 505(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act (Act) provide that a petitioner may ask for judicial review of those portions of the petition that EPA denies in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit. Any petition for review shall be filed within 60 days from the date this notice appears in the Federal Register, pursuant to section 307 of the Act.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may review copies of the final Order, the petition, and other supporting information at the EPA Region 5 Office, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. If you wish to examine these documents, you should make an appointment at least 24 hours before the day you would like to visit. Additionally, the final Order for the Waupaca petition is available electronically at: https://www.epa.gov/title-v-operating-permits/title-v-petition-database.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Genevieve Damico, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard AR-18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312) 353-4761.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Act affords EPA a 45-day period to review and object, as appropriate, to Title V operating permits proposed by state permitting authorities. Section 505(b)(2) of the Act authorizes any person to petition the EPA Administrator within 60 days after the expiration of the EPA review period to object to a Title V operating permit if EPA has not done so. A petition must be based only on objections to the permit that were raised with reasonable specificity during the public comment period provided by the state, unless the petitioner demonstrates that it was impracticable to raise issues during the comment period, or the grounds for the issues arose after this period.

    On July 1, 2015, EPA received a petition from Philip Nolan (Petitioner) requesting that EPA object to the Title V operating permit for Waupaca. The Petitioner alleged that the permit is not in compliance with the requirements of the Act. Specifically, the Petitioner alleged that: (1) The permit does not limit Hazardous Air Pollutant emissions to a concentration of 4.59 µg/m3, (2) the permit does not comply with Section 112 of the Act and the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the iron and steel foundry industry, (3) the EPA should conduct a residual risk and technology review, (4) the permit limits are insufficient to protect public health, (5) the modeling procedures used to determine public health risk were not correct, and (6) additional emissions control technology should be used.

    On July 14, 2016, the Administrator issued an Order denying the petition. The Order explains the reasons behind EPA's conclusion.

    Dated: August 1, 2016. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19027 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-9950-56-Region 1] Notice of Availability of Draft NPDES General Permits for Discharges From Potable Water Treatment Facilities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire: The Potable Water Treatment Facility General Permit AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency.

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability of draft NPDES general permits MAG640000 and NHG640000.

    SUMMARY:

    The Director of the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency—Region 1 (EPA), is providing a notice of availability of the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits (GP) for discharges from potable water treatment facilities (PWTF) to certain waters of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the State of New Hampshire. The draft General Permits establish Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements, effluent limitations, standard and special conditions, prohibitions, and best management practices (BMPs) for sites with discharges from potable water treatment facilities. These General Permits replace the previous PWTF GP that expired on October 2, 2014.

    DATES:

    Comments on the draft General Permits must be received on or before September 9, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments on the draft General Permits may be mailed to U.S. EPA Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Attn: Glenda Velez, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code: OEP06-1, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912, or sent via email to [email protected] No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

    The draft PWTF GP is based on an administrative record available for public review at EPA-Region 1, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying requests. The fact sheet for the draft PWTF GP sets forth principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in the development of the draft General Permit and is available upon request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Additional information concerning the draft General Permits may be obtained between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, from Glenda Velez, U.S. EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP06-1, Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone: 617-918-1677; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Public Comment Information: Interested persons may submit written comments on the draft General Permits to the EPA-Region I at the address listed above. Within the comment period, interested persons may also request, in writing, that EPA hold a public hearing pursuant to 40 CFR 124.12, concerning the draft General Permits. Such requests shall state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised at the hearing. A public hearing may be held at least thirty days after public notice whenever the Regional Administrator finds that response to this notice indicates significant public interest. In reaching a final decision on this draft permit, the Regional Administrator will respond to all significant comments and make responses available to the public at EPA's Boston office. All comments and requests for public hearings must be postmarked or delivered by the close of the public comment period.

    General Information: EPA is proposing to reissue two general permits for wastewater discharges from potable water treatment facilities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, that are generally less than or equal to 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) and that use one or more of the following treatment processes: Clarification, Coagulation, Media Filtration, Membrane filtration (not including reverse osmosis), and Disinfection. While the draft General Permits are two distinct permits, for convenience, EPA has grouped them together in a single document and has provided a single fact sheet. This document refers to the draft General “Permit” in the singular. The draft General Permit, fact sheet, and appendices are available at: http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/pwtfgp.html.

    The draft general permit includes effluent limitations and requirements based on technology-based considerations, best professional judgment (BPJ), and water quality considerations. The effluent limits established in the draft General Permit assure that the surface water quality standards of the receiving water(s) are attained and/or maintained. The permit also contains BMP requirements in order to ensure EPA has the information necessary to ensure compliance and to ensure discharges meet water quality standards.

    Obtaining Authorization: In order to obtain authorization to discharge, operators must submit a complete and accurate NOI containing the information in Appendix IV of the draft General Permit. Facilities currently authorized to discharge under the Expired PWTF GP must submit a NOI within 90 days of the effective date of the final General Permit. Operators with new discharges must submit a NOI at least 60 days prior to initiating discharges and following the effective date of the final General Permit. Facilities with existing discharges that were not authorized under the Expired PWTF GP and which use aluminum in their treatment process must conduct more extensive water quality sampling data and submit this information with the NOI within 6 months of the effective date of the final General Permit.

    Operators must meet the eligibility requirements of the General Permit prior to submission of a NOI. An operator will be authorized to discharge under the General Permit upon receipt of written notice from EPA following EPA's web posting of the submitted NOI. EPA will authorize the discharge, request additional information, or require the operator to apply for an alternative permit or an individual permit. The effective date of the final General Permit will be specified in the Federal Register publication of the Notice of Availability of the final permit.

    Other Legal Requirements: Endangered Species Act (ESA): EPA has updated the provisions and necessary actions and documentation related to potential impacts to endangered species from facilities seeking coverage under the PWTF GP. EPA has requested concurrence from the appropriate federal services (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service) in connection with this draft General Permit.

    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA): In accordance with NHPA, EPA has established provisions and documentation requirements for sites seeking coverage under the PWTF GP to ensure that discharges or actions taken under this General Permit will not adversely affect historic properties and places.

    Authority:

    This action is being taken under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: August 1, 2016. H. Curtis Spalding, Regional Administrator, Region 1.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19028 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0445; FRL-9950-09] Summitec Corporation, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture; Transfer of Data AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces that pesticide related information submitted to EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), including information that may have been claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) by the submitter, will be transferred to Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture in accordance with the CBI regulations. Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture have been awarded a contract to perform work for OPP, and access to this information will enable Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture to fulfill the obligations of the contract.

    DATES:

    Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture will be given access to this information on or before August 15, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mario Steadman, Information Technology and Resources Management Division (7502P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (703) 305-8338, email: [email protected]

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

    This action applies to the public in general. As such, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.

    B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0445, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

    II. Contractor Requirements

    Under Contract No. EP-W-16-019, Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture, will perform critical reviews of EPA designated studies submitted by the registrants and/or from the open literature. These reviews will be provided to the contract officer's representative in data evaluation records or other similar study data evaluation records or systems, as applicable. A template of the data evaluation records format provided to the contractor will be followed in the preparation of data evaluation records. See the data evaluation records templates for test guidelines at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/study-profile-templates. Specific guidance for completing each section is provided in the data evaluation records templates. Each review will encompass all items in the study that contribute to the overall knowledge of the pesticide, and will include the following:

    • An evaluation of the accuracy, credibility and scientific validity of that study;

    • its suitability for meeting specific data requirements;

    • any necessary graphic displays of data, and/or summary tables illustrating results of the study;

    • sound scientific rationale for the conclusions reached on specific studies; and

    • clarity in data presentation and adherence to the template and overall guidance.

    OPP has determined that access by Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture to information on all pesticide chemicals is necessary for the performance of this contract. Some of this information may be entitled to confidential treatment. The information has been submitted to EPA under FIFRA sections 3, 4, 6, and 7 and under FFDCA sections 408 and 409.

    In accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 2.307(h)(2) the contract with Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture, prohibits use of the information for any purpose not specified in the contract; prohibits disclosure of the information to a third party without prior written approval from the Agency; and requires that each official and employee of the contractor sign an agreement to protect the information from unauthorized release and to handle it in accordance with the FIFRA Information Security Manual. In addition, Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture are required to submit for EPA approval a security plan under which any CBI will be secured and protected against unauthorized release or compromise. No information will be provided to Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture until the requirements in this document have been fully satisfied. Records of information provided to Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture will be maintained by EPA project officers for this contract. All information supplied to Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture by EPA for use in connection with this contract will be returned to EPA when Summitec Corporation and its subcontractors, Versar, Inc., and CDM/CSS-Dynamac Joint Venture have completed their work.

    Authority:

    7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Delores Barber, Acting Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18896 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD Notice of Issuance of Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 50 AGENCY:

    Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules Of Procedure, as amended in October 2010, notice is hereby given that the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 50, Establishing Opening Balances for General Property, Plant, and Equipment: Amending Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) 6, SFFAS 10, SFFAS 23, and Rescinding SFFAS 35.

    The Statement is available on the FASAB Web site at http://www.fasab.gov/accounting-standards/. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at (202) 512-7350.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ms. Wendy M. Payne, executive director, 441 G Street NW., Mail Stop 6H19, Washington, DC 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority:

    Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18924 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
    FEDERAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS EXAMINATION COUNCIL [Docket No. FFIEC-2016-0002] Notice of Availability of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Filing Instructions Guides for HMDA Data Collected in 2017 and 2018; Correction AGENCY:

    Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of availability; correction.

    SUMMARY:

    The FFIEC published a notice in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016, announcing the availability of the Filing Instructions Guide (FIG) for Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data collected in 2017 and the Filing Instructions Guide for Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data collected in 2018. The FIGs provide a compendium of resources to help covered financial institutions file with the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (Bureau) HMDA data collected in 2017 and 2018. This notice corrects the telephone number, listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, from (855) 438-2372 to (202) 435-9888.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Michael Byrne, [email protected] or (202) 435-9888.

    Correction

    In the Federal Register of July 21, 2016, in FR Doc. 2016-17234, on page 47394, in the first column, remove “(855) 438-2372” and add in its place “(202) 435-9888”.

    Dated: August 3, 2016. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council. Judith E. Dupre, FFIEC Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18905 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7535-01-P 6714-01-P 6210-01-P 4810-33-P 4810-AM-P
    FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Notice of Agreements Filed

    The Commission hereby gives notice of the filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments on the agreements to the Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, Washington, DC 20573, within twelve days of the date this notice appears in the Federal Register. Copies of the agreements are available through the Commission's Web site (www.fmc.gov) or by contacting the Office of Agreements at (202)-523-5793 or [email protected]

    Agreement No.: 011075-077.

    Title: Central America Discussion Agreement.

    Parties: Crowley Latin America Services, LLC.; Dole Ocean Cargo Express; Great White Fleet Liner Service Ltd; King Ocean Services Limited; and Seaboard Marine, Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne R. Rohde, Esq.; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment corrects the address of Great White Fleet Liner Service Ltd.

    Agreement No.: 012316-001.

    Title: CMA CGM/HSDG/UASC/Vessel Sharing Agreement.

    Parties: CMA CGM, S.A.; Hamburg Sud; United Arab Shipping Co.

    Filing Party: Draughn B. Arbona, Esq; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502.

    Synopsis: The amendment reflects the termination of the Far East portion of the Agreement and clarifies terms of the Agreement moving forward. The parties have requested expedited review.

    Agreement No.: 012388-001.

    Title: Hyundai Glovis/Hoegh Mexico Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: Hoegh Autoliners AS and Hyundai Glovis Co. Ltd.

    Filing Party: Wayne Rohde; Cozen O'Connor; 1200 Nineteenth Street NW., Washington, DC 20036.

    Synopsis: The amendment clarifies that the scope of the Agreement includes Puerto Rico.

    Agreement No.: 012434.

    Title: MSC/CMA CGM Kingston-Mobile Space Charter Agreement.

    Parties: CMA CGM S.A. and Mediterranean Shiping Company S.A.

    Filing Party: Draughn B. Arbona, Esq; CMA CGM (America) LLC; 5701 Lake Wright Drive; Norfolk, VA 23502.

    Synopsis: This Agreement provides for MSC to charter space to CMA CGM in the Trade between Kingston, Jamaica and Mobile, Alabama.

    By Order of the Federal Maritime Commission.

    Dated: August 5, 2016. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19009 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6731-AA-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION [File No. 152 3229] Mars Petcare US, Inc.; Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment AGENCY:

    Federal Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Proposed consent agreement.

    SUMMARY:

    The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.

    DATES:

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

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested parties may file a comment at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/marspetcareconsent online or on paper, by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below. Write “In the Matter of Mars Petcare US, Inc., File No.152-3229—Consent Agreement” on your comment and file your comment online at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/marspetcareconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Mars Petcare US, Inc., File No.152-3229—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    David M. Newman, (415-848-5123), FTC Western Region, 901 Market Street, Suite 570, San Francisco, CA 94103.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement, and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained from the FTC Home Page (for August 4, 2016), on the World Wide Web at: http://www.ftc.gov/os/actions.shtm.

    You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before September 6, 2016. Write “In the Matter of Mars Petcare US, Inc., File No.152-3229—Consent Agreement” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the public Commission Web site, at http://www.ftc.gov/os/publiccomments.shtm. As a matter of discretion, the Commission tries to remove individuals' home contact information from comments before placing them on the Commission Web site.

    Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential,” as discussed in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.

    If you want the Commission to give your comment confidential treatment, you must file it in paper form, with a request for confidential treatment, and you have to follow the procedure explained in FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).1 Your comment will be kept confidential only if the FTC General Counsel, in his or her sole discretion, grants your request in accordance with the law and the public interest.

    1 In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record. See FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c).

    Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure that the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/marspetcareconsent by following the instructions on the Web-based form. If this Notice appears at http://www.regulations.gov/#!home, you also may file a comment through that Web site.

    If you file your comment on paper, write “In the Matter of Mars Petcare US, Inc., File No.152-3229—Consent Agreement” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW., 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.

    Visit the Commission Web site at http://www.ftc.gov to read this Notice and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before September 6, 2016. You can find more information, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, in the Commission's privacy policy, at http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.htm.

    Analysis of Proposed Consent Order To Aid Public Comment

    The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an Agreement Containing Consent Order from Mars Petcare US, Inc. (“respondent”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for thirty (30) days for receipt of comments by interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After thirty (30) days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received, and will decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement and take appropriate action or make final the agreement's proposed order.

    This matter involves the advertising, marketing, and sale by respondent of dog food under the Eukanuba brand. Respondent has marketed its Eukanuba brand dog foods through retail outlets. According to the FTC complaint, respondent claimed that its dog food could increase the longevity of dogs by 30 percent or more.

    Specifically, the FTC complaint alleges that respondent represented that dogs in a ten-year study that were fed Eukanuba brand dog food and received proper care lived exceptionally long lives—including 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan. The complaint alleges that these claims are false or unsubstantiated and thus violate the FTC Act. The complaint also alleges that respondent represented that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs its Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to live exceptionally long lives or to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan. The complaint alleges that these claims are false and thus violate the FTC Act.

    The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent respondent from engaging in similar acts or practices in the future. Specifically, Part I addresses the unsubstantiated claims alleged in the complaint. Part I prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated representations that its Eukanuba-brand pet foods or any other pet food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer than their typical lifespan or live exceptionally long lives. It also prohibits respondent from making misleading or unsubstantiated claims regarding the health benefits of any pet food. It requires that respondent possesses and relies upon “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to substantiate any such representation.

    Part II of the proposed order addresses the allegedly false claims that scientific tests prove that feeding dogs respondent's Eukanuba brand dog food can enable dogs to live 30 percent or more longer or substantially longer than their typical lifespan. Part II prohibits respondent, when advertising any pet food, from misrepresenting the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions, or interpretations of any test, study, or research, or misrepresenting that any health benefits of the pet food are scientifically proven.

    Parts III-VI of the proposed order contain compliance and recordkeeping requirements. Part III requires respondent acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part IV requires the filing of compliance reports within one year after the order becomes final and within 14 days of any change in respondent that would affect compliance with the order. Part V requires respondent to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VI requires respondent to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview respondent's personnel. Finally, Part VII provides that the order will terminate after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.

    The purpose of this analysis is to facilitate public comment on the proposed order, and it is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the complaint and proposed order or to modify the proposed order's terms in any way.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18906 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Granting of Request for Early Termination of the Waiting Period Under the Premerger Notification Rules

    Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott- Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the Federal Register.

    The following transactions were granted early termination—on the dates indicated—of the waiting period provided by law and the premerger notification rules. The listing for each transaction includes the transaction number and the parties to the transaction. The grants were made by the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Neither agency intends to take any action with respect to these proposed acquisitions during the applicable waiting period.

    Early Terminations Granted April 1, 2016 thru April 30, 2016 04/01/2016 20160878 G MBK Partners Ltd.; Doosan Infracore Co., Ltd.; MBK Partners Ltd. 20160887 G Nordic Capital VIII Beta, L.P.; Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P.; Nordic Capital VIII Beta, L.P. 20160900 G EMCOR Group, Inc.; Cadent Energy Partners II, L.P.; EMCOR Group, Inc. 20160901 G AEA Investors Fund V LP; Audax Private Equity Fund III, L.P.; AEA Investors Fund V LP. 20160903 G Stuart W. Lang; Checkpoint Systems, Inc.; Stuart W. Lang. 20160904 G Donald G. Lang; Checkpoint Systems, Inc.; Donald G. Lang. 20160905 G Micro Focus International plc; HGGC Fund II, L.P.; Micro Focus International plc. 20160908 G UACJ Corporation; Yogen Rahangdale; UACJ Corporation. 20160909 G AbbVie Inc.; C.H. Boehringer Sohn AG & Co. KG; AbbVie Inc. 20160921 G Dynegy Inc.; ENGIE S.A.; Dynegy Inc. 04/04/2016 20160862 G VCA Inc.; Companion Animal Practices, North America; VCA Inc. 20160922 G Precision Medicine Group, Inc.; Patricia Devitt Risse; Precision Medicine Group, Inc. 04/05/2016 20160917 G Nestle S.A.; Guthy-Renker Partners, Inc.; Nestle S.A. 04/06/2016 20160875 G Searchlight Capital II PV, L.P.; Prospect Capital Corporation; Searchlight Capital II PV, L.P. 20160894 G Celtic Holdings I Limited; County Line Pharmaceuticals, LLC; Celtic Holdings I Limited. 04/07/2016 20160105 G Gannett Co., Inc.; Journal Media Group, Inc; Gannett Co., Inc. 20160907 G TBC Offshore Ltd.; Cypress Semiconductor Corporation; TBC Offshore Ltd. 04/08/2016 20160852 G Deutsche Telekom AG; Telapex, Inc.; Deutsche Telekom AG. 20160858 G Deutsche Telekom AG; Continuum 700 LLC; Deutsche Telekom AG. 20160859 G Deutsche Telekom AG; Cavalier Wireless, LLC; Deutsche Telekom AG. 20160926 G Alejandro Weinstein; Justin and Shila Farmer; Alejandro Weinstein. 20160931 G Reyes Holdings, L.L.C.; The Coca-Cola Company; Reyes Holdings, L.L.C. 20160933 G Jose Minski; Justin and Shila Farmer; Jose Minski. 20160942 G Dustin Moskovitz; Asana, Inc.; Dustin Moskovitz. 20160943 G Ningbo Huaxiang Electronic Co., Ltd.; Xiaofeng Zhou; Ningbo Huaxiang Electronic Co., Ltd. 20160947 G Kyocera Corporation; Thomas J. Haag; Kyocera Corporation. 20160955 G Stantec Inc.; MWH Global, Inc.; Stantec Inc. 20160965 G Alejandro Weinstein; Ken and Susan Whitman; Alejandro Weinstein. 20160966 G Jose Minski; Ken and Susan Whitman; Jose Minski. 04/11/2016 20160946 G WL Ross Holding Corp.; TPG VI DE AIV II, L.P.; WL Ross Holding Corp. 20160951 G Wilco Acquisition, LP; ATI Physical Therapy Holdings, LLC; Wilco Acquisition, L.P. 04/12/2016 20151212 G Iron Mountain Incorporated; Recall Holdings Limited; Iron Mountain Incorporated. 04/13/2016 20160932 G Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.; Cannery Casino Resorts, LLC; Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. 20160936 G Terawatt Holdings, LP; Dynegy Inc.; Terawatt Holdings, L.P. 20160945 G Harbert Power Fund V, LLC; LS Power Equity Partners II, L.P.; Harbert Power Fund V, LLC. 20160950 G EQT VII (No. 1) Limited Partnership; D2 ApS; EQT VII (No. 1) Limited Partnership. 04/15/2016 20160924 G Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc.; Genstar Capital Partners V, L.P.; Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. 20160929 G Fiera Capital Corporation; Nitin Kumbhani; Fiera Capital Corporation. 20160959 G Terrence Cole; Enhanced Equity Fund, L.P.; Terrence Cole. 20160960 G Mark Steinberg; Enhanced Equity Fund, L.P.; Mark Steinberg. 20160968 G Ally Financial Inc.; TradeKing Group, Inc.; Ally Financial Inc. 20160975 G Steve S. Hong; Ennis, Inc.; Steve S. Hong. 04/18/2016 20160785 G PBF Energy Inc.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; PBF Energy Inc. 20160949 G CHRISTUS Health; Trinity Mother Frances Health System; CHRISTUS Health. 20160992 G Oskar Blues Brewery Holding Co LLC; Joseph Jay Michael Redner; Oskar Blues Brewery Holding Co LLC. 04/19/2016 20160948 G Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited; Strength of Nature, LLC; Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited. 04/20/2016 20160919 G Starboard Leaders Fund LP; Yahoo! Inc.; Starboard Leaders Fund LP. 20160935 G Nasdaq, Inc.; Deutsche Borse AG; Nasdaq, Inc. 20160937 G Mercury Systems, Inc.; Microsemi Corporation; Mercury Systems, Inc. 20160952 G Markit Ltd.; IHS Inc.; Markit Ltd. 20160953 G SA Compagnie Industrielle de Delle; Alcoa, Inc.; SA Compagnie Industrielle de Delle. 20160954 G TransCanada Corporation; Dominion Resources, Inc; TransCanada Corporation. 20160961 G NVLX Holdings, LLC; Carl A. Allen; NVLX Holdings, LLC. 04/21/2016 20160930 G KKR North America Fund XI, L.P.; Marvell Technology Group Ltd.; KKR North America Fund XI, L.P. 04/22/2016 20160974 G International Business Machines Corporation; RLH Bluewolf Holding LLC; International Business Machines Corporation. 20160994 G Halyard Health, Inc.; Linden Capital Partners LP; Halyard Health, Inc. 20160996 G CEB Inc.; Leeds Equity Partners V, L.P.; CEB Inc. 20160998 G Sheser Creek Company LLC; Single Source, Inc.; Sheser Creek Company LLC. 20161005 G Foundation Capital V, L.P.; Venafi, Inc.; Foundation Capital V, L.P. 20161008 G Richard G. Haworth; Janice Kercham Feldman; Richard G. Haworth. 20161009 G Steel Partners Holdings, L.P.; SL Industries, Inc.; Steel Partners Holdings, L.P. 20161013 G Legrand S.A.; Michael K. Moore; Legrand S.A. 20161015 G The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd.; KKR Asian Fund L.P.; The Yokohama Rubber Co., Ltd. 20161017 G Coast Range Buyer, LLC; Campbell Timber Fund II, L.P.; Coast Range Buyer, LLC. 04/25/2016 20160928 G Oak Hill Capital Partners IV (Onshore), L.P.; Riverside Fund IV, LP; Oak Hill Capital Partners IV (Onshore), L.P. 20160940 G Rosa Anna Magno Garavoglia; Societe des Produits Marnier-Lapostolle; Rosa Anna Magno Garavoglia. 20160962 G Arsenal Capital Partners III LP; Robert Marc Skalla; Arsenal Capital Partners III LP. 20160963 G Arsenal Capital Partners III LP; Russell Eugene Skalla; Arsenal Capital Partners III LP. 20160967 G ABRY Partners VIII, L.P.; Cerca Acquisitions I, LLC; ABRY Partners VIII, L.P. 04/26/2016 20160972 G Nasdaq, Inc.; BoardVantage, Inc.; Nasdaq, Inc. 04/28/2016 20160938 G Coherent, Inc.; Rofin-Sinar Technologies Inc.; Coherent, Inc. 20160980 G Compagnie De Saint-Gobain; Schenker-Winkler Holding AG; Compagnie De Saint-Gobain. 20161012 G Brocade Communications Systems, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless, Inc.; Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. 04/29/2016 20161000 G FinTech Acquisition Corp.; FTVentures III, L.P.; FinTech Acquisition Corp. 20161043 G Corning Incorporated; Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc.; Corning Incorporated. May 1, 2016 thru May 31, 2016 05/03/2016 20161006 G Al Global Investments & Cy SCA; Nuplex Industries Limited; Al Global Investments & Cy SCA. 20161014 G Providence Equity Partners VII USRPHC L.P.; EdgeConnex, Inc.; Providence Equity Partners VII USRPHC L.P. 20161032 G Peak Rock Capital Fund LP; Hormel Foods Corporation; Peak Rock Capital Fund LP. 20161045 G BBH Capital Partners QP IV, L.P.; EdgeConnex, Inc.; BBH Capital Partners QP IV, L.P. 05/06/2016 20160971 G Berwind Corporation; Mangar Industries, Inc.; Berwind Corporation. 20161004 G Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation; Denali Holding Inc.; Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation. 20161020 G Tsinghua Holdings Co., Ltd.; Marvell Technology Group Ltd.; Tsinghua Holdings Co., Ltd. 20161030 G KBHS Group Holdings, LLC; American Capital, Ltd.; KBHS Group Holdings, LLC. 20161039 G Riverstone/Carlyle Global Energy and Power Fund IV (FT), L.P; Sanjel Corporation; Riverstone/Carlyle Global Energy and Power Fund IV (FT), L.P. 20161040 G Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund VI, L.P.; Sanjel Corporation; Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund VI, L.P. 05/09/2016 20160856 G United Natural Foods, Inc.; David H. Anderson, Sr.; United Natural Foods, Inc. 20161052 G Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc.; Design Investors WW Acquisition Company, LLC; Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. 20161055 G AXA LBO Fund V Supplementary FPCI; Halifax Capital Partners III, L.P.; AXA LBO Fund V Supplementary FPCI. 20161056 G Blackstone Capital Partners (Cayman II) VI L.P.; Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co.; Blackstone Capital Partners (Cayman II) VI L.P. 20161057 G Roger S. Penske; Francis I. McGowen; Roger S. Penske. 20161058 G Blue Sea Capital Fund I LP; NSi Holdings, Inc.; Blue Sea Capital Fund I LP. 20161059 G Merit Energy Investments, LP; Marathon Oil Corporation; Merit Energy Investments, LP. 20161060 G Merit 2014 MMGI, LP; Marathon Oil Corporation; Merit 2014 MMGI, LP. 20161061 G Assured Guaranty Ltd.; CIFG Holding Inc.; Assured Guaranty Ltd. 20161067 G Glenn B. Cooke; Paine & Partners Capital Fund III AIV, L.P.; Glenn B. Cooke. 20161069 G Now Inc.; Tony S. Cercy; Now Inc. 20161070 G Unum Group; H&J Capital, LLC; Unum Group. 20161075 G Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. II; USI Senior Holdings, Inc.; Hennessy Capital Acquisition Corp. II. 05/10/2016 20160888 G McKesson Corporation; Frazier Healthcare VI, L.P.; McKesson Corporation. 20161010 G Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation; CSI Leasing, Inc.; Century Tokyo Leasing Corporation. 20161026 G Thomas M. Rutledge; CCH I, LLC; Thomas M. Rutledge. 20161065 G Ford Motor Company; EMC Corporation; Ford Motor Company. 20161084 G GP Investments Acquisition Corp.; WKI Holding Company, Inc.; GP Investments Acquisition Corp. 05/12/2016 20161028 G JANA Offshore Partners, Ltd.; Team Health Holdings, Inc.; JANA Offshore Partners, Ltd. 20161029 G JANA Nirvana Offshore Fund, Ltd.; Team Health Holdings, Inc.; JANA Nirvana Offshore Fund, Ltd. 05/13/2016 20160999 G Kestra Financial Holdings LP; Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VI-A, L.P.; Kestra Financial Holdings LP. 20161047 G Huatai Securities Co., Ltd.; AqGen Liberty Holdings LLC; Huatai Securities Co., Ltd. 20161048 G Allergan plc; Sosei Group Corporation; Allergan plc. 20161094 G Linsalata Capital Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Eliezer Elbaz; Linsalata Capital Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20161095 G Linsalata Capital Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Sol Bonan; Linsalata Capital Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20161100 G Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P.; Windjammer Senior Equity Fund III, L.P.; Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P. 20161105 G ABRY Partners VIII, L.P.; Oliver Street Dermatology Holdings, LLC; ABRY Partners VIII, L.P. 20161112 Y Polaris Investment Holdings, L.P.; MPH Acquisition Holdco, L.P.; Polaris Investment Holdings, L.P. 20161114 G Mitel Networks Corporation; Polycom, Inc.; Mitel Networks Corporation. 05/16/2016 20161031 G State Street Corporation; General Electric Company; State Street Corporation. 20161106 G Stichting Administratiekantoor Westend; Clearlake Capital Partners III, L.P.; Stichting Administratiekantoor Westend. 20161131 G GI Partners Fund IV L.P.; Far Niente Wine Estates LLC; GI Partners Fund IV L.P. 05/17/2016 20160964 G TransCanada Corporation; Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.; TransCanada Corporation. 20161035 G Mr. Tianqiao Chen and Ms. Chrissy Qian Qian Luo; Sotheby's; Mr. Tianqiao Chen and Ms. Chrissy Qian Qian Luo. 20161053 G The Hearst Family Trust; Complex Media, Inc.; The Hearst Family Trust. 20161054 G Verizon Communications Inc.; Complex Media, Inc.; Verizon Communications Inc. 20161092 G SES S.A.; O3b Networks Limited; SES S.A. 20161097 G Kelso Hammer Co-Investment, L.P.; Carolyn A. Swanson; Kelso Hammer Co-Investment, L.P. 20161102 G Oracle Corporation; Opower, Inc.; Oracle Corporation. 20161107 G Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated; JERA Co., Inc.; Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Incorporated. 20161113 G Marlin IV Cayman AIV, L.P.; Teradata Corporation; Marlin IV Cayman AIV, L.P. 20161125 G LANXESS AG; The Chemours Company; LANXESS AG. 05/18/2016 20161108 G Investindustrial V, L.P.; Investindustrial III, L.P.; Investindustrial V, L.P. 20161111 G Investindustrial V, L.P.; Reichhold Cayman LP; Investindustrial V, L.P. 05/19/2016 20161068 G Cardinal Health Inc.; Curaspan Health Group, Inc.; Cardinal Health Inc. 20161076 G Rexnord Corporation; Industrial Growth Partners IV, L.P.; Rexnord Corporation. 20161081 G Omnicom Group Inc.; Southfield BioPharm Investment, LLC; Omnicom Group Inc. 20161085 G Zhuhai Hengxin Fengye Technology LLC; Lexmark International, Inc.; Zhuhai Hengxin Fengye Technology LLC. 20161109 G Gildan Activewear Inc.; Ennis, Inc.; Gildan Activewear Inc. 20161118 G TPG Partners VI, L.P.; Endo International plc; TPG Partners VI, L.P. 20161127 G Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd.; CST Brands, Inc.; Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd. 05/20/2016 20161103 G The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P.; Verisk Analytics, Inc.; The Veritas Capital Fund V, L.P. 20161115 G Oracle Corporation; Textura Corporation; Oracle Corporation. 20161129 G Stabilus S.A.; AB SKF; Stabilus S.A. 20161130 G Todd L. Boehly; Eldridge Investors, LLC; Todd L. Boehly. 20161134 G Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P.; IHS Inc.; Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P. 20161135 G Vonage Holdings Corp.; Nexmo Inc.; Vonage Holdings Corp. 20161141 G Hormel Foods Corporation; Justin's, LLC; Hormel Foods Corporation. 20161142 G RoundTable Healthcare Partners IV, L.P.; Symmetry Surgical Inc.; RoundTable Healthcare Partners IV, L.P. 20161144 G Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; Kalle Luxembourg S.a.r.l.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20161150 G Sinocare Inc.; Polymer Technology Systems, Inc.; Sinocare Inc. 20161167 G Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation; Nisshin Steel Co., Ltd.; Nippon Steel & Sumitomo Metal Corporation. 05/23/2016 20161110 G Francisco Partners III (Cayman), L.P.; Brambles Limited; Francisco Partners III (Cayman), L.P. 20161140 G QMP Insurance Holdings, LLC; Old National Bancorp; QMP Insurance Holdings, LLC. 05/24/2016 20161087 G Energy Capital Partners III-A, LP; Sunnova Energy Corporation; Energy Capital Partners III-A, LP. 20161137 G One Rock Capital Partners, LP; Chevron Corporation; One Rock Capital Partners, LP. 05/25/2016 20161088 G AbbVie Inc.; Stemcentrx, Inc.; AbbVie Inc. 20161090 G Brian Slingerland and Emily Paige Adams; AbbVie Inc.; Brian Slingerland and Emily Paige Adams. 20161091 G Scott J. Dylla and Melodie Dylla; AbbVie Inc.; Scott J. Dylla and Melodie Dylla. 20161151 G Clearlake Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Thoma Cressey Fund VIII, L.P.; Clearlake Capital Partners IV, L.P. 20161161 G EQT Infrastructure II Limited Partnership; Littlejohn Fund IV, L.P.; EQT Infrastructure II Limited Partnership. 05/26/2016 20161062 G Glen A. Taylor; Staples Inc.; Glen A. Taylor. 20161139 G U.S. TelePacific Holdings Corp.; DSCI Holdings Corporation; U.S. TelePacific Holdings Corp. 05/27/2016 20161064 G Apax VIII-B L.P.; Accenture plc; Apax VIII-B L.P. 20161072 G XIO Fund I LP; S&P Global Inc.; XIO Fund I LP. 20161173 G L.S. Power Equity Partners III, L.P.; NRG Energy, Inc.; L.S. Power Equity Partners III, L.P. 20161175 G Michael F. Neidorff; Centene Corporation; Michael F. Neidorff. 20161177 G Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; Brynwood Partners VI L.P.; Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20161182 G Carl C. Icahn; Allergan plc; Carl C. Icahn. 20161183 G Spire Inc.; Sempra Energy; Spire Inc. June 1, 2016 thru June 30, 2016 06/01/2016 20161155 G Aon plc; Onex Partners III LP; Aon plc. 20161188 G Sinochem Group; American Securities Partners VI, L.P.; Sinochem Group. 20161189 G Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P.; Road Infrastructure Investment Holdings, Inc.; Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P. 20161198 G FS Equity Partners VII, L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund III, L.P.; FS Equity Partners VII, L.P. 06/02/2016 20161063 G Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation; Ingram Micro Inc.; Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation. 20161096 G Great Hill Equity Partners V, L.P.; EvolveIP Holdings, LLC; Great Hill Equity Partners V, L.P. 20161126 G Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; AstraZeneca PLC; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 20161203 G Energizer Holdings, Inc.; Trivest Fund V, L.P.; Energizer Holdings, Inc. 06/03/2016 20161146 G Hitachi, Ltd.; Jeffrey D. Cowan; Hitachi, Ltd. 20161147 G Hitachi, Ltd.; Gregory E. Larson; Hitachi, Ltd. 20161185 G BDCM Opportunity Fund IV, L.P.; Investindustrial V, L.P.; BDCM Opportunity Fund IV, L.P. 20161197 G Thomas Jefferson University; Rothman Specialty Hospital Investment, LLC; Thomas Jefferson University. 06/06/2016 20161156 G Global Eagle Entertainment Inc.; ABRY Partners VII, L.P.; Global Eagle Entertainment Inc. 20161164 G Mylan N.V.; RoundTable Healthcare Partners III, L.P.; Mylan N.V. 20161174 G Corvex Master Fund LP; Pandora Media, Inc.; Corvex Master Fund LP. 20161201 G General Atlantic Partners (Bermuda) III, L.P.; Argus Media Limited; General Atlantic Partners (Bermuda) III, L.P. 20161204 G Dr. Guanqiu Lu; The Superior Fund, L.P.; Dr. Guanqiu Lu. 20161209 G TransDigm Group Incorporated; Mr. Clifford Lane; TransDigm Group Incorporated. 20161210 G Magellan Health, Inc.; Armed Forces Services Corporation; Magellan Health, Inc. 20161211 G Snow Phipps II AIV, L.P.; BVIP Fund VIII, L.P.; Snow Phipps II AIV, L.P. 20161213 G Melinda K. Holman; Gregory A. Goodwin; Melinda K. Holman. 20161214 G California Credit Union; North Island Financial Credit Union; California Credit Union. 20161225 G HNVR Jerseyco Limited; TUI AG; HNVR Jerseyco Limited. 20161226 G Pfizer Inc.; Anacor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Pfizer Inc. 20161232 G Permira V L.P. 2; Yoshimune Noda; Permira V L.P. 2. 20161236 G Carlisle Companies Incorporated; A. Bruce Mainwaring; Carlisle Companies Incorporated. 20161244 G Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P.; PHW Equity Investors, L.P.; Madison Dearborn Capital Partners VII-A, L.P. 06/07/2016 20161170 G OSI Group, LLC; Creo Capital Partners, LP; OSI Group, LLC. 20161239 G New Mountain Partners IV, L.P.; PG-ACP Holdings, L.P.; New Mountain Partners IV, L.P. 06/10/2016 20161171 G Elliott Associates, L.P.; Mitel Networks Corporation; Elliott Associates, L.P. 20161248 G The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.; Mosley Holdings, Inc.; The Goldman Sachs Group Inc. 20161252 G Total S.A.; Saft Groupe S.A.; Total S.A. 20161254 G Softbank Group Corp.; Genie Global, Inc.; Softbank Group Corp. 20161255 G Softbank Group Corp.; The Kroger Co.; Softbank Group Corp. 20161258 G DeVry Education Group Inc.; Alert Global Media Holdings, LLC; DeVry Education Group Inc. 20161262 G Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P.; FactSet Research Systems Inc.; Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P. 06/13/2016 20161168 G Valline S.r.l.; The Medicines Company; Valline S.r.l. 20161260 G ANRP II (AIV P), L.P.; Dale Brown; ANRP II (AIV P), L.P. 20161261 G ANRP II (AIV P), L.P.; Cary Brown; ANRP II (AIV P), L.P. 20161263 G Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc.; Advantage Consolidated, LLC; Dental Service of Massachusetts, Inc. 06/14/2016 20160562 G GTCR Fund X/A AIV LP; UBM plc; GTCR Fund X/A AIV LP. 20161163 G BVIP Fund VIII, L.P.; Keith A. Stinson; BVIP Fund VIII, L.P. 20161165 G BVIP Fund VIII, L.P.; Glenn F. Stinson; BVIP Fund VIII, L.P. 20161196 G Nanya Technology Corporation; Micron Technology, Inc.; Nanya Technology Corporation. 20161217 G Agnaten SE; Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.; Agnaten SE. 20161257 G KBR, Inc.; Wyle Inc.; KBR, Inc. 20161259 G BDCM Opportunity Fund III, L.P.; Investindustrial V L.P.; BDCM Opportunity Fund III, L.P. 20161269 G C-III Partners LLC; Resource America, Inc.; C-III Partners LLC. 06/15/2016 20161229 G AT&T Inc.; MDCP VI-A Global Investments LP; AT&T Inc. 06/16/2016 20161186 G Sequential Brands Group, Inc.; Jirka Rysavy; Sequential Brands Group, Inc. 20161218 G Providence Equity Partners VII OEConnection L.P.; Ford Motor Company; Providence Equity Partners VII OEConnection L.P. 20161219 G Providence Equity Partners VII OEConnection L.P.; General Motors Company; Providence Equity Partners VII OEConnection L.P. 06/17/2016 20160092 G Heidelberg Cement AG; Italcementi S.p.A.; Heidelberg Cement AG. 20161190 G Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.; DCP Midstream Partners, LP; Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 20161267 G Stichting Administratiekantoor Westend; Thrive Market, Inc.; Stichting Administratiekantoor Westend. 20161271 G Range Resources Corporation; Memorial Resource Development Corp.; Range Resources Corporation. 20161273 G Newco; Frazier Healthcare (Cayman) VI, L.P.; Newco. 20161274 G Interogo Foundation; Stichting Ingka Foundation; Interogo Foundation. 20161276 G Francisco Partners IV, L.P.; Sanjeev Malaney; Francisco Partners IV, L.P. 20161277 G Cargill Incorporated; Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd.; Cargill Incorporated. 20161281 G PAI Europe VI-1 FCPI; EQT VI (No.1) Limited Partnership; PAI Europe VI-1 FCPI. 20161283 G Border States Industries, Inc.; William E. DeLoache, III; Border States Industries, Inc. 20161287 G salesforce.com, inc.; Demandware, Inc.; salesforce.com, inc. 20161292 G Shiseido Company, Limited; Richard M. DeVos; Shiseido Company, Limited. 20161293 G Shiseido Company, Limited; Voting Shares Trust; Shiseido Company, Limited. 20161299 G FS Equity Partners VII, L.P.; Roark Capital Partners, LP; FS Equity Partners VII, L.P. 20161306 G Telhio Credit Union, Inc.; Chaco Credit Union, Inc.; Telhio Credit Union, Inc. 06/20/2016 20161181 G Comcast Corporation; Jeffrey Katzenberg; Comcast Corporation. 20161246 G MTY Food Group Inc.; Sam and Clara Serruya; MTY Food Group Inc. 20161291 G Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; White Mountains Insurance Group Ltd.; Clayton Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 06/21/2016 20161265 G Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P.; Lineage Investments, Inc.; Clayton, Dubilier & Rice Fund IX, L.P. 20161282 G Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P.; Navicure, Inc.; Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P. 20161296 G FREIF II Bravo AIV L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; FREIF II Bravo AIV L.P. 20161297 G General Electric Company; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; General Electric Company. 06/22/2016 20161215 G Starboard Value and Opportunity Fund Ltd.; Staples, Inc.; Starboard Value and Opportunity Fund Ltd. 20161253 G NICE Systems, Ltd.; inContact, Inc.; NICE Systems, Ltd. 20161264 G Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P.; TA XI L.P.; Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P. 20161266 G Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund LP; Paul A. Nazzaro; Golden Gate Capital Opportunity Fund LP. 20161272 G Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P.; Elemica, Inc.; Thoma Bravo Discover Fund, L.P. 20161284 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Marketo, Inc.; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20161288 G Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P.; Ping Identity Corporation; Vista Equity Partners Fund VI, L.P. 20161295 G Accel-KKR Capital Partners V, LP; SciQuest, Inc.; Accel-KKR Capital Partners V, LP. 06/23/2016 20161300 G Platinum Equity Capital Partners III, L.P.; Electro Rent Corporation; Platinum Equity Capital Partners III, L.P. 20161301 G PPG Industries, Inc.; Platinum Equity Capital Partners III, L.P.; PPG Industries, Inc. 06/24/2016 20161249 G Pamlico Capital III, L.P.; Kenneth A. Barnett; Pamlico Capital III, L.P. 20161302 G Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.; FEI Company; Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. 20161304 G Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc.; LDR Holding Corporation; Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. 20161307 G Veolia Environnement S.A.; The Chemours Company; Veolia Environnement S.A. 20161308 G Platinum Equity Capital Partners III, L.P.; ConAgra Foods, Inc.; Platinum Equity Capital Partners III, L.P. 20161317 G The Resolute Fund III, L.P.; PA-LLC Holdings, LLC; The Resolute Fund III, L.P. 20161318 Y Wind Point Partners VIII-A, L.P.; LongueVue Capital Partners II, LP; Wind Point Partners VIII-A, L.P. 20161319 G The Resolute Fund III, L.P.; Yaron Rosenthal; The Resolute Fund III, L.P. 20161323 G FMC Technologies, Inc.; Technip S.A.; FMC Technologies, Inc. 20161324 G Technip S.A.; FMC Technologies, Inc.; Technip S.A. 20161328 G Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P.; AmSpec Holding Corp; Olympus Growth Fund VI, L.P. 20161329 G Deutsche Telekom AG; AT&T Inc.; Deutsche Telekom AG. 20161330 G Symrise AG; Timothy J. Gamble; Symrise AG. 20161331 G Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund V (FT), L.P.; Talen Energy Corporation; Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund V (FT), L.P. 06/27/2016 20161313 G Dr. h.c. Friede Springer; eMarketer, Inc.; Dr. h.c. Friede Springer. 06/28/2016 20161314 G Hardwoods Distribution Inc.; David Hughes; Hardwoods Distribution Inc. 20161338 G SCI Associates LLC; Platinum Equity Capital Partners II; SCI Associates LLC. 06/29/2016 20161316 G Project Alpha Holding, LLC; Qlik Technologies Inc.; Project Alpha Holding, LLC. 20161325 G GTCR Fund XI/B LP; Serent Capital, L.P.; GTCR Fund XI/B LP. 06/30/2016 20161132 G Berkshire Hathaway Inc.; Shultz Steel Company; Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 20161270 G Mednax, Inc.; Cardon Healthcare Holdings, LLC; Mednax, Inc. 20161280 G Sierra Private Investments L.P.; Xura, Inc.; Sierra Private Investments L.P. 20161315 G Open Text Corporation; Recommind, Inc.; Open Text Corporation. 20161320 G World Fuel Services Corporation; Associated Petroleum Products, Inc.; World Fuel Services Corporation. 20161326 G Roark Capital Partners III LP; Roark Capital Partners II AIV AG, LP; Roark Capital Partners III LP. 20161327 G Roark Capital Partners II AIV AG, LP; Roark Capital Partners III LP; Roark Capital Partners II AIV AG, LP. 20161345 G Old Mutual plc; LMRK Intermediary, Inc.; Old Mutual plc. July 1, 2016 thru July 31, 2016 07/01/2016 20161279 G General Atlantic Partners 93, L.P.; TA XI L.P.; General Atlantic Partners 93, L.P. 20161336 G Shire plc; Pfizer Inc.; Shire plc. 20161348 G Par Pacific Holdings, Inc.; Black Elk Refining, LLC; Par Pacific Holdings, Inc. 20161355 G Terumo Corporation; Sequent Medical, Inc.; Terumo Corporation. 20161361 G Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation; gategroup Holding AG; Hainan Cihang Charitable Foundation. 20161362 G Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV, L.P.; Ronald P. Corio; Oaktree Power Opportunities Fund IV, L.P. 07/06/2016 20161278 G Ares Capital Corporation; American Capital, Ltd.; Ares Capital Corporation. 20161349 G Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P.; William W. McNeal, Jr.; Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P. 20161352 G Pirlo Energy Holdings, LLC; WDE Partners, LP; Pirlo Energy Holdings, LLC. 20161373 G Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P.; Chesapeake Urology Associated, P.A.; Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P. 07/07/2016 20161351 G Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P.; Joseph M. Abbott; Genstar Capital Partners VI, L.P. 20161366 G Douglas Dynamics, Inc.; Peter Paul Dejana Family Trust dated 12/31/98; Douglas Dynamics, Inc. 20161374 G Randstad Holding nv; Ausy S.A.; Randstad Holding nv. 07/08/2016 20161098 G RELX PLC; Alert Holding Company, Inc.; RELX PLC. 20161099 G RELX NV; Alert Holding Company, Inc.; RELX NV. 20161157 G TiVo Inc.; Rovi Corporation; TiVo Inc. 20161158 G Rovi Corporation; TiVo Inc.; Rovi Corporation. 20161363 G Hamilton Lane Co-Investment Fund II L.P.; Kelly Julius; Hamilton Lane Co-Investment Fund II L.P. 20161372 G Gryphon Partners IV, L.P.; Lawler Foods, Inc.; Gryphon Partners IV, L.P. 07/11/2016 20161368 G BioScrip, Inc.; KRG Capital Fund IV, L.P.; BioScrip, Inc. 20161369 G UnitedHealth Group, Incorporated; Riverside Pediatric Group, P.C.; UnitedHealth Group, Incorporated. 20161387 G Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P.; AEA Investors 2006 Fund L.P.; Audax Private Equity Fund V-A, L.P. 20161392 G Contura Energy, Inc.; Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.; Contura Energy, Inc. 20161397 G Sentinel Capital Partners V, L.P.; Levine Leichtman Capital Partners IV, L.P.; Sentinel Capital Partners V, L.P. 20161401 G Dentsu Inc.; Pegasus Partners IV, L.P.; Dentsu Inc. 07/13/2016 20161395 G Ronald O. Perelman; Elizabeth Arden, Inc.; Ronald O. Perelman. 20161396 G MIP III (ECI) AIV, L.P.; Deutsche Bank AG; MIP III (ECI) AIV, L.P. 20161402 G Steel Dynamics, Inc.; William David Upton, Jr.; Steel Dynamics, Inc. 20161405 G Carlyle Europe Partners IV, L.P.; Logoplaste Invest S.A.; Carlyle Europe Partners IV, L.P. 20161406 G NextEra Energy, Inc.; USPF III Leveraged Feeder, L.P.; NextEra Energy, Inc. 20161407 G BASF SE; Albemarle Corporation; BASF SE. 20161408 G Vedipar S.A.; JF Hillebrand Group AG; Vedipar S.A. 20161420 G Melrose Industries PLC; Nortek, Inc.; Melrose Industries PLC. 07/14/2016 20161334 G The Hearst Family Trust; MedHOK Holdco, Inc.; The Hearst Family Trust. 20161398 G Bio-Techne Corporation; Advanced Cell Diagnostics, Inc.; Bio-Techne Corporation. 20161403 G Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P.; Tenex Capital Partners, L.P.; Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P. 07/15/2016 20160408 G Tullett Prebon plc; ICAP Newco c/o ICAP plc; Tullett Prebon plc. 20161416 G Kion Group AG; DH Services Luxembourg Holding S.a.r.l.; Kion Group AG. 20161417 G American Securities Partners VII, L.P.; Canada Pension Plan Investment Board; American Securities Partners VII, L.P. 20161419 G KKR North America Fund XI, L.P.; RES Holding Company, LLC; KKR North America Fund XI, L.P. 20161421 G Packaging Corporation of America; Tim-Bar Corporation; Packaging Corporation of America. 20161426 G Datwyler Fuhrungs AG; Premier Farnell plc; Datwyler Fuhrungs AG. 20161434 G Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P.; Pamlico Capital II, L.P.; Kelso Investment Associates IX, L.P. 20161435 G Andrew Fathollahi; Skullcandy, Inc.; Andrew Fathollahi. 07/18/2016 20161381 G Tencent Holdings Limited; Softbank Corp.; Tencent Holdings Limited. 20161412 G OnShore SPV; NXP Semiconductors N.V.; OnShore SPV. 20161427 G Summertime Holding Corp.; Enservio, Inc.; Summertime Holding Corp. 07/19/2016 20161376 G Reyes Holdings, L.L.C.; The Coca-Cola Company; Reyes Holdings, L.L.C. 20161428 G Axalta Coating Systems Ltd.; Dr. Myung K. Hong and Lorrie Y. Hong; Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. 20161429 G Appointive Distributing Trust A c/u SC Johnson '88 Trust # 1; Baby Holdings, LLC; Appointive Distributing Trust A c/u SC Johnson '88 Trust # 1. 20161445 G Synnex Corporation; Mr. Sameer Chawla; Synnex Corporation. 20161446 G Gannett Co., Inc.; ReachLocal, Inc.; Gannett Co., Inc. 07/20/2016 20161194 G H.I.G. Middle Market LBO Fund II, L.P.; Centric Group, L.L.C.; H.I.G. Middle Market LBO Fund II, L.P. 20161357 G Symantec Corporation; Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P.; Symantec Corporation. 20161391 G GameStop Corp.; David C. Shanks; GameStop Corp. 07/22/2016 20151293 G Koninklijke Ahold N.V.; Delhaize Group NV/SA; Koninklijke Ahold N.V. 20161364 G Verizon Communications Inc.; Telogis, Inc.; Verizon Communications Inc. 20161390 G Aramark; National Purchasing Corporation; Aramark. 20161399 G Orion US Holdings 1 L.P.; SunEdison, Inc.; Orion US Holdings 1 L.P. 20161444 G MRO Holdings Inc.; MCP I (FAS), LP; MRO Holdings Inc. 20161448 G Onex Partners IV LP; Paine & Partners Capital Fund III, LP; Onex Partners IV LP. 20161454 G Johann F. Graf; Leonard H. Ainsworth; Johann F. Graf. 20161459 G The Resolute Fund II, L.P.; ICV Partners II, L.P.; The Resolute Fund II, L.P. 20161464 G Delta Galil Industries Ltd.; V.F. Corporation; Delta Galil Industries Ltd. 20161465 G Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, L.P.; W.R. Berkley Corporation; Odyssey Investment Partners Fund V, L.P. 07/25/2016 20161437 G Warburg Pincus Private Equity XI, L.P.; Dude Solutions Holdings, Inc.; Warburg Pincus Private Equity XI, L.P. 20161442 G Energy Spectrum Partners VII L.P.; Resolute Energy Corporation; Energy Spectrum Partners VII L.P. 07/26/2016 20161394 G Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P.; Odyssey Investment Partners Fund IV, L.P.; Genstar Capital Partners VII, L.P. 20161413 G TEGNA Inc.; Great Hill Equity Partners IV, LP; TEGNA Inc. 20161450 G Francisco Partners IV, L.P.; Michael S. Dell; Francisco Partners IV, L.P. 07/27/2016 20151659 G Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Allergan plc; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 20160818 G Mylan N.V.; Meda AB; Mylan N.V. 20161487 G Honeywell International Inc.; Permira IV Continuing L.P. 2; Honeywell International Inc. 20161493 G Charlesbank Equity Fund VIII, Limited Partnership; Polyconcept Limited; Charlesbank Equity Fund VIII, Limited Partnership. 07/28/2016 20161447 G National General Holdings Corp.; Elara Holdings, Inc.; National General Holdings Corp. 07/29/2016 20160580 G Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P.; American Trailer Works, Inc.; Bain Capital Fund XI, L.P. 20161415 G FR XII Charlie AIV, L.P.; Cotton Creek Capital Partners II, L.P.; FR XII Charlie AIV, L.P. 20161418 G H.I.G. Capital Partners V, L.P.; Patrick J. Kavanaugh; H.I.G. Capital Partners V, L.P. 20161474 G Hapag-Lloyd AG; United Arab Shipping Company S.A.G.; Hapag-Lloyd AG. 20161481 G Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation; Stewart A. Taylor and Sheila G. Taylor; Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation. 20161483 G Kaapa Ethanol Holdings, LLC; Abengoa Bioenergy of Nebraska, LLC; Kaapa Ethanol Holdings, LLC. 20161489 G Gores Holdings, Inc.; Hostess Holdings, L.P.; Gores Holdings, Inc. 20161490 G TPG Partners VII, LP; RoundTable Healthcare Partners II, L.P.; TPG Partners VII, LP. 20161495 G Matson, Inc.; Evergreen Pacific Partners II, L.P.; Matson, Inc. 20161497 G Thoma Bravo Fund XII, L.P.; Imprivata, Inc.; Thoma Bravo Fund XII, L.P. 20161500 G Royal Dutch Shell plc; Explorer Pipeline Company; Royal Dutch Shell plc. 20161509 G Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc.; Olapic, Inc.; Monotype Imaging Holdings, Inc. 20161512 G Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company; Ares Commercial Real Estate Corporation; Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company.

    For Further Information Contact: Theresa Kingsberry Program Support Specialist, Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office Bureau of Competition, Room CC-5301, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 326-3100.

    By direction of the Commission.

    Donald S. Clark, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18915 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6750-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY:

    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve the proposed information collection project: “Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Guide To Improving Patient Safety in Primary Care Settings by Engaging Patients and Families—Evaluation.” In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521, AHRQ invites the public to comment on this proposed information collection.

    DATES:

    Comments on this notice must be received by October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments should be submitted to: Doris Lefkowitz, Reports Clearance Officer, AHRQ, by email at [email protected]

    Copies of the proposed collection plans, data collection instruments, and specific details on the estimated burden can be obtained from the AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Proposed Project Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Guide To Improving Patient Safety in Primary Care Settings by Engaging Patients and Families—Evaluation

    There is a substantial evidence base showing that engaging patients and families in their care can lead to improvements in patient safety. Since the 1999 release of To Err is Human, there has been an undeniable focus on improving patient safety and eliminating patient harm within acute care. What is not as well documented is how to achieve these improvements in primary care settings.

    Patient and Family Engagement (PFE) strategies for acute care settings include, among others: Patient and family advisory committees; membership on patient safety oversight bodies at both operations and governance levels; consultation in the development of patient information material; engaging patients in process improvement or redesign projects; rounding with patients and families; patient and family participation in clinical education programs, and welcoming patients and families to work alongside providers and health systems employees on transparency, culture change and high reliability organization initiatives.

    Although the field of PFE in patient safety for hospitals and health systems is maturing, leveraging PFE to improve patient safety in non-acute settings is in its infancy. Building sustainable processes and practice-based infrastructure are crucial to improving patient safety through patient and family engagement in primary care.

    In response to the limited guidance available for primary care practices to improve safety through patient and family engagement, the AHRQ has funded the development of a Guide To Improving Patient Safety in Primary Care Settings by Engaging Patients and Families (hereafter referred to as the Guide). This comprehensive Guide will provide primary care practices with interventions that they can use to engage patients and families in ways that lead to improved patient safety. It will include explicit instructions to help primary care practices, providers, and patients and families adopt new behaviors. The Guide and its development are prefaced on several key insights relevant to primary care including:

    Active engagement requires organizational commitment to hearing the patient and family voice and action by leadership to include them as central members of the health care team.

    Patients and families expect and increasingly demand meaningful engagement in harm prevention efforts.

    Institutional courage is required to openly share patient safety vulnerabilities and proactively engage patients in developing solutions that prevent harm.

    Supportive infrastructure is needed to hardwire PFE into all facets of care delivery across the care continuum.

    When done well, patient engagement yields important and measurable results. When not done well, PFE activities may disenfranchise patients, contribute to misunderstanding about risk, create fissures among members of the clinical care team, and result in lack of trust between patients and providers.

    With these insights as a basis, three precepts undergird our approach to development for the Guide. The Guide interventions must yield:

    Meaningful relationship-based engagement for patients and families and primary care providers.

    Innovation and enabling technologies to support engagement, shared decision making and patient safety.

    Workable processes yielding sustainable engagement opportunities for patients, families, providers, and practice staff.

    The Guide will be principally (but not exclusively) meeting the needs of practices that have not already implemented effective PFE structures or processes. An environmental scan revealed several promising interventions for consideration for inclusion in the Guide. The four interventions selected as part of the Guide include:

    Teach-back.

    Be Prepared to Be Engaged.

    Medication Management.

    Warm Handoff.

    The interventions will be compiled into the Guide for adoption by primary care practices. The environmental scan also yielded several important implications for Guide development including:

    Engagement efforts in primary care to date have focused on the patient as the agent of change with limited guidance to providers on how to support patients in these efforts.

    Many interventions are focused heavily on educational efforts alone, either for the patient, the provider, or the practice.

    Few of the tools and interventions identified are immediately usable without the need for additional development or enabling materials to support sustainable adoption.

    Health equity and literacy considerations are limited. Tools for patients are often at a relatively high level of literacy, and/or health literacy is required for use.

    Current interventions, tools, and toolkits have a high level of complexity that may impede adoption.

    Existing evidence-based interventions are being refined to reduce complexity and enhance the opportunity for implementation. Implementation development activities are currently underway. Field testing of the Guide will evaluate the implementation challenges faced by primary care practices whereby offering an opportunity to revise the Guide materials for optimal implementation success prior to widespread dissemination.

    The Guide will be made publicly accessible through the AHRQ Web site for easy referral, access, and use by other health care professionals and primary care practices. AHRQ recognizes the importance of ensuring that the Guide will be useful and feasible to implement and ultimately able to improve patient safety by engaging patients and families. Thus, the purpose of the Field Testing evaluation is to gain insight on the implementation challenges identified by the twelve primary care practices field testing the Guide. The Guide materials will be revised in an effort to overcome these implementation challenges prior to broad dissemination.

    The specific goals of the proposed Guide field testing evaluation are to examine the following:

    The feasibility of implementing a minimum of two of the four Guide interventions within 12 medium or large primary care practices.

    The challenges to implementing the interventions at the patient, clinician, practice staff, and practice level.

    The uptake and confidence among primary care practices to improve patient safety through patient and family engagement.

    How the implementation of two of the four Guide interventions changes the perception of patient safety among patients, clinicians, and practice staff.

    How the implementation of two of the four Guide interventions changes the perception of patient and family engagement among patients, clinicians, and practice staff.

    Whether primary care practices will continue to use the Guide (or its interventions) beyond the period of field testing and evaluation (i.e. examine sustainability).

    What changes patients, clinicians, and practice staff would recommend to the interventions and the Guide to enhance sustainability.

    This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, MedStar, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on health care and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of health care services and with respect to quality measurement and improvement. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1) and (2).

    Method of Collection

    To achieve the goals of the project, the following data collections will be implemented during the Field Testing evaluation:

    1. Baseline Practice Assessment of Primary Care Practices. This pen and paper survey will be administered to the 12 primary care practice champions immediately following the recruitment as part of the Guide Field Test and prior to commencing implementation of the Guide. Information collected includes: (i) Practice name and location (e.g., city and State); (ii) non-identifying demographic information about the practice (e.g., number of clinicians by type, number of patients served by the practice, payer mix of patients served by practice, race and ethnicity of patients served by practice); (iii) general descriptive information on the practice's experience with patient safety and quality improvement activities (e.g., current experience with Guide interventions, patient safety culture routinely measured); (iv) information related to the practice's affiliation with larger health system; and (v) information related to any competing priorities or practice improvement initiatives (e.g., patient centered medical home designation, etc.).

    2. Post-Implementation Focus Groups for Patients and Families. Information from patients on their experiences with the Guide and its interventions will be solicited twice during the Field test—once at 3-months and again at 6-months post-implementation of the Guide. Each patient and family focus group will aim to recruit between six to eight participants and solicit feedback from patients and family members on their experiences with the Guide materials. Information collected will include: (i) Perceptions of patient safety in primary care practices; (ii) perceptions of patient and family engagement in primary care practices; (iii) feedback from the patient perspective on the Guide materials and their general use; (iv) feasibility of adopting the patient and family focused intervention materials in practice; (v) feedback on the patient and family experiences of the Guide and its relation to patient safety.

    3. Baseline Practice Readiness Assessment. Information from primary care practices about their readiness to adopt patient and family engagement strategies will be solicited through telephone interviews with practice staff champions. Information collected will include: (i) Descriptive information on the person completing the interview (e.g., position in the practice, length of employment, experience in implementing patient safety improvements); (ii) description of the patient safety culture of the primary care practice (e.g., teamwork, communication, patient safety culture, etc.,); (iii) perceptions of patient and family engagement within the practice; (iv) perceptions of change management strategies, challenges, and barriers (e.g., leadership support, competing initiatives, other production pressures); (v) capacity for ongoing internal measurement and assessment of the intervention. This process will also solicit general information the interviewee would like to share about the practice's readiness to implement the Guide strategies.

    4. Post-Implementation Interviews of Primary Care Clinicians. Information from primary care clinicians (e.g., physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, etc.) on their experiences with the Guide and its interventions will be solicited twice during the Field test—once at 3-months and again at 6-months post-implementation of the Guide. Interviews with two or three primary care clinicians per practice will be conducted during Field Testing to solicit feedback on their experiences with the Guide materials. Information collected will include: (i) Perceptions on patient safety in primary care practices; (ii) perceptions of patient and family engagement in primary care practices; (iii) feedback from the clinician perspective on the Guide materials and their general use; (iv) feasibility of adopting the intervention materials in practice; (v) feedback on the clinicians' experiences of the Guide and its relation to patient safety.

    5. Post-Implementation Focus Groups for Practice Staff Members. Information from practice staff members (e.g., practice administrators, medical assistants, schedulers, practice facilitators, other non-clinical staff, etc.) on their experiences with the Guide and its interventions will be solicited twice during the Field test—once at 3-months and again at 6-months post-implementation of the Guide. Focus groups with between six to eight primary care practice staff will be conducted in each practice during Field Testing to solicit feedback on their experiences with the Guide materials. Information collected will include: (i) Perceptions on patient safety in primary care practices; (ii) perceptions of patient and family engagement in primary care practices; (iii) feedback from the practice staff perspective on the Guide materials and their general use; (iv) feasibility of adopting the intervention materials in practice; (v) feedback on the practice staff's experiences of the Guide and its relation to patient safety.

    6. Monthly Telephone Interviews with Practice Champions. This survey will be completed over the phone on a monthly basis with the practice champions from the twelve primary care practices engaged in the Field Testing of the Guide. Information collected will include: (i) Current progress towards implementation of the intervention(s); (ii) movement towards target goals set in the prior meeting; (iii) barriers to implementation; (iv) facilitators of implementation; (v) perceived impact on patient safety; (vi) perceived impact on patient and family engagement; (vii) plans for the coming weeks/months.

    The Guide will be tested to evaluate the feasibility of adopting it in primary care practices. A mixed-methods approach will be used to identify barriers and facilitators to uptake and sustainability, and to answer the question “How and in what contexts do the chosen interventions work or can they be amended to work”, rather than “Do they work?” Testing will occur at up to 12 primary care sites and feasibility will be assessed at the patient, provider, and practice levels. The Guide will be revised based on these findings.

    Estimated Annual Respondent Burden

    Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in this evaluation of the Guide during field testing. Two formative evaluations will be conducted during field testing in twelve primary care practices in at least two geographic regions of the United States. Evaluation efforts will include collection of baseline practice level data prior to Guide implementation and two separate rounds of focus groups and interviews conducted 3 months and 6 months after Guide implementation. Baseline assessments will be conducted on paper via phone consultation between the Contractor and the local practice champion and will take between 30 to 60 minutes. Patient focus groups will be conducted at the 3- and 6-month evaluation periods; each lasting between 60 to 90 minutes. Practice staff focus groups will be conducted during each of the site visits, conducted outside regular practice hours, and last between 60-90 minutes. Primary care clinician interviews will last approximately 45 minutes. We estimate that approximately 12 individuals will participate in the monthly telephone interviews over the 9-month implementation and evaluation period.

    Exhibit 1—Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total burden hours
    Baseline Practice Assessment 12 1 1 12 Post-Implementation Focus Group for Patients and Family Members 72 2 1.5 216 Interview Guide—Baseline Practice Readiness 12 1 .75 9 Post-Implementation Interview Protocol—Providers 24 2 .75 36 Post-Implementation Focus Group Protocol—Practice Staff 72 2 1.5 216 Topic guide for Telephone Protocol—Guide Practice Champions 12 6 .5 36 Total 204 NA NA 525

    Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to participate in this project. The total cost burden is estimated to be $18,629.16.

    Exhibit 2—Estimated Annualized Cost Burden Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Total
  • burden hours
  • Average
  • hourly wage rate *
  • Total cost
  • burden
  • Baseline Practice Assessment 12 12 a 37.40 448.80 Post-Implementation Focus Group for Patients and Family Members 72 216 c 23.23 5,017.68 Interview Guide—Baseline Practice Readiness 12 9 a 37.40 336.60 Post-Implementation Interview Protocol—Providers 24 36 b 94.48 3,401.28 Post-Implementation Focus Group Protocol—Practice Staff 72 216 a 37.40 8,078.40 Topic guide for Telephone Protocol—Guide Practice Champions 12 36 a 37.40 1,346.40 Total 204 525 18,629.16 * National Compensation Survey: Occupational wages in the United States May 2015, “U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.” http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm. a Based on the mean wages for Miscellaneous Health care Worker (Code 29-9090). b Based on the mean wages for Internists, General (Code 29-1063). c Based on the mean wages for All Occupations (Code 00-0000).
    Request for Comments

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) 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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.

    Sharon B. Arnold, Deputy Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18995 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-90-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16AWP; Docket No. CDC-2016-0075] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed study to examine the facilitators and barriers to receiving clinical preventive services among newly insured medically underserved women who had previously been served by the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP). The purpose of this survey is to assess if newly insured women receive appropriate clinical preventive health services, what barriers and facilitators these women experience, and if they are able to maintain consistent health insurance coverage.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0075 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Women's Preventive Health Services Study—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides free or low-cost breast and cervical cancer screening and diagnostic services to low-income, uninsured, and underserved women. The NBCCEDP is an organized screening program with a full complement of services including outreach and patient education, patient navigation, case management, professional development, and tracking and follow-up that contribute to the program's success. Compared to when the NBCCEDP was established, more women are eligible for insurance coverage but there are still many women who are not insured and many insured women not obtaining preventive services that they are eligible to receive. Currently, the NBCCEDP not only provides screening services to uninsured and underinsured, but has expanded its services to include population-based activities that prevent missed opportunities and ensure that all women receive appropriate breast and cervical cancer screening.

    Previous research suggests that access to health care through insurance alone does not ensure adherence to cancer screening, as many individual, cultural, and community factors serve as barriers to preventive service use. With recent increases in the numbers of women who are insured, there is a need to understand the experiences of women who had been served by the NBCCEDP and become newly insured. This project will inform the development of future activities of the NBCCEDP so that all women receive the information and support services needed for obtaining clinical preventive services.

    The purpose of this project is to examine the facilitators and barriers to receiving clinical preventive services among newly insured medically underserved women who had previously been served by the NBCCEDP. The Women's Preventive Services Study aims to survey newly insured women about what clinical preventive health services they receive, what barriers and facilitators they experience, and their ability to maintain consistent health insurance coverage.

    While having newly acquired health insurance will improve access to preventive services, insurance coverage alone would not result in improved clinical preventive services utilization for all women, especially among underserved populations. This project proposes to follow a group of women previously served by the NBCCEDP over 3 years by administering a yearly questionnaire.

    This study will focus on the following research questions:

    1. What are the insurance coverage patterns (e.g., public or private insurance) for a sample of medically underserved women previously screened through the NBCCEDP?

    2. What barriers and facilitators do these women face in enrolling in new insurance coverage?

    3. What preventive health services, including cancer screening, do these women receive?

    4. What barriers and facilitators do these women face in accessing preventive health services through their new coverage?

    5. What are the non-financial and financial costs to these women?

    The respondents will be uninsured or underinsured women who previously had been screened through the NBCCEDP but now have health insurance coverage. To be potentially eligible for the study, women must be between the ages of 30-62 years, a U.S. Citizen or U.S. permanent resident, resident of the state where they received NBCCEDP services, and English or Spanish speaking. Additionally, women must meet one of the prior screening criteria: (1) Having received a Pap test through a NBCCEDP state program not less than 1 year but not more than 4 years from the time of study implementation OR (2) received a Pap/HPV co-test through a NBCCEDP grantee not less than 3 years but not more than 5 years from the time of study implementation OR (3) received a mammogram through a NBCCEDP grantee not less than 1 year but not more than 3 years from the time of study implementation.

    NBCCEDP state programs will identify potentially eligible women and consent the women to have their contact information shared for the study. The women who agree will receive an invitation letter to participate in the study through an on-line survey. The first step of the on-line survey will be a set of screener questions to determine whether they have insurance coverage. Only those who currently have insurance will be eligible to continue with the main survey instrument. Women who complete the survey will be asked to repeat the survey annually the next 2 years.

    The sample design proposes that 14,240 women be identified as eligible. We estimate that 80% will be contacted and agree to participate. Of that, we expect 9,683 completed on-line screenings to occur during year one, representing an annualized 3,288 respondents. With an 85% expected completion rate and annual attrition, we estimate that 3,292 surveys will be completed in Year 1; 2,222 completed surveys in Year 2; and 1,500 completed surveys in Year 3. This represents an annualized 2,338 respondents for the survey.

    OMB approval is requested for three years. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection are 1,243 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hours)
  • Total burden
  • (in hours)
  • Women aged 30-62 who previously received services in the NBCCEDP Screener 3,228 1 5/60 269 Survey 2,338 1 25/60 974 Total 1,243
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Health Scientist, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18938 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60 Day-16-16AWN: Docket No. CDC-2016-0080] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on the National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) 2017 Computer Based Pilot. The NYTS is currently administered in a paper and pencil format. The NYTS Computer Based Pilot will assess the feasibility of administering the survey in an electronic format.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0080 by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS) 2017 Computer Based Pilot—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    Tobacco use is a major preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the U.S. A limited number of health risk behaviors, including tobacco use, account for the overwhelming majority of immediate and long-term sources of morbidity and mortality. Because the majority of tobacco users begin using tobacco before the age of 18, there is a critical need for public health programs directed towards youth, and for information to support these programs.

    In 1999, 2000, and 2002, the American Legacy Foundation funded surveys to assess tobacco use among adolescents. Building on these efforts, CDC conducted the National Youth Tobacco Survey (NYTS, OMB no. 0920-0621) in 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016. At present, the NYTS is the most comprehensive source of nationally representative tobacco data among students in grades 9-12, moreover, the NYTS is the only national source of such data for students in grades 6-8. The NYTS has provided national estimates of tobacco use behaviors, information about exposure to pro- and anti-tobacco influences, information about racial and ethnic disparities in tobacco-related topics, and most recently, estimates of use of emerging products such as water pipes (hookahs) and electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes). Information collected through the NYTS is used by CDC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and public health practitioners and researchers to identify and monitor trends over time, to inform the development of tobacco cessation programs for youth, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing interventions and programs.

    The NYTS is currently conducted by a paper and pencil (PAP) method in a classroom setting, scheduled by each school. At this time, many schools have experience with electronic technologies that offer several potential advantages compared to PAP survey administration. For example, electronic information collection methods support conditional `skip logic' routing and adaptive survey design, and may improve respondent satisfaction, data reliability, and data management. As a result, CDC plans to conduct a computer based pilot of the 2017 NTYS using a hand-held tablet. The specific aims of the 2017 NYTS pilot are to (1) assess respondent burden; (2) determine the reliability and efficiencies of electronic mode data collection; (3) assess the reliability and validity of survey results obtained from electronic data; (4) assess the cost-effectiveness of electronic administration; (5) measure the length of time between data collection and dissemination of findings; and (6) assess student expectations about survey participation, given changes in classroom technology.

    The computer-based pilot study is designed to complement the ongoing, paper-based NYTS. In 2017, the PAP version of the NYTS will be administered as usual according to established methods (OMB No. 0920-0621, exp. 1/31/2018). Sampling, recruitment, and survey administration for both studies will be coordinated to prevent overlap, maximize participation, and maximize the comparison of results. The sampling vendor for the traditional NYTS will oversample from the NYTS sampling frame, assigning a smaller population to participate in the pilot study. The sample for the pilot study will be approximately 75% of the size of the sample for the paper-based NYTS. The samples for each mode of the survey will be drawn at the same time to ensure that the same schools are not approached for the different versions. Additionally, the paper version of the survey will start collecting data prior to the pilot version beginning data collection to ensure schools in the same district do not face multiple collectors during the same time period.

    The 2017 computer-based pilot of the NYTS will be conducted among a nation-wide sample of students attending public schools in grades 6-12. Participating students will complete the survey in person in a classroom setting using a tablet provided by CDC's information collection contractor. The tablet will be distributed at the beginning of the class session and returned at the end of the class session. This is similar to administration of the PAP NYTS, in which a paper questionnaire booklet is distributed to students at the beginning of a class session, completed, and returned at the end of the session.

    The content of the 2017 pilot survey will mirror the paper-based survey. The questions, developed in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), examine the following topics: Use of cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, cigars, pipes, bidis, snus, hookahs, electronic vapor products, and dissolvable tobacco products; knowledge and attitudes; media and advertising; access to tobacco products; secondhand smoke exposure; and cessation. In addition, specific questions will be included in the pilot survey to better understand respondents' feelings about safety and security around utilizing a computer based survey.

    Findings from the NYTS pilot will be used to assess the feasibility of conducting the computer-based NYTS compared to the paper-based survey. Results will also be used to help evaluate the impact of automated collection techniques and computer-based survey administration on response burden. After data collection, the computer-based data will be compared to the paper-based data to determine which method provides the most validity and reliability.

    OMB approval will be requested for one year. There are no changes in the estimated burden per response for any type of respondent compared to the paper version. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection are 3,689 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • State Administrators State-level Recruitment Script for the National Youth Tobacco Survey 6 1 30/60 3 District Administrators District-level Recruitment Script for the National Youth Tobacco Survey 45 1 30/60 23 School Administrators School-level Recruitment Script for the National Youth Tobacco Survey 64 1 30/60 32 Teachers Data Collection Checklist for the National Youth Tobacco Survey 292 1 15/60 73 Students National Youth Tobacco Survey 6,100 1 35/60 3,558 Total 3,689
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Health Scientist, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18937 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16AXC; Docket No. CDC-2016-0077] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on a proposed field survey to assess safety and health hazards to workers in oil and gas (O&G.) extraction.

    DATES:

    Written comments must be received on or before October 11, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2016-0077 by any of the following methods:

    • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

    • Mail: Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. All relevant comments received will be posted without change to Regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to Regulations.gov.

    Please note: All public comment should be submitted through the Federal eRulemaking portal (Regulations.gov) or by U.S. mail to the address listed above.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact the Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE., MS-D74, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; phone: 404-639-7570; Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each new proposed collection, each proposed extension of existing collection of information, and each reinstatement of previously approved information collection before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, we are publishing this notice of a proposed data collection as described below.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (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; and (e) estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; to develop, acquire, install and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; to train personnel and to be able to respond to a collection of information, to search data sources, to complete and review the collection of information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Proposed Project

    Assessing Safety and Health Hazards to Workers in Oil and Gas Extraction: A Survey—New Information Collection Request—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

    Background and Brief Description

    The mission of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is to promote safety and health at work for all people through research and prevention. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, 91 (section 20[a] [1]), authorizes NIOSH to conduct research to advance the health and safety of workers. NIOSH is proposing a two year study to conduct a survey questionnaire of 500 land-based oil and gas (O&G) extraction workers in 5 U.S. states (Texas, North Dakota, Colorado, Oklahoma and a state in the Appalachian Basin) to examine safety and health issues and concerns of this workforce. Workers who drive as a part of their work duties will be asked to complete an additional set of questions about their driving environment and behaviors. We expect a response rate of 80%, so it is estimated that we will approach 625 workers in order to have 500 workers complete the survey.

    The goals of this study are (1) To determine on-duty and off-duty factors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes, injuries and illness among U.S. land-based O&G extraction workers and (2) To identify other safety and health needs and concerns of U.S. land-based O&G extraction workers, a largely non-unionized workforce. The results of this study will guide the development of evidence-based and priority interventions and future research in the O&G extraction industry that will improve the safety and health of O&G workers.

    Administration of the survey questionnaire will occur at temporary modular lodging facilities (`man camps'), training centers, equipment/trucking yards, well sites, and community centers in oilfield towns. A screening questionnaire, “Module 1: Screening” will be administered to 313 workers per year (for 2 years) to determine that the worker is eligible for the survey. This questionnaire will take about 5 minutes. NIOSH anticipates that up to 63 workers per year (20% of screened workers) will be eligible but not interested in participating in this study. These workers will be asked to complete a brief, 6-question “Non-Respondent Questionnaire”, which will take about 5 minutes. Approximately 250 workers per year (for 2 years) will be eligible and agree to participate in the study (80% response rate). These workers will complete “Module 2: General,” “Module 3: Well-site work,” and “Module 5: Closing Questions” (approximately 225 workers will use the tablet version and 25 will opt to use the hardcopy version). “Module 5: Closing Questions” includes a brief interview with program staff. The questionnaire and interview will take approximately 25 minutes to complete for workers using the tablet as well as for those using the hardcopy version. Workers who drive a company vehicle will also be asked to complete “Module 4: Motor Vehicle.” An estimated 75% of the workers will complete the driving portion of the survey (187 workers). This module will take approximately 5 additional minutes to complete for those using the tablet (approximately 168 workers per year)as well as 5 minutes for those completing the hardcopy version (19 workers per year).

    Comments submitted in response to this notice will be reviewed and addressed prior to OMB application submission. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The estimated annualized burden hours for this data collection are 154 hours.

    Estimated Annualized Burden Hours Type of respondents Form name Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses
  • per
  • respondent
  • Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • (in hrs.)
  • Total burden
  • (in hrs.)
  • Presumed O&G Extraction Workers Module 1: Screening 313 1 5/60 27 O&G Extraction Workers Non Respondent Questionnaire 63 1 5/60 6 O&G Extraction Workers Tablet Version Modules 2: General Module 3: Well Site Work, and Module 5: Closing Questions 225 1 25/60 94 O&G Extraction Workers Hardcopy Version Modules 2: General Module 3: Well Site Work, and Module 5: Closing Questions 25 1 25/60 11 O&G Extraction Workers who drive at work Tablet Version Module 4: Motor Vehicle 168 1 5/60 14 O&G Extraction Workers who drive at work Hardcopy Version Module 4: Motor Vehicle 19 1 5/60 2 Total 154
    Jeffrey M. Zirger, Acting Chief, Information Collection Review Office, Health Scientist, Office of Scientific Integrity, Office of the Associate Director for Science, Office of the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18940 Filed 8-9-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [60Day-16-16AXB; Docket No. CDC-2016-0076] Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    Notice with comment period.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing efforts to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, 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. This notice invites comment on Information Collection on Feasibility of Social Distancing Measures in K-12 Schools in the United States, which is being conducted to determine if the implementation of social distancing