Federal Register Vol. 81, No.161,

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 161 (August 19, 2016)

Page Range55351-56469
FR Document

81_FR_161
Current View
Page and SubjectPDF
81 FR 55444 - United States Trade Finance Advisory CouncilPDF
81 FR 55457 - Sunshine Act MeetingsPDF
81 FR 55496 - In the Matter of Imperial Plantation Corporation; Order of Suspension of TradingPDF
81 FR 55436 - Hydrofluorocarbon Blends From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty OrderPDF
81 FR 55471 - 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment on the: ConnectHome Challenge Performance ReportingPDF
81 FR 55477 - Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Amended System of Records Notice, Asset Disposition and Management System (ADAMS)PDF
81 FR 55474 - User Fee Schedule for the Technical Suitability of Products Program-Revisions in the User Fees Assessed to Manufacturers of Materials and ProductsPDF
81 FR 55431 - Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final DeterminationPDF
81 FR 55430 - Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 22-Chicago, Illinois, Authorization of Production Activity, Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc. (Automotive Electronic Components), St. Charles, IllinoisPDF
81 FR 55480 - Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Oil and Gas Lease Sales for 2018PDF
81 FR 55473 - Announcement of Funding Awards; Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security Grants; Fiscal Year 2016PDF
81 FR 55434 - Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part; 2015-2016PDF
81 FR 55435 - Ferrovanadium From the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty InvestigationPDF
81 FR 55351 - Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing Model 737-8 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery InstallationsPDF
81 FR 55510 - Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al., Notice of ApplicationPDF
81 FR 55457 - Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding CompaniesPDF
81 FR 55429 - Census Scientific Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 55472 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 8 Management Assessment ProgramPDF
81 FR 55456 - Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of AvailabilityPDF
81 FR 55475 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Report, MTW Family ReportPDF
81 FR 55470 - 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Training Evaluation FormPDF
81 FR 55461 - Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Meeting on September 12, 2016PDF
81 FR 55467 - Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 55374 - Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MIPDF
81 FR 55448 - Procurement List: Addition and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 55447 - Procurement List: Proposed Addition and DeletionsPDF
81 FR 55495 - Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 55495 - Advisory Committee for Integrative Activities; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 55522 - Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee (ETAAC); NominationsPDF
81 FR 55485 - Proposed Collection, Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 55485 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Operations Under WaterPDF
81 FR 55374 - Special Local Regulations; S.P.O.R.T. Boat Races, Sabine River, Orange, TXPDF
81 FR 55372 - Temporary General License: Extension of ValidityPDF
81 FR 55428 - Submission for OMB Review; Comment RequestPDF
81 FR 55457 - Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of LicensePDF
81 FR 55429 - Missoula Resource Advisory CommitteePDF
81 FR 55430 - In the Matter of: Walter Anders, 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078; Terand, Inc., 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078, Respondents; Order Relating to Walter Anders and Terand, Inc.PDF
81 FR 55479 - State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council MeetingPDF
81 FR 55482 - Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea; DeterminationPDF
81 FR 55482 - Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, Italy, and Spain; DeterminationsPDF
81 FR 55467 - Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 55466 - Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 55446 - Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 55446 - Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public MeetingPDF
81 FR 55449 - Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request-Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information DatabasePDF
81 FR 55463 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Mammography Quality Standards Act RequirementsPDF
81 FR 55462 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Export of Medical Devices; Foreign Letters of ApprovalPDF
81 FR 55469 - Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; VacanciesPDF
81 FR 55479 - Announcement of National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation CouncilPDF
81 FR 55487 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
81 FR 55492 - Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety StandardsPDF
81 FR 55494 - Notice of Instructions for Emergency Relief GrantsPDF
81 FR 55521 - Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or Modification of a Railroad Signal SystemPDF
81 FR 55513 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Nasdaq Rule 7047PDF
81 FR 55496 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Exchange's Pricing SchedulePDF
81 FR 55376 - Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Archival Tag Management MeasuresPDF
81 FR 55408 - Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101PDF
81 FR 55484 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machines Standards for Underground Coal MinesPDF
81 FR 55521 - Agency Information Collection Activities: Information Collection Renewal; Submission for OMB Review; OCC Supplier Registration FormPDF
81 FR 55457 - National Center for Health Statistics, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff: MeetingPDF
81 FR 55459 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics: MeetingPDF
81 FR 55458 - Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR), Lead Poisoning Prevention (LPP) SubcommitteePDF
81 FR 55459 - Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health MeetingPDF
81 FR 55460 - Fees for Sanitation Inspections of Cruise ShipsPDF
81 FR 55522 - Unblocking of Specially Designated National and Blocked Person Pursuant to Executive Order 13288, as Amended by Executive Order 13469, and Executive Order 13391PDF
81 FR 55454 - Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of MeetingPDF
81 FR 55520 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing CompanyPDF
81 FR 55517 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Delta EngineeringPDF
81 FR 55519 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing CompanyPDF
81 FR 55520 - Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; AirbusPDF
81 FR 55456 - Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-577); Comment Request; ExtensionPDF
81 FR 55518 - Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County, ArizonaPDF
81 FR 55468 - Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods; Announcement of Meeting; Request for CommentsPDF
81 FR 55500 - Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to FINRA Rule 2232 (Customer Confirmations) To Require Members To Disclose Additional Pricing Information on Retail Customer Confirmations Relating to Transactions in Fixed Income SecuritiesPDF
81 FR 55455 - Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Annual Performance ReportPDF
81 FR 55468 - National Human Genome Research Institute Notice of Closed MeetingPDF
81 FR 55438 - Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value InvestigationsPDF
81 FR 55444 - Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of DutyPDF
81 FR 55402 - Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of California State Implementation Plan Revisions; Butte County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source PermitsPDF
81 FR 55495 - New Postal ProductsPDF
81 FR 55405 - Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR): Agency Warrant Program for Individual Cooperating Country National Personal Services Contractors (CCNPSCs)PDF
81 FR 55483 - Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public InterestPDF
81 FR 55381 - Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial ContractsPDF
81 FR 55371 - Airspace Designations; Incorporation by ReferencePDF
81 FR 55475 - Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the HomelessPDF
81 FR 55358 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 55366 - Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation AirplanesPDF
81 FR 55362 - Airworthiness Directives; Airbus AirplanesPDF
81 FR 55353 - Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. AirplanesPDF
81 FR 55455 - Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board MembershipsPDF
81 FR 55525 - Programs and Activities Authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act)PDF
81 FR 55561 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, Miscellaneous Program ChangesPDF
81 FR 55629 - State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program; State Supported Employment Services Program; Limitations on Use of Subminimum WagePDF
81 FR 55791 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act; Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions; Final RulePDF
81 FR 56071 - Workforce Innovation and Opportunity ActPDF

Issue

81 161 Friday, August 19, 2016 Contents Agency Agency for International Development PROPOSED RULES Acquisition Regulations: Agency Warrant Program for Individual Cooperating Country National Personal Services Contractors, 55405-55408 2016-19709 Agricultural Marketing Agricultural Marketing Service NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55428-55429 2016-19826 Agriculture Agriculture Department See

Agricultural Marketing Service

See

Forest Service

AIRFORCE Air Force Department NOTICES Meetings: U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, 55454 2016-19783 Census Bureau Census Bureau NOTICES Meetings: Census Scientific Advisory Committee, 55429-55430 2016-19853 Centers Disease Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Fees for Sanitation Inspections of Cruise Ships, 55460-55461 2016-19785 Meetings: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 55459-55460 2016-19787 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Lead Poisoning Prevention Subcommittee, 55458-55459 2016-19788 Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics, 55459 2016-19789 National Center for Health Statistics, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, Coordination and Maintenance Committee, 55457-55458 2016-19790 Centers Medicare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services NOTICES Meetings: Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests, 55461-55462 2016-19848 Coast Guard Coast Guard RULES Safety Zones: Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI, 55374-55376 2016-19846 Special Local Regulations: S.P.O.R.T. Boat Races, Sabine River, Orange, TX, 55374 2016-19831 NOTICES Vacancies: Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee, 55469-55470 2016-19805 Commerce Commerce Department See

Census Bureau

See

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

See

Industry and Security Bureau

See

International Trade Administration

See

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Committee for Purchase Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled NOTICES Procurement List; Additions and Deletions, 55447-55449 2016-19841 2016-19842 Comptroller Comptroller of the Currency PROPOSED RULES Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contract, 55381-55402 2016-19671 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: OCC Supplier Registration Form, 55521-55522 2016-19791 Consumer Product Consumer Product Safety Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database; Extension, 55449-55454 2016-19811 Defense Department Defense Department See

Air Force Department

Defense Nuclear Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board NOTICES Memberships: Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board, 55455 2016-18963 Education Department Education Department RULES Programs and Activities Authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, 55526-55559 2016-16049 State Vocational Rehabilitation Services Program: State Supported Employment Services Program; Limitations on Use of Subminimum Wage, 55630-55789 2016-15980 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions, 55792-56070 2016-15977 Miscellaneous Program Changes, 55562-55627 2016-16046 NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Annual Performance Report, 55455 2016-19772 Employment and Training Employment and Training Administration RULES Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, 56072-56469 2016-15975 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: Joint Rule for Unified and Combined State Plans, Performance Accountability, and the One-Stop System Joint Provisions, 55792-56070 2016-15977 Energy Department Energy Department See

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Environmental Protection Environmental Protection Agency PROPOSED RULES Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: California; Butte County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits, 55402-55405 2016-19766 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.; Weekly Receipts, 55456-55457 2016-19851 Federal Aviation Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airspace Designations, 55371-55372 2016-19634 Airworthiness Directives: Airbus Airplanes, 55358-55366 2016-19481 2016-19486 Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes, 55353-55358 2016-19480 Dassault Aviation Airplanes, 55366-55371 2016-19484 Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing Model 737-8 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations, 55351-55353 2016-19856 NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Airfield Safety Enhancement Project at Tucson International Airport, Tucson, Pima County, AZ, 55518-55519 2016-19776 Petitions for Exemptions; Summaries: Airbus, 55520-55521 2016-19778 Delta Engineering, 55517-55518 2016-19780 The Boeing Company, 55520 2016-19782 Petitions for Exemptions; Summary of Petitions Received: The Boeing Company, 55519-55520 2016-19779 Federal Communications Federal Communications Commission NOTICES Radio Broadcasting Services: AM or FM Proposals to Change the Community of License, 55457 2016-19825 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 55457 2016-19970 Federal Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55456 2016-19777 Federal Railroad Federal Railroad Administration NOTICES Applications: Railroad Signal Systems; Discontinuances or Modifications, 55521 2016-19800 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies, 55457 2016-19854 Food and Drug Food and Drug Administration NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: Export of Medical Devices; Foreign Letters of Approval, 55462-55463 2016-19807 Mammography Quality Standards Act Requirements, 55463-55466 2016-19808 Foreign Assets Foreign Assets Control Office NOTICES Blocking or Unblocking of Persons and Properties, 55522 2016-19784 Foreign Trade Foreign-Trade Zones Board NOTICES Production Activities: Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc., Foreign-Trade Zone 22, Chicago, IL, 55430 2016-19862 Forest Forest Service NOTICES Meetings: Missoula Resource Advisory Committee, 55429 2016-19822 Geological Geological Survey NOTICES Meetings: National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council, 55479 2016-19804 Health and Human Health and Human Services Department 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

National Institutes of Health

NOTICES Meetings: National Vaccine Advisory Committee, 55467-55468 2016-19847
Health Resources Health Resources and Services Administration NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages, 55466 2016-19814 Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry, 55467 2016-19815 Homeland Homeland Security Department See

Coast Guard

Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: ConnectHome Challenge Performance Reporting, 55471-55472 2016-19871 Family Report, MTW Family Report, 55475-55477 2016-19850 Section 8 Management Assessment Program, 55472-55473 2016-19852 Training Evaluation Form, 55470-55471 2016-19849 Federal Property Suitable as Facilities to Assist the Homeless, 55475 2016-19516 Funding Awards: Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security Grants; Fiscal Year 2016, 55473-55474 2016-19860 Privacy Act; Systems of Records, 55477-55479 2016-19870 User Fee Schedule for the Technical Suitability of Products Program: Revisions in the User Fees Assessed to Manufacturers of Materials and Products, 55474-55475 2016-19868 Industry Industry and Security Bureau RULES Temporary General Licenses: Extension of Validity, 55372-55374 2016-19828 NOTICES Denials of Export Privileges: Walter Anders and Terand, Inc., 55430-55431 2016-19819 Interior Interior Department See

Geological Survey

See

Land Management Bureau

See

Ocean Energy Management Bureau

Internal Revenue Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Requests for Nominations: Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee, 55522-55523 2016-19838 International Trade Adm International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, 55438-55444 2016-19769 Ferrovanadium from the Republic of Korea, 55435-55436 2016-19857 Hydrofluorocarbon Blends from the People's Republic of China, 55436-55438 2016-19873 New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India, 55431-55434 2016-19867 Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China, 55434-55435 2016-19859 Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies: Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty, 55444 2016-19767 Requests for Nominations: United States Trade Finance Advisory Council, 55444-55446 2016-19981 International Trade Com International Trade Commission NOTICES Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Investigations, Orders, or Reviews: Dioctyl Terephthalate from Korea, 55482 2016-19817 Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, Italy, and Spain, 55482-55483 2016-19816 Complaints: Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products, 55483-55484 2016-19683 Labor Department Labor Department See

Employment and Training Administration

See

Labor Statistics Bureau

See

Mine Safety and Health Administration

NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals: High-Voltage Continuous Mining Machines Standards for Underground Coal Mines, 55484-55485 2016-19794 Operations Under Water, 55485 2016-19833
Labor Statistics Labor Statistics Bureau NOTICES Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals, 55485-55487 2016-19834 Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings: State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council, 55479-55480 2016-19818 Legal Legal Services Corporation NOTICES Instructions for Emergency Relief Grants, 55494-55495 2016-19801 Mine Mine Safety and Health Administration NOTICES Petitions for Modification of Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 55487-55492 2016-19803 Petitions for Modification: Application of Existing Mandatory Safety Standards, 55492-55494 2016-19802 National Institute National Institutes of Health NOTICES Meetings: National Human Genome Research Institute, 55468 2016-19771 Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods, 55468-55469 2016-19774 National Oceanic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Atlantic Highly Migratory Species: Archival Tag Management Measures, 55376-55380 2016-19796 PROPOSED RULES Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska: Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery, 55408-55427 2016-19795 NOTICES Meetings: Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR), 55446-55447 2016-19812 Pacific Fishery Management Council, 55446 2016-19813 National Science National Science Foundation NOTICES Meetings: Advisory Committee for Environmental Research and Education, 55495 2016-19840 Advisory Committee for Integrative Activities, 55495 2016-19839 Ocean Energy Management Ocean Energy Management Bureau NOTICES Environmental Impact Statements; Availability, etc.: Outer Continental Shelf, Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas Lease Sales for 2018, 55480-55481 2016-19861 Postal Regulatory Postal Regulatory Commission NOTICES New Postal Products, 55495-55496 2016-19764 Securities Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Applications: Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, et al., 55510-55513 2016-19855 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Proposed Rule Changes: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., 55500-55510 2016-19773 NASDAQ PHLX LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule, 55496-55500 2016-19798 The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to Amend Nasdaq Rule 7047, 55513-55517 2016-19799 Trading Suspension Orders: Imperial Plantation Corp., 55496 2016-19945 Transportation Department Transportation Department See

Federal Aviation Administration

See

Federal Railroad Administration

Treasury Treasury Department See

Comptroller of the Currency

See

Foreign Assets Control Office

See

Internal Revenue Service

Separate Parts In This Issue Part II Education Department, 55526-55559 2016-16049 Part III Education Department, 55562-55627 2016-16046 Part IV Education Department, 55630-55789 2016-15980 Part V Education Department, 55792-56070 2016-15977 Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration, 55792-56070 2016-15977 Part VI Labor Department, Employment and Training Administration, 56072-56469 2016-15975 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 electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.

81 161 Friday, August 19, 2016 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 25 [Docket No. FAA-2015-5758; Special Conditions No. 25-632-SC] Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Boeing Model 737-8 Airplane; Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final special conditions.

SUMMARY:

These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Company (Boeing) Model 737-8 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This design feature is associated with non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:

Effective April 22, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Future Requests for Installation of Non-Rechargeable Lithium Batteries

The FAA anticipates that non-rechargeable lithium batteries will be installed in other makes and models of airplanes. We have determined to require special conditions for all applications requesting non-rechargeable lithium battery installations, except the installations excluded in the Applicability section, until the airworthiness requirements can be revised to address this issue. Applying special conditions to these installations across the range of all transport-airplane makes and models ensures regulatory consistency among applicants.

The FAA issued special conditions no. 25-612-SC to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for their GVI airplane. Those are the first special conditions the FAA issued for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. We explained in that document our determination to make those special conditions effective one year after publication of those special conditions in the Federal Register, and our intention for other special conditions for other makes and models to be effective on this same date or 30 days after their publication, whichever is later.

Background

On January 27, 2012, Boeing applied for an amendment to type certificate no. A16WE to include a new Model 737-8 airplane. The Model 737-8 airplane is a twin-engine, transport-category airplane that is a derivative of the Model 737-800 airplane. The Model 737-8 has a maximum passenger capacity of 200 and a maximum takeoff weight of 181,200 lbs.

Type Certification Basis

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 737-8 airplane meets the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in type certificate no. A16WE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA. The regulations listed in the type certificate are commonly referred to as the “original type certification basis.” The regulations listed in type certificate no. A16WE are 14 CFR part 25 effective February 1, 1965 including Amendments 25-1 through 25-77 with exceptions listed in the type certificate. In addition, the certification basis includes other regulations, special conditions, and exemptions that are not relevant to these special conditions. Type certificate no. A16WE will be updated to include a complete description of the certification basis for this airplane model.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Model 737-8 airplane because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

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

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Model 737-8 airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

The Boeing Model 737-8 airplane will incorporate non-rechargeable lithium batteries.

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Discussion

The FAA derived the current regulations governing installation of batteries in transport-category airplanes from Civil Air Regulations (CAR) 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR 4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. We basically reworded the battery requirements, which are currently in § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4), from the CAR requirements. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries are novel and unusual with respect to the state of technology considered when these requirements were codified. These batteries introduce higher energy levels into airplane systems through new chemical compositions in various battery-cell sizes and construction. Interconnection of these cells in battery packs introduces failure modes that require unique design considerations, such as provisions for thermal management.

Recent events involving rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries prompted the FAA to initiate a broad evaluation of these energy-storage technologies. In January 2013, two independent events involving rechargeable lithium-ion batteries demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. A National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) letter to the FAA, dated May 22, 2014, which is available at http://www.ntsb.gov, filename A-14-032-036.pdf, describes these events.

On July 12, 2013, an event involving a non-rechargeable lithium battery in an emergency-locator-transmitter installation demonstrated unanticipated failure modes. The United Kingdom's Air Accidents Investigation Branch Bulletin S5/2013 describes this event.

Some known uses of rechargeable and non-rechargeable lithium batteries on airplanes include:

• Flight deck and avionics systems such as displays, global positioning systems, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, underwater locator beacons, navigation computers, integrated avionics computers, satellite network and communication systems, communication-management units, and remote-monitor electronic line-replaceable units;

• Cabin safety, entertainment, and communications equipment, including emergency-locator transmitters, life rafts, escape slides, seatbelt air bags, cabin management systems, Ethernet switches, routers and media servers, wireless systems, internet and in-flight entertainment systems, satellite televisions, remotes, and handsets;

• Systems in cargo areas including door controls, sensors, video surveillance equipment, and security systems.

Some known potential hazards and failure modes associated with non-rechargeable lithium batteries are:

• Internal failures: In general, these batteries are significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. The metallic lithium can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion.

• Fast or imbalanced discharging: Fast discharging or an imbalanced discharge of one cell of a multi-cell battery may create an overheating condition that results in an uncontrollable venting condition, which in turn leads to a thermal event or an explosion.

• Flammability: Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, lithium batteries use higher energy and current in an electrochemical system that can be configured to maximize energy storage of lithium. They also use liquid electrolytes that can be extremely flammable. The electrolyte, as well as the electrodes, can serve as a source of fuel for an external fire if the battery casing is breached.

Special condition 1 requires that each individual cell within a non-rechargeable lithium battery be designed to maintain safe temperatures and pressures. Special condition 2 addresses these same issues but for the entire battery. Special condition 2 requires that the battery be designed to prevent propagation of a thermal event, such as self-sustained, uncontrolled increases in temperature or pressure from one cell to adjacent cells.

Special conditions 1 and 2 are intended to ensure that the non-rechargeable lithium battery and its cells are designed to eliminate the potential for uncontrolled failures. However, a certain number of failures will occur due to various factors beyond the control of the designer. Therefore, other special conditions are intended to protect the airplane and its occupants if failure occurs.

Special conditions 3, 7, and 8 are self-explanatory, and the FAA does not provide further explanation for them at this time.

Special condition 4 makes it clear that the flammable-fluid fire-protection requirements of § 25.863 apply to non-rechargeable lithium battery installations. Section 25.863 is applicable to areas of the airplane that could be exposed to flammable fluid leakage from airplane systems. Non-rechargeable lithium batteries contain electrolyte that is a flammable fluid.

Special condition 5 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape. Special condition 6 requires each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation to have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells. The means of meeting these special conditions may be the same, but they are independent requirements addressing different hazards. Special condition 5 addresses corrosive fluids and gases, whereas special condition 6 addresses heat.

These special conditions will apply to all non-rechargeable lithium battery installations in lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123. Sections 25.1353(b)(1) through (4) at Amendment 25-123 will remain in effect for other battery installations.

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

Discussion of Comments

Notice of proposed special conditions no. 25-16-02-SC, for the Boeing 737-8 airplane, was published in the Federal Register on February 11, 2016 [81 FR 7249]. We received two substantive comments.

The Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) provided several comments that were identical to their comments for special conditions no. 25-612-SC (81 FR 23573), which we issued to Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation for non-rechargeable lithium battery installations on Gulfstream GVI airplanes. The FAA responded to each of these comments in that final special conditions document. We incorporated the same revisions into this Boeing 737-8 special conditions that we incorporated into the Gulfstream GVI special conditions as a result of AIA's comments.

Boeing commented that they fully support AIA's comments.

Boeing requested that the FAA provide adequate time before non-rechargeable lithium battery special conditions become effective to support validation activities by foreign civil airworthiness authorities (FCAA) and to not adversely impact future airplane deliveries by all applicants. The FAA considered this same comment from Boeing for special conditions no. 25-612-SC and provided a detailed response in that document. We determined the effective date for these Boeing 737-8 special conditions based on Boeing's comment and other factors stated in special conditions no. 25-612-SC.

Boeing commented that the FAA needs to clearly define the applicability of these special conditions. The FAA concurs. Boeing's comment is similar to their comment on special conditions no. 25-612-SC. We provided a detailed response in special conditions no. 25-612-SC and have now clearly defined the applicability for these Boeing 737-8 special conditions. One aspect of Boeing's comment that we did not address in special conditions no. 25-612-SC is that some design changes may not change a lithium battery installation but affect it, which results in these special conditions being applicable. For example, adding a heat source next to a lithium battery can increase its possibility of entering into thermal runaway. Lithium battery installations affected by design changes must meet these special conditions. Some examples of changes that affect lithium battery installations are those that:

• Increase the temperatures or pressures in a battery,

• Increase the electrical load on a battery,

• Increase potential for imbalance between battery cells,

• Modify protective circuitry for a lithium battery,

• Increase the airplane level risk due to the location of an existing lithium battery. An example is installation of a new oxygen line next to an existing part that has a lithium battery. The airplane level risk may increase due to the potential hazard of a lithium battery fire in the proximity of oxygen.

The FAA has determined that “uncontrolled” in special condition 2 should be “uncontrollable” to more accurately describe the concern. This revision does not change the intended meaning of this special condition.

Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Model 737-8 airplane. Should the applicant apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

These special conditions are only applicable to design changes applied for after the effective date of the special conditions. The existing airplane fleet and follow-on deliveries of airplanes with previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations are not affected.

These special conditions are not applicable to previously certified non-rechargeable lithium battery installations where the only change is either cosmetic or relocating the installation to improve the safety of the airplane and occupants. The FAA determined that this exclusion is in the public interest because the need to meet all of the special conditions might otherwise deter such design changes that involve relocating batteries. A cosmetic change is a change in appearance only, and does not change any function or safety characteristic of the battery installation.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority:

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

The Special Conditions

Accordingly, the following special conditions are part of the type certification basis for the Boeing Model 737-8 airplane.

Non-Rechargeable Lithium Battery Installations

In lieu of § 25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at Amendment 25-123, each non-rechargeable lithium battery installation must:

1. Maintain safe cell temperatures and pressures under all foreseeable operating conditions to prevent fire and explosion.

2. Prevent the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrollable increases in temperature or pressure.

3. Not emit explosive or toxic gases, either in normal operation or as a result of its failure, that may accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.

4. Meet the requirements of § 25.863.

5. Not damage surrounding structure or adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring from corrosive fluids or gases that may escape in such a way as to cause a major or more-severe failure condition.

6. Have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on airplane structure or systems caused by the maximum amount of heat it can generate due to any failure of it or its individual cells.

7. Have a failure sensing and warning system to alert the flightcrew if its failure affects safe operation of the airplane.

8. Have a means for the flightcrew or maintenance personnel to determine the battery charge state if the battery's function is required for safe operation of the airplane.

Note:

A battery system consists of the battery and any protective, monitoring, and alerting circuitry or hardware inside or outside of the battery. It also includes vents (where necessary) and packaging. For the purpose of these special conditions, a “battery” and “battery system” are referred to as a battery.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 12, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-19856 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-3986; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-057-AD; Amendment 39-18613; AD 2016-16-15] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage due to insufficient clearance on the main landing gear (MLG) stabilizer brace, the nacelle A-frame structure, and the adjacent electrical wiring harnesses. An insufficient fillet radius may also exist on certain airplanes. This AD requires, depending on airplane configuration, an inspection of the nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius; an inspection for cracking of affected structure, and rework or repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle A-frame structure; repetitive inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage, and repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, which would terminate the repetitive inspections; installation of new stop brackets and a shim on each MLG stabilizer brace assembly; and rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing damage and subsequent premature cracking and fracture of the nacelle A-frame structure, which could result in failure of the MLG stabilizer brace and loss of the MLG down-lock indication, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23, 2016.

ADDRESSES:

For Bombardier service information identified in this final rule, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com. For Goodrich service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Landing Gear, 1400 South Service Road, West Oakville, ON, Canada L6L 5Y7; phone: 905-825-1568; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs. 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-2015-3986.

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-2015-3986; 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:

Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7329; fax 516-794-5531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 63147) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by reports of chafing damage due to insufficient clearance on the MLG stabilizer brace, the nacelle A-frame structure, and the adjacent electrical wiring harnesses. An insufficient fillet radius may also exist on certain airplanes. The NPRM proposed to require, depending on airplane configuration, an inspection of the nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius; an inspection for cracking of affected structure, and rework or repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle A-frame structure; repetitive inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage, and repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, which would terminate the repetitive inspections; installation of new stop brackets and a shim on each MLG stabilizer brace assembly; and rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing damage and subsequent premature cracking and fracture of the nacelle A-frame structure, which could result in failure of the MLG stabilizer brace and loss of the MLG down-lock indication, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.

Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-45, dated December 23, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

The aeroplane manufacturer has discovered that an insufficient fillet radius may exist on the flange of the nacelle A-frame structure on certain aeroplanes. There have also been several in-service reports of chafing damage on the main landing gear (MLG) stabilizer brace, the nacelle A-frame structure and its adjacent electrical wiring harnesses due to insufficient clearance.

An insufficient fillet radius and chafing damage on the nacelle A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace could lead to premature cracking. Fracture of the nacelle A-frame structure or failure of the MLG stabilizer brace could adversely affect the safe landing of the aeroplane. The damage to the electrical wiring harnesses could result in the loss of the MLG downlock indication.

This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, and the rework of the forward MLG stabilizer brace assembly and the electrical harnesses in the nacelle area adjacent to the A-frame structure.

The following actions are required, depending on airplane configuration.

• A detailed inspection of the nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius, an eddy current or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for cracking of affected structure, and rework or repair if necessary.

• Rework of the left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side nacelle A-frame structure, including doing a measurement of the clearance between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly and making sure no fouling condition exists, and repair if necessary.

• Repetitive detailed inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage, and repair if necessary.

• Rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, including a measurement of the clearance between the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly, and a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking and repair if necessary, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.

• Installation of new stop brackets and a shim on each MLG stabilizer brace assembly.

• Rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area. The rework includes a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly for certain conditions and repair if any condition is found, replacement of damaged conduit, a measurement of the clearance between the stabilizer brace and electrical harness on both LH and RH nacelles to make sure there is 0.100 inch (2.54 millimeters (mm)) minimum clearance between the MLG stabilizer brace, and a check for damage on the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace and repair if necessary.

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-2015-3986. 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 To Incorporate Revised Service Information and Provide Credit

Horizon Air asked that the following revised service information be included in the proposed AD for the applicable actions:

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision C, dated March 5, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision C, dated April 2, 2015.

• Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015.

• Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-102 R2, Revision 2, dated February 17, 2015.

Horizon Air pointed out that several of the service documents specified in the proposed AD have been updated, and asserted that the proposed AD should be revised to reference the updated service information. Horizon Air also asked that credit be given for actions done using the previous revisions of the revised service information.

We agree with the commenter's requests. No new work is specified by the revised service information; therefore, we have revised the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” section and the applicable requirements of this AD to refer to the updated service information. We have also revised paragraph (m) of this AD to provide credit for certain actions required by this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using earlier revisions of the service information identified previously.

Request To Omit Job Set-Up and Close Out Actions

Horizon Air asked that we not mandate the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of the Accomplishment Instructions of certain service information referenced in the NPRM. Horizon Air stated that these instructions do not directly correct the unsafe condition, but they do restrict an operator's ability to perform other maintenance in conjunction with the instructions that correct the unsafe condition. Horizon Air added that only the section in the Accomplishment Instructions that directly corrects the unsafe condition should be required.

We agree with the commenter's request to exclude the “Job Set-up” and “Close Out” sections of the Accomplishment Instructions of certain service information identified in this AD. Paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (j) of this AD already identify the specific sections of the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable service information for doing only the actions that directly address the unsafe condition; therefore, there are no changes necessary in those paragraphs in this regard. However, we have revised paragraph (k) of this AD to specify doing only the actions provided in “Part B—Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015, for the required actions specified in that paragraph.

Request To Clarify a Certain Reference

Horizon Air asked that we revise the paragraph references in paragraph (l)(1) of the proposed AD for clarity. Horizon Air stated that paragraph (l)(1) of the proposed AD refers to Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012, as acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Horizon Air noted that for greater clarity, the reference should be to paragraph (g)(2) of the proposed AD.

We agree with the commenter's request for the reasons provided. We have changed paragraph (l)(1) of this AD to specify that installing specified fasteners on the MLG A-frame, in both LH and RH nacelles, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012, is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) 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 with the changes described previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Bombardier has issued the following service information.

• ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated December 11, 2012; and ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2012. These modsums describe procedures for rerouting certain electrical harnesses and installing grommets.

• ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012. This modsum describes procedures for installing specified fasteners on the MLG A-frame, in both the LH and RH nacelles.

• ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, dated November 29, 2012. This modsum describes procedures for trimming the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the MLG A frame in both the LH and RH nacelles.

• Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision C, dated April 2, 2015. This service information describes procedures for incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-902416 by installing new stop brackets and new stop shims for all MLG stabilizer brace assemblies.

• Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015. This service information describes procedures for rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area. The rework includes a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly for certain conditions, and repair, replacement of damaged conduit, a measurement of the clearance to make sure there is 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) minimum clearance between the MLG stabilizer brace, and a check for damage on the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace and repair.

• Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius, an eddy current or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for cracking of affected structure, and rework or repair.

• Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision C, dated March 5, 2015. This service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage, and repair. This service information also describes procedures for rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, including a measurement of the clearance between the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly, and a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking and repair, which would end the inspections.

• Service Bulletin 84-54-21, dated May 9, 2013. This service information describes procedures for rework of the LH side and RH side nacelle A-frame structure, including a measurement of the clearance between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly and to make sure no fouling condition exists, and repair.

Goodrich has issued the following service information.

• Service Bulletin 46400-32-102 R2, Revision 2, dated February 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for installing new stop brackets and new stop shims for all MLG stabilizer brace assemblies.

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 80 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it takes up to 50 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $8,452 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,016,160, or $12,702 per product.

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

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): 2016-16-15 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18613; Docket No. FAA-2015-3986; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-057-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

None.

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns) 4001 through 4431 inclusive.

(d) Subject

Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing Gear.

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage due to insufficient clearance on the main landing gear (MLG) stabilizer brace, the nacelle A-frame structure, and the adjacent electrical wiring harnesses. An insufficient fillet radius might also exist on certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct chafing damage and subsequent premature cracking and fracture of the nacelle A-frame structure, which could result in failure of the MLG stabilizer brace and loss of the MLG down-lock indication, which could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection, Corrective Actions, and Rework

For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4055 inclusive: Do the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.

(1) Within 600 flight hours or 100 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of the left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius, in accordance with “Part A—Inspection” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013. If an insufficient fillet radius exists, before further flight, do an eddy current or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for cracking, in accordance with “Part A—Inspection” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013.

(i) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

(ii) If no cracking is found: Before further flight, rework the structure, in accordance with “Part B—Rectification” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013.

(2) Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Rework the LH side and RH side nacelle A-frame structure, including doing a measurement of the clearance between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly and making sure no fouling condition exists, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-21, dated May 9, 2013. If the clearance is found to be less than 0.100 inch (2.54 millimeters (mm)) between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly after the rework is done, or a fouling condition exists during the extension of the MLG after rework is done, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(h) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

For airplanes having S/Ns 4056 through 4426 inclusive: Within 600 flight hours or 100 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a detailed inspection of the LH side and RH side nacelle A-frame structure and upper surface of the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage (e.g., cracking), in accordance with “Part A—Inspection” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision C, dated March 5, 2015. If no damage is found and clearance is sufficient: Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until the terminating action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done.

(1) If a clearance less than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) exists between the A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace assembly in the retracted position, after the rework is done, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(2) If any damage is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Airplanes

For airplanes having S/Ns 4056 through 4426 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, rework the LH side and RH side nacelle A-frame structure, including doing a measurement of the clearance between the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly and doing a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking, in accordance with “Part B—Rework” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision C, dated March 5, 2015. Accomplishment of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

(1) If a clearance less than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) exists between the A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace assembly in the retracted position, after the rework is done, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(2) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(j) Modification of MLG Stabilizer Brace Assembly

For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4431 inclusive with a MLG stabilizer brace assembly having part number (P/N) 46400-27 installed: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-902416 by installing new stop brackets and a new shim on each MLG stabilizer brace assembly, in accordance with paragraph 3.B., “Procedure,” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision C, dated April 2, 2015; and Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-102 R2, Revision 2, dated February 17, 2015.

(k) Rework of the Electrical Wiring Harnesses

For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4411 inclusive: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, rework the LH and RH sides of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area adjacent to the A-frame structure, including doing the actions specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD, in accordance with “Part B—Procedure” of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015. If any damage is found on the A-frame structure or MLG stabilizer brace, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(1) Doing a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly for the conditions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015, and, before further flight, repairing if any condition is found.

(2) Replacing damaged conduit.

(3) Measuring the clearance between the stabilizer brace and electrical harness on both LH and RH nacelles to make sure there is 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) minimum clearance between the MLG stabilizer brace.

(4) Checking for damage on the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace.

(l) Optional Installations

(1) Installing specified fasteners on the MLG A-frame, in both LH and RH nacelles, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012, is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, provided the actions specified in Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002 are done within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD, except where ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012, specifies to contact Bombardier for reduced clearances, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(2) Trimming the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on the MLG A-frame in both LH and RH nacelles, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, dated November 29, 2012, is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, provided the actions specified in Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450003 are done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, except where ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, released November 29, 2012, specifies to contact Bombardier for reduced clearances, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(3) Rerouting certain electrical harnesses and installing grommets, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated December 11, 2012 (for S/Ns 4001 through 4098 inclusive); or Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2012 (for S/Ns 4090 through 4411 inclusive); is acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, provided the actions specified in the applicable modsum are done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, except where Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated December 11, 2012; and Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2012; specify to contact Bombardier to report stabilizer brace or structural damaged findings, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

(1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i), (m)(1)(ii), or (m)(1)(iii) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, dated April 25, 2013.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision A, dated April 9, 2014.

(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision B, dated October 2, 2014.

(2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraph (m)(2)(i), (m)(2)(ii), (m)(2)(iii), or (m)(2)(iv) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, dated December 20, 2012.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision A, dated April 16, 2014.

(iii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision B, dated September 12, 2014.

(iv) Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-102 R1, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2013.

(3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the applicable service information specified in paragraph (m)(3)(i) or (m)(3)(ii) of this AD. This service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.

(i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, dated June 6, 2013.

(ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision A, dated September 18, 2013.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

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

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

(o) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-45, dated December 23, 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-2015-3986.

(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (p)(3), (p)(4), and (p)(5) of this AD.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

(i) Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated December 11, 2012. (This document has 33 pages; the first page of the modsum indicates that there are 32 pages.)

(ii) Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2012.

(iii) Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012.

(iv) Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, dated November 29, 2012.

(v) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision C, dated April 2, 2015.

(vi) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision B, dated February 3, 2015.

(vii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013.

(viii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision C, dated March 5, 2015.

(ix) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-21, dated May 9, 2013.

(x) Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-102 R2, Revision 2, dated February 17, 2015.

(3) For Bombardier service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416-375-4000; fax 416-375-4539; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.bombardier.com.

(4) For Goodrich service information identified in this AD, contact Goodrich Corporation, Landing Gear, 1400 South Service Road, West Oakville, ON, Canada L6L 5Y7; phone: 905-825-1568; email: [email protected]; Internet: http://www.goodrich.com/TechPubs.

(5) 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.

(6) 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 August 4, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-19480 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-095-AD; Amendment 39-18616; AD 2016-17-03] 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) 2003-25-07 for certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, and AD 2005-13-39 for certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. AD 2003-25-07 required a revision to the airplane flight manual (AFM) and replacement of both elevator aileron computers (ELACs) having L80 standards with new ELACs having L81 standards. AD 2005-13-39 required a revision to the AFM, replacement of existing ELACs with ELACs having L83 or L91 standards, as applicable; and a concurrent action. Since we issued AD 2003-25-07 and AD 2005-13-39, we have determined that new ELAC standards must be incorporated. The ELAC standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better detect AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockages. This AD requires replacing existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards or revising the software in an existing ELAC to the L97+ standards, as applicable, which terminates the requirements of AD 2003-25-07 and AD 2005-13-39. This AD also expands the applicability to include all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections. Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result in a continuous nose-down pitch rate that could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 23, 2016.

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of August 9, 2005 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005).

The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of January 22, 2004 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003).

ADDRESSES:

For service information identified in this final rule, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email [email protected]; Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-4226.

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-2016-4226; 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:

Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Discussion

We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003) (“AD 2003-25-07”); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005) (“AD 2005-13-39”).

AD 2003-25-07 applied to certain Airbus Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, and AD 2005-13-39 applied to certain Airbus Model A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2016 (81 FR 14404). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that new ELAC standards must be incorporated. The ELAC standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements enhanced AOA monitoring to better detect AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockages.

The NPRM proposed to require replacing existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards or revising the software in an existing ELAC to the L97+ standards, as applicable, which would terminate the requirements of AD 2003-25-07 and AD 2005-13-39. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections. Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result in a continuous nose-down pitch rate that could result in reduced controllability 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 2015-0088R1, including Appendix 01, dated June 2, 2015 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

The latest elevator aileron computer (ELAC) standard, L97+, implements enhanced Angle of Attack (AOA) monitoring in order to better detect cases of AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockage.

Two ELAC L97+ versions are currently available, Part Number (P/N) 3945129109 with data loading capability, and P/N 3945128215 without the data loading capability. Three existing [EASA] ADs requiring installation of earlier ELAC (software) have been identified and taken into account for cancellation by this new [EASA] AD.

For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0088, cancelling DGAC [Direction Générale de l'Aviation Civile] France AD 95-203-072 (no requirements retained) [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-09-18, Amendment 39-10499 (63 FR 23374, April 29, 1998)], and partially retaining the requirements of DGAC France AD 2001-508 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2003-25-07], and [DGAC France] AD F-2004-147 (EASA approval ref. 2004-8601) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-13-39], which were superseded, and to require replacement of all ELAC with ELAC L97+ standard.

Since that [EASA] AD was issued, some errors were detected in Appendix 1 of the [EASA] AD, and one P/N ELAC was inadvertently omitted. This [EASA] AD revises EASA AD 2015-0088 to correct these errors and to add clarification to paragraph (7) [of the EASA AD].

The required actions include either replacing existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards uploaded, or revising the software in the existing ELACs to L97+ standards. This AD also expands the applicability to include all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. 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-2016-4226.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including Appendix 01, dated March 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacing the existing ELACs with new ELACs having L97+ standards, and modifying existing ELACs into units with L97+ standards.

Airbus has also issued Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March 5, 2015. This service information describes procedures for modification of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit with an ELAC 97+ unit having P/N 3945128215.

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 940 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions required by AD 2003-25-07 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2003-25-07 is $85 per product.

The actions required by AD 2005-13-39 and retained in this AD take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2005-13-39 is $85 per product.

We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours 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 $7,230 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $7,035,900, or $7,485 per product.

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by: a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003); and AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005); and b. Adding the following new AD: 2016-17-03 Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-4226; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-095-AD. (a) Effective Date

This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

This AD replaces the ADs identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this AD.

(1) AD 2003-25-07, Amendment 39-13390 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003) (“AD 2003-25-07”).

(2) AD 2005-13-39, Amendment 39-14176 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005) (“AD 2005-13-39”).

(c) Applicability

This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any category, all manufacturer serial numbers.

(1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

(2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

(3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

(4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

This AD was prompted by a determination that new elevator aileron computer (ELAC) standards must be incorporated. The ELAC standards have been upgraded to version L97+, which implements enhanced angle-of-attack (AOA) monitoring to better detect AOA blockage, including multiple AOA blockages. We are issuing this AD to prevent inadvertent activation of the AOA protections. Inadvertent activation of the AOA protections could result in a continuous nose-down pitch rate that could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Replacement of ELAC L80 Units With L81 Units, With No Changes

For Model A319 and A320 series airplanes, equipped with ELAC L80 standards having part numbers listed in Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001: This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (b) of AD 2003-25-07, with no changes. Within 1 year after January 22, 2004 (the effective date of AD 2003-25-07): Replace both ELACs having L80 standards with new ELACs having L81 standards, by doing all the actions per paragraphs A., B., C., and D. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001.

(h) Retained Installation of ELAC L83 or L91 Software, With No Changes

For Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, and -231 airplanes, except those with Airbus Modification 34043 installed in production: This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2005-13-39, with no changes. Within 16 months after August 9, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005-13-39): Replace existing ELACs with ELACs having L83 standards, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1151, dated March 9, 2004, including Appendix 01, dated March 9, 2004; or with ELACs having L91 standards, by accomplishing all of the actions specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1152, dated June 4, 2004, including Appendix 01, dated June 4, 2004; as applicable.

(i) New Requirement of This AD: ELAC Replacement or Modification

At the applicable times specified in table 1 to paragraphs (i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this AD: Replace each ELAC unit with an ELAC L97+ unit having part number (P/N) 3945129100 and software having P/N 3945129109, or modify existing ELAC units into ELAC L97+ units having P/N 3945129100 with L97+ operational software P/N 3945129109 loaded, as applicable, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including Appendix 01, dated March 17, 2015. Accomplishing this replacement terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

Table 1 to Paragraphs (i) and (m)(3)(ii) of This AD—Compliance Times Airbus airplane models Compliance time
  • (after the effective date of this AD)
  • Model A318 series airplanes with UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3 positions (captain, first officer, and standby) Within 5 months. Model A319 series airplanes with UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3 positions (captain, first officer, and standby) Within 10 months. Model A320 series airplanes with UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3 positions (captain, first officer, and standby) Within 10 months. Model A321 series airplanes with UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3 positions (captain, first officer, and standby) Within 5 months. Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes that do not have UTAS (formerly Goodrich) AOA P/N 0861ED or P/N 0861ED2 installed in all 3 positions (captain, first officer, and standby) Within 25 months.
    (j) Optional Method of Compliance

    Modification of an airplane by replacing any existing ELAC unit with an ELAC 97+ unit having P/N 3945128215, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March 5, 2015, is an acceptable method of compliance for the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, for only that modified airplane. Accomplishing this modification terminates the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for that modified airplane.

    Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD:

    ELAC unit P/N 3945128215 is not data-loadable, but it is fully interchangeable and mixable with data-loadable ELAC 97+ unit P/N 3945129100 with software P/N 3945129109 loaded.

    (k) Airplanes Excluded From Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), and (i), and From the Actions in Paragraph (j) of This AD

    Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 156546 (installation of ELAC L97+ with software P/N 3945129109) was installed in production are excluded from the requirements of paragraphs (g), (h), and (i) of this AD, and from the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided it can be determined that no ELAC having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD has been installed on that airplane since the date of issuance of the original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the original export certificate of airworthiness.

    Table 2 to Paragraphs (k) and (m) of This AD—Prohibited ELAC Part Numbers Part No. Designation FIN 3945122202 ELAC A320-111 Type Def. 2 CE 1/2 3945122203 ELAC L50C 2 CE 1/2 3945122303 ELAC L50C 2 CE 1/2 3945122304 ELAC L60 2 CE 1/2 3945122305 ELAC L61B 2 CE 1/2 3945122306 ELAC L61F 2 CE 1/2 3945122307 ELAC L62C 2 CE 1/2 C12370AA01 ELAC L68C 2 CE 1/2 3945122501 ELAC L69 2 CE 1/2 3945122502 ELAC L69J 2 CE 1/2 3945122503 ELAC L77 2 CE 1/2 3945122504 ELAC L78 2 CE 1/2 3945122505 ELAC A L80 2 CE 1/2 3945123505 ELAC A' L80 2 CE 1/2 3945128101 ELAC B L80 2 CE 1/2 3945122506 ELAC A L81 2 CE 1/2 3945123506 ELAC A' L81 2 CE 1/2 3945128102 ELAC B L81 2 CE 1/2 3945122507 ELAC A L82 2 CE 1/2 3945123507 ELAC A' L82 2 CE 1/2 3945128103 ELAC B L82 2 CE 1/2 3945122608 ELAC A L83 2 CE 1/2 3945123608 ELAC A' L83 2 CE 1/2 3945122609 ELAC A L84 2 CE 1/2 3945123609 ELAC A' L84 2 CE 1/2 3945128204 ELAC B L90L 2 CE 1/2 3945128205 ELAC B L90N 2 CE 1/2 3945128206 ELAC B L91 2 CE 1/2 3945129101 ELAC B L91 data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 3945128207 ELAC B L92 2 CE 1/2 3945128208 ELAC B L92L 2 CE 1/2 3945128209 ELAC B L93 2 CE 1/2 3945129103 ELAC B L93 data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 3945128210 ELAC B L94 2 CE 1/2 3945129104 ELAC B L94 data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 3945128212 ELAC B L96 2 CE 1/2 3945129106 ELAC B L96 data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 3945129107 ELAC B L96 H-A data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 3945128214 ELAC B L97 2 CE 1/2 3945129108 ELAC B L97 data loadable 2 CE 1/2 SW1 (l) Later-Approved Parts

    Installation of an ELAC version (part number) approved after the effective date of this AD is an approved method of compliance with the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, and the actions specified in paragraph (j) of this AD, provided the requirements specified in paragraphs (l)(1) and (l)(2) of this AD are met.

    (1) The version (part number) must be 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).

    (2) The installation must be done using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA.

    (m) Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(1) or (m)(2) of this AD, do not install on any airplane an ELAC unit having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD, except as specified in paragraph (m)(3) of this AD.

    (1) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD, has any ELAC unit installed having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD: After modification of that airplane as required by paragraph (i) of this AD, or as specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

    (2) For an airplane that, as of the effective date of this AD, does not have any ELAC unit installed having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD: As of the effective date of this AD.

    (3) As of the effective date of this AD, a data-loadable ELAC B unit having a part number identified in table 2 to paragraphs (k) and (m) of this AD can be installed on an airplane provided that L97+ software P/N 3945129109 is uploaded at the applicable time specified in paragraph (m)(3)(i) or (m)(3)(ii) of this AD.

    (i) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph (m)(3)(ii) of this AD: Before further flight after the ELAC B unit installation.

    (ii) For airplanes that have not been modified as required by paragraph (i) of this AD: Within the applicable compliance time specified in table 1 to paragraphs (i) and (m)(3)(ii) of this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2003-25-07 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2005-13-39 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD.

    (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 the EASA; or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

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

    (o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0088R1, including Appendix 01, dated June 2, 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-2016-4226.

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on September 23, 2016.

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1243, including Appendix 01, dated March 17, 2015.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1244, dated March 5, 2015.

    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on August 9, 2005 (70 FR 38580, July 5, 2005).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1151, including Appendix 01, dated March 9, 2004.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1152, including Appendix 01, dated June 4, 2004.

    (5) The following service information was approved for IBR on January 22, 2004 (68 FR 70431, December 18, 2003).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-27-1135, dated June 29, 2001.

    (ii) Reserved.

    (6) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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.

    (7) 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.

    (8) 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 August 8, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19486 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2015-8463; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-226-AD; Amendment 39-18612; AD 2016-16-14] 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) 2013-20-11, for all Airbus Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. AD 2013-20-11 required modifying the passenger emergency oxygen container assembly. This new AD expands the affected group of oxygen containers to include those labeled “DAe Systems.” This AD was prompted by a determination that the unsafe condition also affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.” We are issuing this AD to prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of supplemental oxygen.

    DATES:

    This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of December 2, 2013 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013).

    ADDRESSES:

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

    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-8463.

    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-2015-8463; 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:

    Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013) (“AD 2013-20-11”). AD 2013-20-11 applied to all Model A318, A319, A320, and A321 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3061) (“the NPRM”). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that the unsafe condition also affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.” The NPRM proposed to continue to require modifying the passenger emergency oxygen container assembly. The NPRM also proposed to expand the affected group of oxygen containers to include those labeled “DAe Systems.” We are issuing this AD to prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of supplemental oxygen.

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2014-0207, dated September 16, 2014 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition. The MCAI states:

    It was determined that oxygen generators, installed on a specific batch of Type 1 (22 min) passenger emergency oxygen container assemblies, may become detached by extreme pulling of the mask tube at the end of oxygen supply. Investigations revealed that such detachment can be caused by the increase in temperature towards the end of the generator operation, which may weaken the plastic housing in the attachment area of the bracket.

    This condition, if not corrected, could make the rivets slip through the plastic housing, causing a `hot' oxygen generator and mask to fall down, possibly resulting in injury to passengers.

    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2012-0055 (later revised) [which corresponds to FAA AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013)] to require modification of the affected oxygen container assemblies. That [EASA] AD also prohibited installation of unmodified containers on any aeroplane as replacement parts.

    Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was found that the affected containers have not only been marked with company name B/E Aerospace, as was specified, but also, for a brief period, with the former company name DAe Systems.

    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA AD 2012-0055R1, which is superseded, and expands the affected group of containers to include those that have the name “DAe Systems” on the identification plate.

    This [EASA] AD also clearly separates the serial number (s/n) groups of containers into those manufactured by B/E Aerospace and those manufactured by DAe Systems, for which additional compliance time is provided.

    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-2015-8463.

    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 available 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.

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

    The actions required by AD 2013-20-11 and retained in this AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by AD 2013-20-11 is $170 per product.

    We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $170 per product.

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

    Authority for This Rulemaking

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

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

    Regulatory Findings

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

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

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

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

    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

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

    List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

    Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

    § 39.13 [Amended]
    2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013), and adding the following new AD: 2016-16-14 Airbus: Amendment 39-18612; Docket No. FAA-2015-8463; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-226-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 23, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2013-20-11, Amendment 39-17617 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013) (“AD 2013-20-11”).

    (c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any category, specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(4) of this AD, all manufacturer serial numbers.

    (1) Airbus Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.

    (2) Airbus Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes.

    (3) Airbus Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.

    (4) Airbus Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that oxygen generators installed on a certain batch of passenger emergency oxygen container assemblies might become detached by extreme pulling of the mask tube at the end of the oxygen supply causing a high temperature oxygen generator and mask to fall down. This AD was also prompted by a determination that the unsafe condition affects oxygen containers labeled “DAe Systems.” We are issuing this AD to prevent a high temperature oxygen generator and mask from falling down and possibly resulting in an ignition source in the passenger compartment, injury to passengers, and reduced availability of supplemental oxygen.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Retained Oxygen Container Assembly Modification, With Service Information Referenced in a New Paragraph

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2013-20-11 with service information referenced in a new paragraph. Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD, within 5,000 flight cycles, or 7,500 flight hours, or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-20-11): Modify each type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen container assembly installed on an airplane, having a part number (P/N) listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number (S/N) listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (1) An oxygen container that has a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number as listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, and that has been modified using the instructions of B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 1XC22-0100-35-006, is compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (g) of this AD.

    (i) Oxygen container part numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(i)(A) through (g)(1)(i)(D) of this AD, where xxxxx stands for an alphanumerical value.

    (A) 13C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (B) 13C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (C) 14C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (D) 14C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (ii) Oxygen container serial numbers listed in paragraphs (g)(1)(ii)(A) through (g)(1)(ii)(H) of this AD.

    (A) ARBC-0182 to ARBC-9999, inclusive.

    (B) ARBD-0000 to ARBD-9999, inclusive.

    (C) ARBE-0000 to ARBE-9999, inclusive.

    (D) BEBF-0000 to BEBF-9999, inclusive.

    (E) BEBH-0000 to BEBH-9999, inclusive.

    (F) BEBK-0000 to BEBK-9999, inclusive.

    (G) BEBL-0000 to BEBL-9999, inclusive.

    (H) BEBM-0000 to BEBM-0454, inclusive.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has not been embodied in production are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    (3) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has been embodied in production and that are not listed by model and manufacturer serial number in the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD; are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and a serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is installed.

    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD:

    The oxygen container assemblies listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD and paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD are B/E Aerospace products with the mark “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate.

    (h) Retained Parts Installation Limitation, With Service Information Referenced in a New Paragraph

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2013-20-11 with service information referenced in a new paragraph. As of December 2, 2013 (the effective date of AD 2013-20-11), no person may install, on any airplane, an oxygen container with a part number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(i) of this AD, and serial number listed in paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD, unless the oxygen container has been modified according to the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (i) New Requirement of This AD: Modification of Additional Oxygen Containers

    At the applicable times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD: Modify each type 1 (22 minute) passenger emergency oxygen container assembly installed on an airplane, having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD; except as specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.

    (1) For units with “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate and having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD: Within 5,000 flight cycles, or 7,500 flight hours, or 24 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (2) For units with “DAe Systems” on the identification plate and having a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: Within 2,500 flight cycles, or 3,750 flight hours, or 12 months, whichever occurs first after the effective date of this AD.

    (j) New Part Numbers and Serial Numbers for the Parts Affected by Paragraph (i) of This AD

    Affected parts for the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD are identified in paragraphs (j)(1) and (j)(2) of this AD.

    (1) For oxygen containers with “B/E AEROSPACE” on the identification plate: Units having a part number identified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iv) of this AD, where part number “xxxxx” stands for any alphanumerical value, and a serial number of BEBM-0455 to BEBM-9999, inclusive.

    (i) 13C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (ii) 13C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (iii) 14C22Lxxxxx0100.

    (iv) 14C22Rxxxxx0100.

    (2) For oxygen containers with “DAe Systems” on the identification plate: Units having a part number identified in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iv) of this AD, where part number “xxxxx” stands for any alphanumerical value, and a serial number identified in paragraphs (j)(2)(i) through (j)(2)(iv) of this AD.

    (i) ARBC-0000 to ARBC-9999 inclusive.

    (ii) ARBD-0000 to ARBD-9999 inclusive.

    (iii) ARBE-0000 to BEBE-9999 inclusive.

    (iv) BEBE-0000 to BEBE-9999 inclusive.

    (k) Service Information for the Requirements of Paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (m) of This AD

    Accomplish the requirements specified in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and (m) of this AD in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information identified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (1) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.

    (2) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.

    (3) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.

    (4) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.

    (5) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.

    (6) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.

    (7) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.

    (l) New Exceptions to the Requirements of Paragraph (i) of This AD

    (1) An oxygen container that has a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, and that has been modified as specified in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 1XC22-0100-35-006, is compliant with the modification requirement of paragraph (i) of this AD.

    (2) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has not been embodied in production are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed.

    (3) Airplanes on which Airbus Modification 150704 has been embodied in production and that are not listed by model and manufacturer serial number in the Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD, as applicable, are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD, unless an oxygen container with a part and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD is installed.

    (4) Airplanes on which the design of the passenger oxygen container is not Design A, as defined in figure 1 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD, are excluded from the requirements of paragraph (i) of this AD for that passenger oxygen container.

    Note 2 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD:

    For “Design A,” the placard on the passenger oxygen container test button is as described in “Picture A” in figure 1 to paragraph (l)(4) of this AD. The mask configuration (“ZZ” in “Picture A”) is a number, and the test button is as shown in “Picture B.”

    BILLING CODE 4910-13-C ER19AU16.002 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P (m) New Requirement of This AD: Parts Installation Limitation

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, an oxygen container with a part number and a serial number listed in paragraph (j) of this AD, unless the oxygen container has been modified in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the applicable Airbus service information specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(7) of this AD.

    (n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1405; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]

    (i) 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.

    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2013-20-11 are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD.

    (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 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.

    (o) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA AD 2014-0207, dated September 16, 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-2015-8463.

    (p) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on December 2, 2013 (78 FR 64162, October 28, 2013).

    (i) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1049, dated June 15, 2011.

    (ii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1053, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1054, dated June 15, 2011.

    (iv) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1055, dated June 15, 2011.

    (v) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1056, dated June 15, 2011.

    (vi) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1057, dated June 15, 2011.

    (vii) Airbus Service Bulletin A320-35-1058, dated June 15, 2011.

    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office—EIAS, 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.

    (5) 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.

    (6) 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 August 3, 2016. Michael Kaszycki, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19481 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8843; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-113-AD; Amendment 39-18615; AD 2016-17-02] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. This AD requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include procedures to follow when an airplane is operating in icing conditions. This AD also provides optional terminating action for the AFM revision. This AD was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. A deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting could lead to undetected, reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flight crew has procedures for operating an airplane in icing conditions.

    DATES:

    This AD becomes effective September 6, 2016.

    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of September 6, 2016.

    We must receive comments on this AD by October 3, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

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

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

    Fax: 202-493-2251.

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

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

    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 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-2016-8843.

    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-2016-8843; or in person at the Docket Operations office 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. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

    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

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 900EX and FALCON 2000EX airplanes. The MCAI states:

    A design review of in production aeroplanes identified a manufacturing deficiency of some wing anti-ice system ducting.

    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an undetected reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics.

    The Falcon 900EX EASY and Falcon * * * [2000EX] Aircraft Flight Manuals (AFM) contain a normal procedure 4-200-05A, “Operations in Icing Conditions”, addressing minimum fan speed rotation (N1) during combined operation of wing anti-ice and engine anti-ice systems. The subsequent investigation demonstrated that the wing anti-ice system performance for aeroplanes equipped with ducting affected by the manufacturing deficiency can be restored increasing N1 value. In addition, Dassault Aviation published Service Bulletin (SB) F900EX-464 (for Falcon 900EX aeroplanes) and SB F2000EX-393 (for Falcon 2000EX aeroplanes), providing instructions for wing anti-ice system ducting inspection.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires an AFM amendment and a one-time inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting and, depending on findings, re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8843. Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. We are currently considering requiring a detailed inspection of the wing anti-icing system ducting for the presence of a diaphragm and, as applicable, re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-icing system ducting (these actions are required by the MCAI). That inspection and applicable corrective actions would terminate the AFM revision required by this AD action. However, the planned compliance time for the detailed inspection would allow enough time to provide notice and opportunity for prior public comment on the merits of the inspection.

    Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault has issued Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; and Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016. The service information describes procedures for an inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting and re-identification or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

    FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these same type designs.

    FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because a design review of in-production airplanes identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting that could lead to undetected, reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics of the airplane. Therefore, we determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

    Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2016-8843; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-113-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD based on those comments.

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

    Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 52 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. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be $4,420, 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): 2016-17-02 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18615; Docket No. FAA-2016-8843; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-113-AD. (a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 6, 2016.

    (b) Affected ADs

    None.

    (c) Applicability

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

    (1) Model FALCON 900EX airplanes, serial numbers (S/Ns) 270 through 291 inclusive and 294.

    (2) Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes, S/Ns 263 through 305 inclusive, 307 through 313 inclusive, 315, 320, and 701 through 734 inclusive.

    (d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain Protection.

    (e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a design review of in-production airplanes that identified a deficiency in certain wing anti-ice system ducting. A deficiency in the wing anti-ice system ducting could lead to undetected, reduced performance of the wing anti-ice system, with potential ice accretion and ingestion, possibly resulting in degraded engine power and degraded handling characteristics of the airplane. We are issuing this AD to ensure the flight crew has procedures for operating an airplane in icing conditions.

    (f) Compliance

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

    (g) Revision to Airplane Flight Manual (AFM)

    (1) For Model FALCON 900EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model FALCON 900EX AFM to include the information in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

    ER19AU16.004

    (2) For Model FALCON 2000EX airplanes on which the actions specified in Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-393 have not been accomplished: Within 10 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, revise Section 4-200-05A, “OPERATION IN ICING CONDITIONS,” of the Model FALCON 2000EX AFM to include the information in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, and thereafter operate the airplane accordingly. The AFM revision may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.

    ER19AU16.005 (h) Optional Action(s)

    A detailed inspection of the wing anti-ice system ducting for the presence of a diaphragm and, as applicable, a check of the part number, and re-identification of the wing anti-ice system ducting or replacement of the wing anti-ice system ducting, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016; or Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016; as applicable; terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD for that airplane only. After the applicable actions in the service information have been completed, the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD may be removed from the AFM for that airplane.

    (i) 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] 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 Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

    (j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) Emergency Airworthiness Directive 2016-0130-E, dated July 5, 2016, for related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-8843.

    (k) Material Incorporated by Reference

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

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

    (i) Dassault Service Bulletin F900EX-464, dated June 20, 2016.

    (ii) Dassault Service Bulletin F2000EX-393, dated June 20, 2016.

    (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 August 5, 2016. Chris L. Spangenberg, Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19484 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 71 [Docket No. FAA-2016-8926; Amendment No. 71-48] RIN 2120-AA66 Airspace Designations; Incorporation by Reference AGENCY:

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 relating to airspace designations to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. This action also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points incorporated by reference.

    DATES:

    These regulations are effective September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. The incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11A is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017.

    ADDRESSES:

    FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

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

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: History

    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, effective September 15, 2015, listed Class A, B, C, D and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points. Due to the length of these descriptions, the FAA requested approval from the Office of the Federal Register to incorporate the material by reference in the Federal Aviation Regulations section 71.1, effective September 15, 2015, through September 15, 2016. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA processed all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.9Z in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Likewise, all amendments of these listings were published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. This rule reflects the periodic integration of these final rule amendments into a revised edition of Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points. The Director of the Federal Register has approved the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11A in section 71.1, as of September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. This rule also explains the procedures the FAA will use to amend the airspace designations incorporated by reference in part 71. Sections 71.5, 71.15, 71.31, 71.33, 71.41, 71.51, 71.61, 71.71, and 71.901 are also updated to reflect the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11A.

    Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document incorporates by reference FAA Order 7400.11A, airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15, 2016, in section 71.1. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

    The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to reflect the approval by the Director of the Federal Register of the incorporation by reference of FAA Order 7400.11A, effective September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. During the incorporation by reference period, the FAA will continue to process all proposed changes of the airspace listings in FAA Order 7400.11A in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Likewise, all amendments of these listings will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. The FAA will periodically integrate all final rule amendments into a revised edition of the Order, and submit the revised edition to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in section 71.1.

    Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this action: (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. This action neither places any new restrictions or requirements on the public, nor changes the dimensions or operation requirements of the airspace listings incorporated by reference in part 71.

    List 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.

    2. Section 71.1 is revised to read as follows:
    § 71.1 Applicability.

    A listing for Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points can be found in FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016. This incorporation by reference was approved by the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552 (a) and 1 CFR part 51. The approval to incorporate by reference FAA Order 7400.11A is effective September 15, 2016, through September 15, 2017. During the incorporation by reference period, proposed changes to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as proposed rule documents in the Federal Register. Amendments to the listings of Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas; air traffic service routes; and reporting points will be published in full text as final rules in the Federal Register. Periodically, the final rule amendments will be integrated into a revised edition of the Order and submitted to the Director of the Federal Register for approval for incorporation by reference in this section. Copies of FAA Order 7400.11A may be obtained from Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-8783. An electronic version of the Order is available on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications. Copies of FAA Order 7400.11A may be inspected in Docket No. FAA-2016-XXXX; Amendment No. 71-48 on http://www.regulations.gov. A copy of FAA Order 7400.11A may be inspected 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.

    § 71.5 [Amended]
    3. Section 71.5 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.15 [Amended]
    4. Section 71.15 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.31 [Amended]
    5. Section 71.31 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.33 [Amended]
    6. Paragraph (c) of section 71.33 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.41 [Amended]
    7. Section 71.41 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.51 [Amended]
    8. Section 71.51 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.61 [Amended]
    9. Section 71.61 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.71 [Amended]
    10. Paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) of section 71.71 are amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”
    § 71.901 [Amended]
    11. Paragraph (a) of section 71.901 is amended by removing the words “FAA Order 7400.9Z” and adding, in their place, the words “FAA Order 7400.11A.”.” Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 2016. M. Randy Willis, Acting Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19634 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security 15 CFR Part 744 [Docket No. 160106014-6728-04] RIN 0694-AG82 Temporary General License: Extension of Validity AGENCY:

    Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License. The March 24 final rule created a temporary general license that restored, for a specified time period, the licensing requirements and policies under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) as of March 7, 2016, to two entities (ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun) that were added to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until November 28, 2016. In order to implement this decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the expiration date of August 30, 2016, and to substitute the date of November 28, 2016. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective August 19, 2016 through November 28, 2016. The expiration date of the final rule published on March 24, 2016 (81 FR 15633) is extended until November 28, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Chair, End-User Review Committee, Office of the Assistant Secretary, Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce, Phone: (202) 482-5991, Email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On March 24, 2016, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule, Temporary General License (81 FR 15633). The March 24 final rule amended the EAR by adding Supplement No. 7 to part 744 to create a Temporary General License that returned, until June 30, 2016, the licensing and other policies of the EAR regarding exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (ZTE) Corporation and ZTE Kangxun to that which were in effect prior to their addition to the Entity List on March 8, 2016. On June 28, 2016, BIS published a final rule, Temporary General License: Extension of Validity (81 FR 41799), which extended the validity of the Temporary General License until August 30, 2016. Details regarding the scope of the listing are at 81 FR 12004 (Mar. 8, 2016), (“Additions to the Entity List”). Details regarding the Temporary General License can be found in the March 24 final rule and in Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—Temporary General License.

    BIS issued the March 24 final rule, and the June 28 final rule, in connection with a request to remove or modify the listing. The March 24 final rule, and the June 28 final rule, specified that the temporary general license was renewable if the U.S. Government determined, in its sole discretion, that ZTE Corporation and ZTE Kangxun were timely performing their undertakings to the U.S. Government and otherwise cooperating with the U.S. Government in resolving the matter which led to the two entities' listing.

    At this time, the U.S. Government has decided to extend the temporary general license until November 28, 2016. In order to implement this U.S. Government decision, this final rule revises the temporary general license to remove the date of August 30, 2016, and substitute the date of November 28, 2016. This final rule makes no other changes to the EAR.

    Export Administration Act

    Although the Export Administration Act expired on August 20, 2001, the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783 (2002), as amended by Executive Order 13637 of March 8, 2013, 78 FR 16129 (March 13, 2013) and as extended by the Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016), has continued the Export Administration Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. BIS continues to carry out the provisions of the Export Administration Act, as appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, pursuant to Executive Order 13222, as amended by Executive Order 13637.

    Rulemaking Requirements

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

    2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to nor be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information, subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (PRA), unless that collection of information displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control Number. This regulation involves collections previously approved by OMB under control number 0694-0088, Simplified Network Application Processing System, which includes, among other things, license applications and carries a burden estimate of 43.8 minutes for a manual or electronic submission. Total burden hours associated with the PRA and OMB control number 0694-0088 are not expected to increase as a result of this rule. You may send comments regarding the collection of information associated with this rule, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Jasmeet K. Seehra, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), by email to [email protected], or by fax to (202) 395-7285.

    3. This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.

    4. The provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for public comment, and a delay in effective date are inapplicable because this regulation involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States. (See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)). If this rule were delayed to allow for notice and comment and a delay in effective date, then the national security and foreign policy objectives of this rule would be harmed. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be given for this rule by 5 U.S.C. 553, or by any other law, the analytical requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., are not applicable. Accordingly, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required and none has been prepared.

    List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 744

    Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.

    Accordingly, part 744 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) is amended as follows:

    PART 744—[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for 15 CFR part 744 is revised to read as follows: Authority:

    50 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 3201 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 2139a; 22 U.S.C. 7201 et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 7210; E.O. 12058, 43 FR 20947, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 179; E.O. 12851, 58 FR 33181, 3 CFR, 1993 Comp., p. 608; E.O. 12938, 59 FR 59099, 3 CFR, 1994 Comp., p. 950; E.O. 12947, 60 FR 5079, 3 CFR, 1995 Comp., p. 356; E.O. 13026, 61 FR 58767, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 228; E.O. 13099, 63 FR 45167, 3 CFR, 1998 Comp., p. 208; E.O. 13222, 66 FR 44025, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 783; E.O. 13224, 66 FR 49079, 3 CFR, 2001 Comp., p. 786; Notice of September 18, 2015, 80 FR 57281 (September 22, 2015); Notice of November 12, 2015, 80 FR 70667 (November 13, 2015); Notice of January 20, 2016, 81 FR 3937 (January 22, 2016); Notice of August 4, 2016, 81 FR 52587 (August 8, 2016).

    Supplement No. 7 to Part 744—[Amended] 2. In Supplement No. 7 to part 744, remove “August 30, 2016” and add in its place “November 28, 2016”. Dated: August 16, 2016. Kevin J. Wolf, Assistant Secretary for Export Administration.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19828 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-33-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 100 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0700] Special Local Regulations; S.P.O.R.T. Boat Races, Sabine River, Orange, TX AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice of enforcement of regulation.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the Southern Professional Outboard Racing Tour (S.P.O.R.T.) boat races to be held on the Sabine River in Orange, TX, September 16-18, 2016, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during high speed boat races. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Sector Houston-Galveston identifies the regulated area for this regatta. During the enforcement periods, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    The regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 3, Line no. 5, will be enforced from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 16, 2016; and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on September 17 and 18, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email Mr. Scott Whalen, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit, Port Arthur, TX; telephone 409-719-5086, email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.801, Table 3, Line no. 5 from 3:00 p.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 16, 2016, and from 9:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. on September 17 and 18, 2016, for the Southern Professional Outboard Racing Tour (S.P.O.R.T.) boat races. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the high speed boat races. Our regulation for Recurring Marine Events in Sector Houston-Galveston, § 100.801, Table 3, Line no. 5, specifies the location of the regulated area for this event. As specified in § 100.801, during the enforcement period, no vessel may transit this regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port (COTP), Port Arthur or a COTP designated representative.

    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 100.801 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard plans to provide notification of this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners, marine information broadcasts, Marine Safety Information Bulletins and Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) Advisories.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. R.S. Ogrydziak, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19831 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [Docket No. USCG-2016-0751] RIN 1625-AA00 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, DHS.

    ACTION:

    Temporary final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the St. Clair River in the vicinity of Port Huron, Michigan. Though this is an unsanctioned, non-permitted marine event, this action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Port Huron, MI, during a float down event on August 21, 2016. This regulation prohibits persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or a designated representative.

    DATES:

    This rule is effective from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 21, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2016-0751 in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Lieutenant Selena Warnke, Prevention Department, Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone 313-568-9508, email [email protected] If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Table of Abbreviations DHS Department of Homeland Security COTP Captain of the Port NAD 83 North American Datum of 1983 NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The final details of this event were not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would be impracticable because it would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants, mariners, and vessels from the hazards associated with this event. Furthermore, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons noted above.

    During the afternoon of August 21, 2016, a non-sanctioned public event, advertised over various social-media sites, in which a large number of persons float down a segment of the St. Clair River, using inner tubes and other similar floatation devices is scheduled to take place. The 2016 Float-Down event will occur between approximately 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. on August 21, 2016. This event has taken place in the month of August yearly from 2009 through 2015.

    While no private or municipal entity has requested a marine event permit from the Coast Guard for this event, and although it has not received state or federal permits over these past years, the event has drawn over 3,000 participants of various ages annually. Despite plans put together by federal, state and local officials, emergency responders and law enforcement officials have been overburdened pursuing safety during this event. Medical emergencies, people drifting across the international border, and people trespassing on residential property when trying to get out of the water before the designated finish line are some of the numerous difficulties encountered during the Float-Down event.

    During the 2014 Float-Down event, a 19-year-old participating in the event died. Despite this, promotional information for the event continues to be published, and more than 3,000 people are again anticipated to float down the river this year. However, since no public or private organization holds themselves responsible as the event sponsor, the Coast Guard does not receive full and final details regarding the event or the number of participants until the time of the event.

    III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231, 33 CFR 1.05-1 and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that the 2016 Float-Down poses significant risks to public safety and property. The likely combination of large numbers of participants, strong river currents, limited rescue resources, and difficult emergency response scenarios could easily result in serious injuries or fatalities to Float-Down participants and spectators.

    IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. through 8 p.m. on August 21, 2016. The safety zone will begin at Lighthouse Beach and encompass all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00′25″ N.; 082°25′20″ W., extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00′25″ N.; 082°25′02″ W., following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54′30″ N.; 082°27′41″ W., extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54′30″ N.; 082°27′58″ W., and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated representative. Vessel operators must contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to obtain permission to transit through this safety zone. Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast Guard-approved Personal Floatation Device (PFD). The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

    V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

    A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders.

    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short duration, and it is designed to minimize the impact on navigation. Moreover, under certain conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

    B. Impact on Small Entities

    As per the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, we have considered the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in this portion of southern Lake Huron and the St. Clair River near Port Huron, MI on August 21, 2016, between the hours of 12 p.m. and 8 p.m.

    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the enforcement of the zone, Coast Guard Sector Detroit will issue a local Broadcast Notice to Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

    C. Assistance for Small Entities

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

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

    D. Collection of Information

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

    E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

    F. Protest Activities

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

    G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

    H. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

    I. Civil Justice Reform

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

    J. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

    K. Indian Tribal Governments

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

    L. Energy Effects

    This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

    M. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

    N. Environment

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

    List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

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

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

    2. Add § 165.T09-0751 to read as follows:
    § 165.T09-0751 Safety Zone; Port Huron Float-Down, St. Clair River, Port Huron, MI.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: All U.S. navigable waters of southern Lake Huron and the St. Clair River adjacent to Port Huron, MI, beginning at Lighthouse Beach and encompassing all U.S. waters of the St. Clair River bound by a line starting at a point on land north of Coast Guard Station Port Huron at position 43°00′25″ N.; 082°25′20″ W., extending east to the international boundary to a point at position 43°00′25″ N.; 082°25′02″ W., following south along the international boundary to a point at position 42°54′30″ N.; 082°27′41″ W., extending west to a point on land just north of Stag Island at position 42°54′30″ N.; 082°27′58″ W., and following north along the U.S. shoreline to the point of origin (NAD 83).

    (b) Enforcement period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section will be enforced from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on August 21, 2016.

    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in § 165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) or his on-scene representative.

    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted on a case-by-case basis by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    (3) Additionally, no one under the age of 18 will be permitted to enter the safety zone if they are not wearing a Coast Guard-approved Personal Floatation Device (PFD).

    (4) The “on-scene representative” of the COTP is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the COTP to act on his behalf.

    (5) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone shall contact the COTP or his on-scene representative to request permission to do so. The COTP or a designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 313-568-9464. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. Scott B. Lemasters, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19846 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 635 [Docket No. 150817722-6703-02] RIN 0648-BF10 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species; Archival Tag Management Measures AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Final rule.

    SUMMARY:

    This final rule revises the regulations that currently require persons surgically implanting or externally affixing archival tags on Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS) to obtain written authorization from NMFS, and that require fishermen to report their catches of Atlantic HMS with such tags to NMFS. Archival tags are tags that record scientific information about the movement and behavior of a fish and include tags that are surgically implanted in a fish, as well as tags that are externally affixed, such as pop-up satellite archival tags (PSAT) and smart position and temperature tags (SPOT). Specifically, this final rule removes the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix an archival tag but would continue to allow persons who catch a fish with a surgically implanted archival tag to retain the fish only if they return the tag to the person indicated on the tag or to NMFS. Persons retaining such fish would no longer be required to submit to NMFS an archival tag landing report or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS. Any persons who land an Atlantic HMS with an externally-affixed archival tag would be encouraged, but not required, to follow the instructions on the tag to return the tag to the appropriate research entity or to NMFS. This action will affect any researchers wishing to place archival tags on Atlantic HMS and any fishermen who might catch such a tagged fish.

    DATES:

    Effective on September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    NMFS Highly Migratory Species Management Division, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Larry Redd, Craig Cockrell, Tobey Curtis or Karyl Brewster-Geisz by phone at 301-427-8503.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    Atlantic HMS are managed under the 2006 Consolidated HMS Fishery Management Plan (FMP) and its amendments. Implementing regulations at 50 CFR part 635 are issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., and Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (ATCA), 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq. ATCA authorizes the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) to promulgate regulations as necessary and appropriate to implement ICCAT recommendations.

    On April 14, 2016 (81 FR 22044), NMFS published a proposed rule regarding the regulatory requirements for the placement of “archival tags.” An “archival tag” is defined at § 635.2 as “a device that is implanted or affixed to a fish to electronically record scientific information about the migratory behavior of that fish.” The comment period on the proposed rule ended on May 16, 2016.

    Researchers use archival tags because they are a powerful tool for tracking the movements, geolocation, and behavior of individual tunas, sharks, swordfish, and billfishes. Data recovery from some archival tags, particularly those that are surgically implanted into the fish, requires that fish be re-caught. Other archival tags, such as PSAT and SPOT, which are externally affixed to the fish, are able to transmit the information remotely and do not require the fish to be re-caught nor do researchers expect the tags to be returned, as generally no additional data are gained from their return. Data from archival tags are used to ascertain HMS life-history information, such as migratory patterns and spawning site fidelity.

    In addition to archival tags, researchers may place conventional tags, such as spaghetti or roto tags, acoustic tags, or passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags on HMS. These types of tags do not record or store any information, and thus are not “archival” tags. Furthermore, there are some tags, such as some SPOTs, that may be archival or may be more acoustic in nature, depending on the needs of the researcher. For Atlantic HMS, NMFS does not regulate the placement or the collection of these non-archival tags, and this final rule does not affect any tags other than archival tags.

    This final rule removes the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix an archival tag. Additionally, this final rule maintains the regulatory requirement that Atlantic HMS caught with a surgically implanted archival tag may be retained only on the condition that the surgically implanted tag is returned to either the originating researcher or to NMFS. Maintaining this regulatory provision creates an incentive to return the surgical tags, which need to be physically retrieved to retrieve the data. This would afford some assurance to researchers that they would be able to retrieve the surgically implanted tags and would not lose their investment due to discarded tags, and that the tags would continue to contribute to the collection of Atlantic HMS life history and biological data. In all other cases (i.e., the fisherman catches an HMS with an externally placed archival tag, a conventional tag, an acoustic tag, or a PIT tag), NMFS encourages, but does not require, the fisherman to return the tag and any information requested directly to the researcher or entity noted on the tag itself. All other reporting requirements for HMS would still apply. Finally, under this final rule, the person retaining an HMS with either an externally affixed or surgically implanted archival tag would no longer be required to submit an archival tag landing report to NMFS or make the fish available for inspection and tag recovery by a NMFS scientist, enforcement agent, or other person designated in writing by NMFS.

    This final rule maintains appropriate management and conservation requirements, such as requiring the return of the surgically implanted archival tag if the fish is retained, for HMS while making the archival tagging process more efficient by reducing any time and delay cost to researchers associated with the applying for a permit to place archival tags on Atlantic HMS. This final rule would reduce the regulatory burden for researchers, and allow researchers the opportunity to place archival tags on Atlantic HMS during periods of time in which they usually would be waiting for NMFS to process their annual permits, typically in January or February. NMFS does not expect this action to result in increased fishing mortality or increased interactions with listed species.

    Response to Comments

    During the proposed rule stage, NMFS received 31 written comments. The comments received on the proposed rule during the public comment period can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/ by searching for NOAA-NMFS-2016-0017. A summary of the relevant comments on the proposed rule are shown below with NMFS' response.

    Comment 1: NMFS received some comments in support of removing the requirement for researchers to obtain written authorization from NMFS to implant or affix archival tags. Commenters supporting the removal of the written authorization requirement stated that the authorization was unnecessary for the application of archival tags on HMS because advancements in tagging techniques have resulted in low mortality rates and that removing the requirement would maximize opportunities to deploy archival tags.

    Response: NMFS agrees that researchers no longer need written authorization to implant or affix archival tags. The requirement to receive written authorization for placement of archival tags was implemented in the 1990s to monitor fish mortality, at a time when archival tag technology was fairly new, and most of the archival tags had to be surgically implanted into the fish. The mortality rates associated with surgically implanting such tags into fish was unknown at that time. Currently, researchers primarily use externally affixed archival tags because the data collected from those tags are received via satellite (in other words, you do not need to re-catch the fish in order to collect the data). Furthermore, research has shown negligible mortality rates as a result of implanting or affixing archival tags. Additionally, NMFS believes that allowing researchers the opportunity to place archival tags without written authorization should maximize tagging opportunities for researchers, allowing them to fish at times of the year when NMFS is processing permit applications the months of January and February, and minimize any administrative burden associated with applying for such authorization.

    Comment 2: Some commenters opposed removal of the written authorization requirement, stating that the change would increase fishing pressure on HMS, protected, and endangered species. Those individuals felt that the proposed rule would remove the current fishing regulations for protected and endangered species, allowing fishermen the opportunity to target these species. Some commenters expressed concern that removing the requirement for written authorization would remove accountability for researchers, fishermen, and both state and Federal officials to follow standard scientific and regulatory practices. Commenters also expressed a belief that reducing the administrative burden on NMFS staff was not an appropriate reason to remove the requirement. Commenters further noted that requiring written authorization ensures that the party taking part in the research is qualified or could be given instructional education on handling and tagging techniques.

    Response: As described in the proposed rule, after 20 years of use, the mortality rate as a result of placement of archival tags is negligible and most research projects are of relatively limited scope both in terms of the number of individual fish affected and the number of species involved. As such, given the low mortality from placing archival or other tags, the large number of alternative tags available for use by researchers, and the high cost of obtaining an archival tag (approximately $5,000 per tag), NMFS does not agree that removal of the requirement to obtain written authorization for archival tags would increase fishing pressure on HMS or cause additional mortality. The removal of the requirement to obtain written authorization to place a tag on HMS in itself is not expected to have any impact on protected resources. If researchers are interacting with listed species, they are responsible for obtaining appropriate permit coverage under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to ensure that any incidental take during research operations is authorized. Additionally, while removal of the requirement to obtain written authorization to place archival tags on HMS would reduce some administrative burden on NMFS staff, the main reduction of administrative burden will be with researchers who would no longer need to apply and wait for written authorization before tagging fish with archival tags. This is a desirable outcome because researchers would have more flexibility to tag in different areas and on a greater variety of species during the times they otherwise would be waiting for NMFS to issue a permit.

    In regard to continuing to ensure accountability of scientists and other researchers, most HMS research activities would likely still require authorization under an exempted fishing permit (EFP) or scientific research permit (SRP) because other research activities, such as sampling gear or possession of HMS, continue to require authorization (see 50 CFR 635.32). While researchers could place archival tags without written authorization, other research activities would likely still need written authorization. Furthermore, there is no evidence or apparent incentive for researchers or fishermen to circumvent established scientific or regulatory practices when tagging HMS or reporting recaptures.

    Comment 3: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed rule could potentially be abused by any fisherman who wishes to apply tags, and that the level of enforcement on the responsible application of tags would be reduced.

    Response: This final rule is designed to reduce regulatory burdens on researchers and is not expected to have impacts on fishermen beyond the requirement to return the archival tag. To our knowledge, no Atlantic HMS fishermen have ever applied archival tags without collaboration with researchers, nor are they likely to do so because archival tags are costly and the data they provide require scientific expertise and infrastructure to analyze and interpret. Neither commercial fishermen nor recreational fishermen are likely to realize benefits from buying and then applying archival tags and releasing HMS. Both recreational and commercial fishermen have been assisting scientists for years by placing conventional tags on HMS that are released, and returning tags and providing information on tagged HMS that are landed.

    Comment 4: Commenters stated that NMFS should continue to encourage but not require the return of archival tags to researchers or NMFS and that the regulations requiring tag returns are not needed since the fishermen understand the importance and value of archival tags.

    Response: NMFS will continue to encourage the return of any archival or other tags to researchers or NMFS by noting the importance of tag return in the compliance guides and other outreach materials. Furthermore, researchers note in their comments that many fishermen already voluntarily return archival tags to researchers. Monetary rewards are often offered by researchers for the return of their tags, but many fishermen also acknowledge the scientific value of the data provided by archival tags, and are generally supportive of fish-tagging research. While NMFS is removing the non-surgically implanted archival tag landing report requirement under this final rule, the regulations will still require fishermen to return surgically implanted archival tags from recaptured HMS to the appropriate research entity or NMFS.

    Comment 5: NMFS should not remove the archival tag landing report requirement, as it would reduce fishermen accountability allowing them to capture HMS without documentation and could have a negative impact on scientific data. Removing the landing report could potentially result in illegal fishing practices under the blanket of “scientific research.”

    Response: Removing the requirement to report landing a tagged HMS to NMFS is not expected to impact reporting rates of these tags between fishermen and scientists. Fishermen often voluntarily return tags and related information about the recaptured HMS directly to the researchers identified on a tag, and researchers have not raised any concerns that they may be losing scientific data due to non-reporting by fishermen. While NMFS will continue to encourage reporting and returns of archival tags from fishermen to researchers by noting the importance of tag return in the compliance guides and other outreach materials, there is no need to maintain a separate archival tag landing report requirement.

    Comment 6: NMFS requested and received various comments regarding whether fishermen who catch an HMS with an externally affixed archival tag should be required to release the fish if it is otherwise legal to land. Some scientists noted that the return of archival tags from recaptured HMS can be very valuable to researchers because the physical recovery of such tags can provide much more data than non-returned tags, and these tags can often be redeployed on other fish. Other commenters stated that fish that are tagged with an archival tag should be allowed to be landed regardless of the regulations; fish should be allowed to be landed if they are legal species within retention sizes; fish that have an internally implanted archival tag should be allowed to be landed as long as the tag is returned to the researcher or NMFS; sharks with externally affixed tags should be released; and all tagged fish which are caught should be released.

    Response: After reviewing these comments, NMFS has determined that a requirement for fishermen to release any HMS with an externally affixed archival tag is not warranted at this time. Under this final rule, fishermen may continue to retain any otherwise legal HMS, including those with externally affixed archival tags. Fishermen may also continue to retain HMS with an internally implanted archival tag regardless of any regulatory prohibition, as long as the tag is returned to the appropriate research entity or NMFS. If fishermen were prohibited from retaining an HMS because it had an externally affixed archival tag, it could negatively affect tag return rates and cooperation with researchers. In most cases, researchers state that they attach greater value to the potential for returned tags than to the mandatory release of tagged fish and the continued collection of information from having the tagged fish in the water. This is particularly true since many externally affixed archival tags only collect data for a limited period of time (e.g., 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, etc.), which is set by the researcher before placing the tag.

    Comment 7: Several commenters requested a public hearing for clarification of the proposed rule and to allow the scientific and environmental community the chance to provide information and suggest alternatives to the proposed rule.

    Response: The purpose and scope of this final rule, which is largely administrative in nature, was fully described in the proposed rule. NMFS announced the proposed rule via email notification and posting on the Atlantic HMS Web site when it published in the Federal Register, and provided a 30-day public comment period. The majority of the commenters who requested a public hearing were concerned about the impact of the removal of a written authorization on the tagging of protected or endangered species. As described above, however, this final rule does not address the tagging of protected or endangered species nor would it affect associated regulations and requirements applicable to listed species or increase interactions with such species. As such, because their concerns were so far outside the scope of the rulemaking, we determined that a public hearing was not necessary and that a written response to comments would be adequate and appropriate.

    Comment 8: NMFS received a public comment regarding the effects of tagging on HMS (specifically sharks). The commenter highlighted issues surrounding infection and tag biofouling, and argued that NMFS should not implement the proposed measures because they would result in more harmful tagging of HMS.

    Response: While available research indicates that any kind of fish tagging, including the application of archival tags, could result in physiological stress, injury, infection, and other sublethal impacts, the majority of scientific evidence indicates that tag-induced mortality of HMS is negligible and is not a threat to HMS populations. An archival tag is one type of tag placed on HMS, and is a scientific tool that has been used to vastly improve understanding of HMS movements, habitat use, exposure to anthropogenic impacts, post-release mortality rates, and other aspects of biology. Archival tagging studies have improved NMFS' ability to conserve and sustainably manage HMS populations, and NMFS encourages the responsible continued use of all tags, including archival tags.

    Classification

    The NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that the final rule is consistent with the 2006 Consolidated HMS FMP and its amendments, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable laws.

    This final action is not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

    List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 635

    Fisheries, Fishing, Fishing vessels, Foreign relations, Imports, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Treaties.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 635 as follows:

    PART 635—ATLANTIC HIGHLY MIGRATORY SPECIES 1. The authority citation for part 635 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    2. Revise § 635.33 to read as follows:
    § 635.33 Archival tags.

    (a) Landing an HMS with a surgically implanted archival tag. Notwithstanding other provisions of this part, persons may catch, possess, retain, and land an Atlantic HMS in which an archival tag has been surgically implanted, provided such persons return the tag to the research entity indicated on the tag or to NMFS at an address designated by NMFS and report the fish as required in § 635.5.

    (b) Quota monitoring. If an Atlantic HMS landed under the authority of paragraph (a) of this section is subject to a quota, the fish will be counted against the applicable quota for the species consistent with the fishing gear and activity which resulted in the catch. In the event such fishing gear or activity is otherwise prohibited under applicable provisions of this part, the fish shall be counted against the reserve or research quota established for that species, as appropriate.

    3. In § 635.71, revise paragraph (a)(20) to read as follows:
    § 635.71 Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *

    (20) Fail to return a surgically implanted archival tag of a retained Atlantic HMS to NMFS or the research entity, as specified in § 635.33, or fail to report the fish, as specified in § 635.5.

    [FR Doc. 2016-19796 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 161 Friday, August 19, 2016 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 12 CFR Parts 3, 47 and 50 [Docket ID OCC-2016-0009] RIN 1557-AE05 Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts AGENCY:

    Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury (OCC).

    ACTION:

    Notice of proposed rulemaking.

    SUMMARY:

    The OCC is proposing to add a new part to its rules to enhance the resilience and the safety and soundness of federally chartered and licensed financial institutions by addressing concerns relating to the exercise of default rights of certain financial contracts that could interfere with the orderly resolution of certain systemically important financial firms. Under this proposed rule, a covered bank would be required to ensure that a covered qualified financial contract (1) contains a contractual stay-and-transfer provision analogous to the statutory stay-and-transfer provision imposed under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and in the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and (2) limits the exercise of default rights based on the insolvency of an affiliate of the covered bank. In addition, this proposed rule would make conforming amendments to the OCC's Capital Adequacy Standards and the Liquidity Risk Measurement Standards in its regulations. The requirements of this proposed rule are substantively identical to those contained in a notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System on May 3, 2016.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received by October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal—“Regulations.gov”: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0009” in the Search Box and click “Search.” Click on “Comment Now” to submit public comments.

    • Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.

    Email: [email protected]

    Mail: Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th Street SW., Suite 3E-218, Mail Stop 9W-11, Washington, DC 20219.

    Fax: (571) 465-4326.

    Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2016-0009” in your comment. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not include any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

    You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:

    Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2016-0009” in the Search box and click “Search.” Click on “Open Docket Folder” on the right side of the screen and then “Comments.” Comments can be filtered by clicking on “View All” and then using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen.

    • Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov. Supporting materials may be viewed by clicking on “Open Docket Folder” and then clicking on “Supporting Documents.” The docket may be viewed after the close of the comment period in the same manner as during the comment period.

    Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700 or, for persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, TTY, (202) 649-5597. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Valerie Song, Assistant Director, or Scott Burnett, Attorney, Bank Activities and Structure Division, (202) 649-5500; Rima Kundnani, Attorney, or Ron Shimabukuro, Senior Counsel, Legislative and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 649-6282, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20219.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Background A. Qualified Financial Contracts, Default Rights, and Financial Stability B. QFC Default Rights and GSIB Resolution Strategies C. Default Rights and Relevant Resolution Laws III. Description of the Proposal A. Overview, Purpose, and Authority B. Covered Banks C. Covered QFCs D. Definition of “Default Right” E. Required Contractual Provisions Related to U.S. Special Resolution Regimes F. Prohibited Cross-Default Rights G. Process for Approval of Enhanced Creditor Protections H. Transition Periods I. Amendments to Capital Rules IV. Request for Comments V. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act B. Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 I. Introduction

    In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007-08, U.S. and international financial regulators have placed increased focus on improving the resolvability of large, complex financial institutions that operate in multiple jurisdictions, often called global systemically important banking organizations (GSIBs).

    In connection with these ongoing efforts, on May 3, 2016, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (FRB or Board) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) pursuant to section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act) as part of its ongoing efforts to improve the resolvability of U.S. GSIBs and foreign GSIBs that operate in the United States (collectively, “covered entities” 1 ).2 The OCC is issuing this parallel proposed rule applicable to OCC-regulated institutions that are part of a covered entity under the FRB NPRM. The OCC intends this proposed rule to complement and work in tandem with the FRB NPRM.

    1 The FRB NPRM applies to “covered entities.” The term “covered entity” includes: any U.S. top-tier bank holding company identified as a GSIB under the Board's NPRM establishing risk-based capital surcharges for GSIBs, set forth at 12 CFR 217.402; any subsidiary of such bank holding company (other than a “covered bank”); and any U.S. subsidiary, U.S. branch, or U.S. agency of a foreign GSIB (other than a “covered bank”). See FRB NPRM § 252.82. The term “covered entity” does not include “covered banks,” which are instead covered by the provisions of this proposed rule.

    2 “Restrictions on Qualified Financial Contracts of Systemically Important U.S. Banking Organizations and the U.S. Operations of Systemically Important Foreign Banking Organizations; Revisions to the Definition of Qualifying Master Netting Agreement and Related Definitions,” 81 FR 29691, 29170 (May 11, 2016) (FRB Proposal, FRB NPRM, Board's Proposal, or Board's NPRM).

    The purpose of the Board's NPRM is to improve the resolvability of covered entities by “limiting disruptions to a failed GSIB through its financial contracts with other companies.” 3 Specifically, the Board's NPRM addresses a threat to financial stability posed by the potential disorderly exercise of default rights contained in several important categories of financial contracts collectively known as “qualified financial contracts” (QFCs).4

    3Id. at 29170.

    4Id. The Board's Proposal adopts the definition of “qualified financial contract” set out in section 210(c)(8)(D) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D). See Board's Proposal § 252.81. This definition includes, among other things, derivatives, repurchase agreements (also known as “repos”) and reverse repos, and securities lending and borrowing agreements.

    As described more fully in the Board's NPRM and in the Background section of this preamble, this threat to financial stability arises because GSIBs are interconnected with other financial firms, including other GSIBs, through large volumes of QFCs. The failure of one entity within a GSIB can trigger disruptive terminations of these contracts if the counterparties of both the failed entity and its affiliates exercise their contractual rights to terminate the contracts and liquidate collateral.5 These terminations, especially if counterparties lose confidence in the GSIB quickly, and in large numbers, can destabilize the financial system and potentially spark a financial crisis through several channels. For example, they can destabilize the failed entity's otherwise solvent affiliates, causing them to weaken or fail with adverse consequences to their counterparties that can result in a chain reaction that ripples through the financial system. They also may result in “fire sales” of large volumes of financial assets, in particular, the collateral that secures the contracts, which can in turn weaken and cause stress for other firms by depressing the value of similar assets that they hold.

    5 As used in this proposed rule, the term “GSIB” can refer to any entity in the GSIB group, including the top-tier parent entity or any subsidiary thereof. The term “GSIB entity” is sometimes used to refer to an individual component of the GSIB group.

    As discussed in detail in the Section I.B., the OCC, as the primary regulator for national banks, Federal savings associations (FSAs), and Federal branches and agencies, has a strong safety and soundness interest in preventing such a disorderly termination of QFCs upon a GSIB's entry into resolution proceedings. QFCs are typically entered into by various operating entities in the GSIB group, which will often include a large depository institution that is subject to the OCC's supervision. These OCC-supervised entities are some of the largest entities by asset size in the GSIB group, and often a party to large volumes of QFCs, making these entities highly interconnected with other large financial firms.6 The exercise of default rights against an otherwise healthy national bank, FSA, or Federal branch or agency resulting from the failure of its affiliate, for example its top-tier U.S. holding company, may cause it to weaken or fail, and in turn spread contagion throughout the financial system, including among the system of federally chartered and licensed institutions that the OCC supervises, by causing a chain of failures by other financial institutions—including other national banks, FSAs, or Federal branches or agencies—that are its QFC counterparties. Furthermore, if an OCC-supervised entity itself were to fail, it is imperative that the default rights triggered by such an event are exercised in an orderly manner, both by domestic and foreign counterparties, to ensure that contagion does not spread to other federally chartered and licensed institutions and beyond throughout the Federal banking system.7

    6 81 FR 29619, 29172 (“From the standpoint of financial stability, the most important of these operating subsidiaries are generally a U.S. insured depository institution, a U.S. broker-dealer, and similar entities organized in other countries.”).

    7 As used in this proposed rule, the term “Federal banking system” refers to all OCC-supervised entities, including national banks, Federal savings associations, and Federal branches and agencies. Accordingly, references to impacts on the Federal banking system refer to how destabilization can adversely affect all such entities, not just covered banks.

    Accordingly, OCC-supervised affiliates or branches of U.S. or foreign GSIBs are exposed, through the interconnectedness of their QFCs and their affiliates' QFCs, to destabilizing effects if their counterparties or the counterparties of their affiliates exercise default rights upon the entry into resolution of the covered bank itself or its GSIB affiliate. These potential destabilizing effects are best addressed by requiring all GSIB entities to amend their QFCs to include contractual provisions aimed at avoiding such destabilization. As the primary supervisor of covered banks, the OCC has a significant interest in preventing or mitigating these destabilizing effects; otherwise, the result will be adverse to safety and soundness of covered banks individually and collectively, with the potential for spill-over beyond GSIB-affiliated banks and Federal branches and agencies to the Federal banking system.

    As described in the Board's NPRM, measures aimed at improving financial stability and the probability of a successful resolution of GSIBs likely will affect the operations of GSIB subsidiaries. In most cases, the largest GSIB subsidiary by asset size is a national bank supervised by the OCC. While the ultimate aim of the Board's NPRM and this proposed rule is focused on the resolution of a GSIB, the proposed preventative measures would be required to be implemented by GSIBs while they are going concerns. The OCC has an inherent supervisory interest in ensuring that measures aimed at improving resolvability in the event of a GSIB's failure are also consistent with the safe and sound operation of the OCC-supervised subsidiary as a going concern. Accordingly, to ensure that the QFCs entered into by such entities do not threaten the stability or safety and soundness of covered banks individually or collectively, the OCC is issuing this proposed rule, which imposes substantively identical requirements contained in the FRB NPRM on national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies (covered banks). The OCC worked closely with the FRB to develop this proposed rule.8 In addition, the OCC plans to work with the FRB to coordinate the development of the final rule and may share comments received in response to the proposed rule, as appropriate.

    8 12 U.S.C. 5365(b)(4) (requiring the Board to consult with each Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) member that primarily supervises any subsidiary when any prudential standard is likely to have a “significant impact” on such subsidiary).

    II. Background

    The following background discussion describes in detail the financial contracts that are the subject of this proposed rule, the default rights often contained in such contracts, and impacts on financial stability resulting from the exercise of such default rights. This section also provides background information on the resolution strategies for GSIBs and how they fit within the resolution frameworks in the United States.9

    9 See 81 FR 29169, 29170-73 (May 11, 2016), from which this discussion is adapted.

    A. Qualified Financial Contracts, Default Rights, and Financial Stability

    The proposed rule covers QFCs, which include swaps, other derivative contracts, repurchase agreements (repos) and reverse repos, and securities lending and borrowing agreements. GSIB entities enter into QFCs to borrow money to finance their investments, to lend money, to manage risk, to attempt to profit from market movements, and to enable their clients and counterparties to perform these financial activities.

    QFCs play a role in economically valuable financial intermediation when markets are functioning normally. But they are also a major source of financial interconnectedness, which may pose a threat to financial stability in times of stress. This proposed rule, along with the FRB NPRM, focuses on one of the most serious threats to both a global systemically important bank holding company (BHC) and its covered banks subsidiaries—the failure of a GSIB that is party to large volumes of QFCs, which are likely to involve QFCs with counterparties that are themselves systemically important.

    By contract, a party to a QFC generally has the right to take certain actions if its counterparty defaults on the QFC (that is, if it fails to meet certain contractual obligations). Common default rights include the right to suspend performance of the non-defaulting party's obligations, the right to terminate or accelerate the contract, the right to set off amounts owed between the parties, the right to seize and liquidate the defaulting party's collateral. In general, default rights allow a party to a QFC to reduce the credit risk associated with the QFC by granting it the right to exit the QFC and thereby reduce its exposure to its counterparty upon the occurrence of a specified condition, such as its counterparty's entry into resolution proceedings.

    This proposed rule focuses on two distinct scenarios in which a non-defaulting party to a QFC is commonly able to exercise default rights. These two scenarios involve a default that occurs when either the defaulting party to the QFC or an affiliate of that party enters a resolution proceeding.10

    10 This preamble uses phrases such as “entering a resolution proceeding” and “going into resolution” to refer to the concept of “becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding.” These phrases refer to proceedings established by law to deal with a failed legal entity. In the context of the failure of a global systemically important bank holding company, the most relevant types of resolution proceeding include: (1) For most U.S.-based legal entities, the bankruptcy process established by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Title 11, United States Code); (2) for U.S. insured depository institutions, a receivership administered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 1821); (3) for companies whose “resolution under otherwise applicable Federal or State law would have serious adverse effects on the financial stability of the United States,” the Dodd-Frank Act's Orderly Liquidation Authority (12 U.S.C. 5383(b)(2)); and, (4) for entities based outside the United States, resolution proceedings created by foreign law.

    The first scenario occurs when a legal entity that is itself a party to the QFC enters a resolution proceeding. This proposed rule refers to such a scenario as a “direct default” and refers to the contractual default rights that arise from a direct default as “direct default rights.” 11

    11 For convenience, this preamble uses the general term “default” to refer specifically to a default that occurs when a QFC party or its affiliate enters a resolution proceeding.

    The second scenario occurs when an affiliate of the legal entity that is a direct party to the QFC (such as the direct party's parent holding company) enters a resolution proceeding. This proposed rule refers to such a scenario as a “cross-default” and refers to contractual default rights that arise from a cross-default as “cross-default rights.” For example, a GSIB parent entity might guarantee the derivatives transactions of its subsidiaries and those derivatives contracts could contain cross-default rights against a subsidiary of the GSIB that would be triggered by the bankruptcy filing of the GSIB parent entity even though the subsidiary continues to meet all of its financial obligations.

    Direct default rights and cross-default rights are referred to collectively in this proposed rule as “default rights.”

    As noted in the FRB NPRM, if a significant number of QFC counterparties exercise their default rights precipitously and in a manner that would impede an orderly resolution of a GSIB, all QFC counterparties and the broader financial system, including institutions supervised by the OCC, may potentially be worse off and less stable.

    The destabilization can occur in several ways. First, counterparties' exercise of default rights may drain liquidity from the troubled GSIB, forcing it to sell off assets at depressed prices, both because the sales must be done on a short timeframe and because the elevated supply will push prices down. These asset “fire sales” may cause or deepen balance-sheet insolvency at the GSIB, reducing the amount that its other creditors can recover and thereby imposing losses on those creditors and threatening their solvency (and, indirectly, the solvency of their own creditors, and so on). The GSIB may also respond by withdrawing liquidity that it had offered to other firms, forcing them to engage in asset fire sales. Alternatively, if the GSIB's QFC counterparty itself liquidates the QFC collateral at fire sale prices, the effect will again be to weaken the GSIB's balance sheet, because the debt satisfied by the liquidation would be less than what the value of the collateral would have been outside the fire sale context. The counterparty's setoff rights may allow it to further drain the GSIB's capital and liquidity by withholding payments owed to the GSIB. The GSIB may also have rehypothecated collateral that it received from QFC counterparties, for instance in back-to-back repo or securities lending transactions, in which case demands from those counterparties for the early return of their rehypothecated collateral could be especially disruptive.

    The asset fire sales can also spread contagion throughout the financial system by increasing volatility and by lowering the value of similar assets held by other financial institutions, potentially causing them to suffer diminished market confidence in their own solvency, mark-to-market losses, margin calls, and creditor runs (which could lead to further fire sales, worsening the contagion). Finally, the early terminations of derivatives that the defaulting GSIB relied on to hedge its risks could leave major risks unhedged, increasing the GSIB's probable losses going forward.

    Where there are significant simultaneous terminations and these effects occur contemporaneously, such as upon the failure of a GSIB that is party to a large volume of QFCs, they may pose a substantial risk to financial stability. In short, QFC continuity is important for the orderly resolution of a GSIB so that the instability caused by asset fire sales can be avoided.12

    12 The Board and the FDIC identified the exercise of default rights in financial contracts as a potential obstacle to orderly resolution in the context of resolution plans filed pursuant to section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act and, accordingly, instructed the most systemically important firms to demonstrate that they are “amending, on an industry-wide and firm-specific basis, financial contracts to provide for a stay of certain early termination rights of external counterparties triggered by insolvency proceedings.” FRB and FDIC, “Agencies Provide Feedback on Second Round Resolution Plans of `First-Wave' Filers” (August 5, 2014), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20140805a.htm. See also FRB and FDIC, “Agencies Provide Feedback on Resolution Plans of Three Foreign Banking Organizations” (March 23, 2015), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/20150323a.htm; FRB and FDIC, “Guidance for 2013 165(d) Annual Resolution Plan Submissions by Domestic Covered Companies that Submitted Initial Resolution Plans in 2012” 5-6 (April 15, 2013), available at http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20130415c2.pdf.

    As will be discussed further, the proposed rule is primarily concerned only with default rights that run against a GSIB—that is, direct default rights and cross-default rights that arise from the entry into resolution of a GSIB. The proposed rule would not affect contractual default rights that a GSIB (or any other entity) may have against a counterparty that is not a GSIB. The OCC believes that this limited scope is appropriate because the risk posed to financial stability by the exercise of QFC default rights is greatest when the defaulting counterparty is a GSIB.

    B. QFC Default Rights and GSIB Resolution Strategies

    Under the Dodd-Frank Act, many complex GSIBs are required to submit resolution plans to the Board and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), detailing how the company can be resolved in a rapid and orderly manner in the event of material financial distress or failure of the company. In response to these requirements, these firms have developed resolution strategies that, broadly speaking, fall into two categories: The single-point-of-entry (SPOE) strategy and the multiple-point-of-entry (MPOE) strategy. As noted in the Board's Proposal, cross-default rights in QFCs pose a potential obstacle to the implementation of either of these strategies.

    In an SPOE resolution, only a single legal entity—the GSIB's top-tier BHC—would enter a resolution proceeding. The losses that led to the GSIB's failure would be passed up from the operating subsidiaries that incurred the losses to the holding company and would then be imposed on the equity holders and unsecured creditors of the holding company through the resolution process. This strategy is designed to help ensure that the GSIB's subsidiaries remain adequately capitalized. An SPOE resolution could thereby prevent those operating subsidiaries from failing or entering resolution themselves and allow them to instead continue normal operations. The expectation that the holding company's equity holders and unsecured creditors would absorb the GSIB's losses in the event of failure would help to maintain the confidence of the operating subsidiaries' creditors and counterparties (including QFC counterparties), reducing their incentive to engage in potentially destabilizing funding runs or margin calls and thus lowering the risk of asset fire sales.

    An SPOE proceeding can avoid the need for covered banks to be placed into receivership or similar proceedings, as they would continue to operate as going concerns, only if the parent's entry into resolution proceedings does not trigger the exercise of cross-default rights. Accordingly, this proposed rule, by limiting such cross-default rights based on an affiliate's entry into resolution proceedings, enables the SPOE strategy, and in turn, would assist in stabilizing both the covered bank and the Federal banking system.

    This proposed rule would also yield benefits for resolution under the MPOE strategy. Unlike the SPOE strategy, an MPOE strategy involves several entities in the GSIB group entering proceedings. For example, an MPOE strategy might involve a foreign GSIB's U.S. intermediate holding company going into resolution or a GSIB's U.S. insured depository institution entering resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Similar to the benefits associated with the SPOE strategy, this proposed rule would help support the continued operation of affiliates of an entity experiencing resolution to the extent the affiliate continues to perform on its QFCs.

    C. Default Rights and Relevant Resolution Laws

    In order to understand the connection between direct defaults, cross-defaults, the SPOE and MPOE resolution strategies, and the threats to financial stability discussed previously, it is necessary to understand how QFCs, and the default rights contained therein, are treated when an entity enters resolution. The following sections discuss the treatment of QFCs in greater detail under three U.S. resolution laws: the Bankruptcy Code, the Orderly Liquidation Authority, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act. As discussed in these sections, each of these resolution laws has special provisions detailing the treatment of QFCs upon an entity's entry into such proceedings.

    U.S. Bankruptcy Code. While covered banks themselves are not subject to resolution under the Bankruptcy Code, in general, if a BHC were to fail, it would be resolved under the Bankruptcy Code. When an entity goes into resolution under the Bankruptcy Code, attempts by the creditors of the debtor to enforce their debts through any means other than participation in the bankruptcy proceeding (for instance, by suing in another court, seeking enforcement of a preexisting judgment, or seizing and liquidating collateral) are generally blocked by the imposition of an automatic stay, which generally persists throughout the bankruptcy proceeding.13 A key purpose of the automatic stay, and of bankruptcy law in general, is to maximize the value of the bankruptcy estate and the creditors' ultimate recoveries by facilitating an orderly liquidation or restructuring of the debtor. As a result, the automatic stay addresses the collective action problem, in which the creditors' individual incentives to race to recover as much from the debtor as possible, before other creditors can do so, collectively cause a value-destroying disorderly liquidation of the debtor.14

    13See 11 U.S.C. 362.

    14See, e.g., Aiello v. Providian Financial Corp., 239 F.3d 876, 879 (7th Cir. 2001).

    The Bankruptcy Code, however, largely exempts QFC counterparties from the automatic stay through special “safe harbor” provisions.15 Under these provisions, any contractual rights that a QFC counterparty has to terminate the contract, set off obligations, and liquidate collateral in response to a direct default or cross-default are not subject to the stay and may be exercised at any time.16

    15 11 U.S.C. 362(b)(6), (7), (17), (27), 362(o), 555, 556, 559, 560, 561.

    16 The Bankruptcy Code does not itself confer any default rights upon QFC counterparties; it merely permits QFC counterparties to exercise certain contractual rights that they have under the terms of the QFC. This proposed rule does not propose to restrict the exercise of any default rights that fall within the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions, which are described here to provide context.

    Where the failed firm is a GSIB's holding company with covered banks that are going concerns and are party to large volumes of QFCs, the mass exercise of default rights under the QFCs based on the affiliate default represents a significant impediment to the SPOE resolution strategy.17 This is because the failure of a covered bank's affiliate will trigger the mass exercise of cross-default rights against the covered bank, which will not be stayed by the affiliate's entry into bankruptcy proceedings. This will in turn lead to fire sales that will threaten the ongoing viability of the covered bank and the successful resolution of the particular GSIB—and thus will also pose a threat to the federal banking system and broader financial system.

    17 As noted previously, the MPOE strategy will similarly benefit from the override of cross-defaults. The SPOE strategy is used here for illustrative purposes only.

    Special Resolution Regimes Under U.S. Law. For purposes of this proposed rule, there are two special resolution regimes under U.S. law: Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA); and the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA). While these regimes both impose certain limitations on the ability of counterparties to exercise default rights—thus mitigating the potential for disorderly resolution due to the exercise by counterparties of such default rights—these limitations may not be applicable or clearly enforceable in certain contexts.

    Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and the Orderly Resolution Authority. Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act establishes an alternative resolution framework intended “to provide the necessary authority to liquidate failing financial companies that pose a significant risk to the financial stability of the United States in a manner that mitigates such risk and minimizes moral hazard.” 18

    18 12 U.S.C. 5384(a) (Section 204(a) of the Dodd-Frank Act).

    As noted, although a failed BHC would generally be resolved under the Bankruptcy Code, Congress recognized that a U.S. financial company might fail under extraordinary circumstances, in which an attempt to resolve it through the bankruptcy process would have serious adverse effects on financial stability in the United States. Title II therefore authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the recommendation of other government agencies and a determination that several preconditions are met, to place a U.S. financial company into a receivership conducted by the FDIC as an alternative to bankruptcy.

    Title II empowers the FDIC, when it acts as receiver in an OLA resolution, to protect financial stability against the QFC-related threats discussed previously. Title II addresses direct default rights in a number of ways. First, Title II empowers the FDIC to transfer the QFCs to some other financial company that is not in a resolution proceeding.19 To give the FDIC time to effect this transfer, Title II temporarily stays QFC counterparties of the failed entity from exercising termination, netting, and collateral liquidation rights “solely by reason of or incidental to” the failed entity's entry into OLA resolution, its insolvency, or its financial condition.20 Second, once the QFCs are transferred in accord with the statute, Title II permanently stays the exercise of those direct default rights based on the prior event of default and receivership.21

    19 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(9).

    20 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(10)(B)(i)(I). This temporary stay generally lasts until 5:00 p.m. eastern time on the business day following the appointment of the FDIC as receiver.

    21 If the QFCs are transferred to a solvent third party before the stay expires, the counterparty is permanently enjoined from exercising such rights based upon the appointment of the FDIC as receiver of the financial company (or the insolvency or financial condition of the financial company), but is not stayed from exercising such rights based upon other events of default. 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(10)(B)(i)(II).

    Title II addresses cross-default rights through a similar procedure. It empowers the FDIC “to enforce contracts of subsidiaries or affiliates” of the failed company that are guaranteed or otherwise supported by or linked to the covered financial company, notwithstanding any contractual right to cause the termination, liquidation, or acceleration of such contracts based solely on the insolvency, financial condition, or receivership of the failed company, so long as the FDIC takes certain steps to protect the QFC counterparty's interests by the end of the business day following the company's entry into OLA resolution.22

    22 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(16); 12 CFR 380.12.

    These stay-and-transfer provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act go far to mitigate the threat posed by QFC default rights by preventing mass closeouts against the entity that has entered into OLA proceedings or its going concern affiliates. At the same time, they allow for appropriate protections for QFC counterparties of the failed financial company. They only stay the exercise of default rights based on the failed company's entry into resolution, the fact of its insolvency, or its financial condition. And the stay period is brief, unless the FDIC transfers the QFCs to another financial company that is not in resolution and should therefore be capable of performing under the QFCs.

    Federal Deposit Insurance Act. Under the FDIA, a failing insured depository institution would generally enter a receivership administered by the FDIC.23 The FDIA addresses direct default rights in the failed bank's QFCs with stay-and-transfer provisions that are substantially similar to the provisions of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act as discussed.24 However, the FDIA does not address cross-default rights, leaving the QFC counterparties of the failed depository institution's affiliates free to exercise any contractual rights they may have to terminate, net, and liquidate collateral based on the depository institution's entry into resolution.

    23 12 U.S.C. 1821(c).

    24See 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)-(10).

    III. Description of the Proposal A. Overview, Purpose, and Authority

    As discussed previously, and in the Board's Proposal, the exercise of default rights by counterparties of a failed GSIB can have a significant impact on financial stability. This financial stability concern is necessarily intertwined with the safety and soundness of covered banks and the federal banking system—the disorderly exercise of default rights can produce a sudden, contemporaneous threat to the safety and soundness of individual institutions throughout the system, which in turn threatens the system as a whole. Accordingly, national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies are affected by financial instability—even if such instability is precipitated outside the Federal banking system—and can themselves also be sources of financial destabilization due to the interconnectedness of these institutions to each other and to other entities within the financial system. Thus, safety and soundness of individual national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies, the federal banking system, and financial stability of the system as a whole are interconnected.

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to enhance the safety and soundness of covered banks and the federal banking system, thereby also bolstering financial stability generally, by addressing the two main issues raised by covered QFCs with the orderly resolution of these covered banks as generally described in the Board's Proposal.

    While Title II and the FDIA empower the use of the QFC stay-and-transfer provisions, a court in a foreign jurisdiction may decline to enforce these important provisions. The proposed rule directly improves the safety and soundness of covered banks by clarifying the applicability of U.S. special resolution regimes to all counterparties, whether they are foreign or domestic. Although domestic entities are clearly subject to the temporary stay provisions of OLA and the FDIA, these stays may be difficult to enforce in a cross-border context. As a result, domestic counterparties of a failed U.S. financial institution may be disadvantaged relative to foreign counterparties, as the domestic counterparties would be subject to the stay, and accompanying potential market volatility, while if the stay was not enforced by foreign authorities, foreign counterparties could close out immediately. Furthermore, a mass close out by such foreign counterparties would likely exacerbate market volatility, which in turn would likely magnify harm to the stayed U.S. counterparties' positions, which are likely to include other national banks and FSAs. This proposed rule would eliminate the potential for these adverse consequences by requiring covered banks to condition the exercise of default rights in covered contracts on the stay provisions of OLA and the FDIA.

    In spite of the QFC stay-and-transfer provisions in Title II and the FDIA, the affiliates of a global systemically important BHC that goes into resolution under the Bankruptcy Code may face disruptions to their QFCs as their counterparties exercise cross-default rights. Thus, a healthy covered bank whose parent BHC entered resolution proceedings could fail due to its counterparties exercising cross-default rights. This is clearly both a safety and soundness concern for the otherwise healthy covered bank, but it also has the additional negative effect of defeating the orderly resolution of the GSIB, since a key element of SPOE resolution in the United States is ensuring that critical operating subsidiaries—such as covered banks—continue to operate on a going concern basis. This proposed rule would address this issue by generally restricting the exercise of cross-default rights by counterparties against a covered bank.

    Moreover, a disorderly resolution like that described previously could jeopardize not just the covered bank and the orderly resolution of its failed parent BHC, but all surviving counterparties, many of which are likely to be other national banks and other FSAs, regardless of size or interconnectedness, by harming the overall condition of the Federal banking system and the financial system as a whole. A disorderly resolution could result in additional defaults, fire sales of collateral, and other consequences likely to amplify the systemic fallout of the resolution of a covered bank.

    The proposed rule is designed to minimize such disorder, and therefore enhance the safety and soundness of all individual national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies, the Federal banking system, and the broader financial system. This is particularly important because financial institutions are more sensitive than other firms to the overall health of the financial system.25

    25 The OCC, along with the FDIC and FRB, recently made this point in the swap margin NPRM. 79 FR 57348, 57361 (September 24, 2014) (“Financial firms present a higher level of risk than other types of counterparties because the profitability and viability of financial firms is more tightly linked to the health of the financial system than other types of counterparties. Because financial counterparties are more likely to default during a period of financial stress, they pose greater systemic risk and risk to the safety and soundness of the covered swap entity.”).

    The proposed rule covers the OCC-supervised operations of foreign banking organizations (FBOs) designated as systemically important, including national bank and FSA subsidiaries, as well as Federal branches and agencies, of these FBOs. As with a national bank or FSA subsidiary of a U.S. global systemically important BHC, the OCC believes that this proposed rule should apply to a national bank or FSA subsidiary of a global systematically important FBO for essentially the same reasons. While the national bank or FSA may not be considered systemically important itself, as part of a GSIB, the disorderly resolution of the covered national banks and FSAs could have a significant negative impact on the Federal banking system and on the U.S. financial system, in general.

    Specifically, the proposed rule is designed to prevent the failure of a global systemically important FBO from disrupting the ongoing operations or orderly resolution of the covered bank by protecting the healthy national bank or FSA from the mass triggering of default rights by the QFC counterparties. Additionally, the application of this proposed rule to the QFCs of these national bank and FSA subsidiaries should avoid creating what may otherwise be an incentive for counterparties to concentrate QFCs in these firms because they are subject to fewer counterparty restrictions.

    Similarly, it is important to cover any Federal branch or agency of a global systemically important FBO in order to ensure the orderly resolution of these entities if the parent FBO were to be placed into resolution in its home jurisdiction. However, to avoid unduly broad application of the proposed rule and imposing unnecessary restrictions on the QFCs of global systemically important FBOs, the proposed rule would exclude certain QFCs that do not have a clear nexus to its U.S. operations. Specifically, the proposed rule would exclude covered QFCs under multi-branch arrangements that either are not booked at the Federal branch or agency or do not provide for payment or delivery at the Federal branch or agency. The OCC believes that this provides a reasonable limitation on the scope of the proposed rule to those QFCs of covered Federal branches and agencies that have a direct effect on the Federal banking system and the general financial stability of the United States.

    The OCC is issuing this proposed rule under its authorities under the National Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1 et seq.), the Home Owners' Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1461 et seq.), and the International Banking Act of 1978 (12 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), including its general rulemaking authorities.26 As discussed in detail in Section I. B., the OCC views the proposed rule as consistent with its overall statutory mandate of assuring the safety and soundness of entities subject to its supervision, including national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies.27

    26See 12 U.S.C. 93a, 1463(a)(2), and 3108(a).

    27See 12 U.S.C. 1. This primary responsibility is also defined in various provisions throughout the OCC's express statutory authorities with respect to each institution type under their respective statutes.

    B. Covered Banks (Section 47.3(a), (b), (c))

    The proposed rule would apply to all “covered banks.” The term “covered bank” would be defined to include (i) any national bank or FSA that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important BHC that has been designated pursuant to subpart I of 12 CFR part 252 of this title (FRB Regulation YY); or (ii) is a national bank or FSA subsidiary, or Federal branch or agency of a global systemically important FBO that has been designated pursuant to FRB Regulation YY.

    The proposed rule defines global systemically important BHC and global systemically important FBO by cross-reference to newly added subpart I of 12 CFR part 252 of the Board's Proposal. The list of banking organizations that meet the methodology proposed in the FRB NPRM is currently the same set of banking organizations that meet the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) definition of a GSIB.28

    28 In November 2015, the Financial Stability Board and BCBS published a list of banks that meet the BCBS definition of a global systemically important bank (BCBS G-SIB) based on year-end 2014 data. A list based on year-end 2014 data was published November 3, 2015 (available at http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-update-of-list-of-global-systemically-important-banks-G-SIBs.pdf). The U.S. top-tier BHCs that are currently identified as a BCBS G-SIBs are Bank of America Corporation, Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Morgan Stanley, State Street Corporation, and Wells Fargo & Company.

    This proposed rule covers national bank and FSA subsidiaries of global systemically important BHCs and FBOs, and Federal branches and agencies of global systemically important FBOs. In the United States, covered QFCs typically are entered into at the subsidiary level, which would include through the national bank, FSA or Federal branch or agency, rather than through the U.S. intermediate holding company.29

    29 Under the clean holding company component of the FRB's recent Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity (TLAC) proposal, the U.S. intermediate holding companies of foreign GSIB entities would be prohibited from entering into QFCs with third parties. See 80 FR 74926 (November 30, 2015).

    The OCC believes if the orderly resolution of a covered entity as defined under the FRB's Proposal is to be successful, then it is necessary that all national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies of systemically important global systemically important BHCs and FBOs be subject to the mandatory contractual requirements in this proposed rule. Moreover, this proposed rule would make clear that the mandatory contractual stay requirements apply to the subsidiaries of any national bank, FSA, or Federal branch or agency that is a covered bank. Under the proposed rule, the term covered bank also includes any subsidiary of a national bank, FSA, or Federal branch or agency. The definition of “subsidiary of covered bank” in the proposed rule mirrors the definition of subsidiary in the FRB's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.2), and it is intended to be substantially the same as the FRB's definition with respect to a subsidiary of a covered bank. Essentially, for the same reasons that it is necessary to cover all national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies of global systemically important BHCs and FBOs under the proposed rule, the OCC believes that it is necessary that all subsidiaries of those covered banks also be subject to the mandatory contractual stay requirements. As mentioned, unless all entities that are part of a GSIB are covered, counterparties might have incentives to migrate their covered QFCs to uncovered entities.

    Question 1: While the exercise of mass closeout rights against any individual national bank, FSA or Federal branch or agency would raise concerns, the OCC is especially concerned about the potential spill-over effect such mass closeouts would have, either individually or collectively, on the Federal banking system if the entity itself is systemically important or part of a larger banking group that is systemically important. Are there alternative approaches for determining which national banks, FSAs and Federal branches and agencies should be considered systemically important?

    Question 2: While the primary focus of this rule is on, covered banks—i.e., those that are subsidiaries or branches of U.S. or foreign GSIBS—there is some concern that given the interconnected nature of QFCs, a market disruption could significantly impact all national banks, FSAs and Federal branches and agencies. Should this proposed rule be expanded to cover more OCC-regulated entities, for example, those national banks, FSAs or Federal branches and agencies with material levels of QFC activities? How could material levels of QFC activities be defined and measured?

    Question 3: Conversely, is the scope of this proposed rule too broad? The proposed rule would apply to all covered QFCs of covered banks as well as all of their subsidiaries, regardless of size or volume of transactions. A key policy concern is that unless all subsidiaries of a covered bank are subject to the direct and cross-default restrictions of the proposed rule, covered banks and their counterparties would have the incentive to transfer their QFCs to unprotected subsidiaries of the covered bank. Could the scope of entities covered by the proposed rule be narrowed while still achieving its policy objectives? If so, what criteria could be used? For example, should a subsidiary of covered banks that only engages in some de minimis level of covered QFCs be safely excluded from the scope of this proposed rule? Are there alternative ways to define what will be considered subsidiaries for purposes of this rule?

    Question 4: Some of the subsidiaries of covered banks under the proposed rule could be subject to additional supervision by another U.S. agency, such as the case of a broker-dealer subsidiary of a national bank. Does the issue of potentially conflicting jurisdiction need to be addressed? If so, how? For example, should the rule provide a carve out for a subsidiary of a covered bank that is subject to comparable requirements under the regulations of another agency?

    Question 5: The scope of this proposed rule is designed to cover any national bank or FSA that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important BHC or FBO under the FRB NPRM. While this scope of coverage ensures that all national banks or FSAs under a global systemically important BHC or FBO would be subject to the same substantive contractual mandatory stay under the FRB NPRM, the proposed rule does not take into account the potential situation of a standalone national bank or FSA, not under a BHC, that might itself be considered systemically important. Although no such entity exists currently, the OCC is considering whether to amend the definition of covered bank to include any national bank or FSB that meets a certain asset threshold test. In this case, the OCC is considering using the $700 billion in total consolidated assets that is used in the Enhanced Supplementary Leverage Ratio.30 Should the OCC decide to address standalone national banks and FSBs, what methodology and factors should the OCC consider in deciding which institutions to include?

    30 See 79 FR 24528 (May 1, 2014).

    C. Covered QFCs (Sections 47.4(a), 47.5(a), 47.7, 47.8)

    General requirement. The proposed rule would require covered banks to ensure that each “covered QFC” conforms to the requirements of sections 47.4 and 47.5. These sections require that a covered QFC (1) contain contractual stay-and-transfer provisions similar to those imposed under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and the FDIA, and (2) limit the exercise of default rights based on the insolvency of an affiliate of the covered bank. A “covered QFC” is generally defined as any QFC that a covered bank enters, executes, or otherwise becomes party to. A party to a QFC includes a party acting as agent under the QFC. “Qualified financial contract” or “QFC” would be defined to have the same meaning as in section 210(c)(8)(D) of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and would include derivatives, swaps, repurchase, reverse repurchase, and securities lending and borrowing transactions.

    Except for certain QFCs under multi-branch master agreements, the definition of QFC would include a single QFC, but also all QFCs under a master agreement. Master agreements are contracts that contain general terms that the parties wish to apply to multiple transactions between them; having executed the master agreement, the parties can then include those terms in future contracts through reference to the master agreement. The proposed rule defines master agreement as defined by Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act or any master agreement designated by regulation by the FDIC. Under the definition, master agreements for QFCs, together with all supplements to the master agreement (including underlying transactions), would be treated as a single QFC.31

    31 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(viii); see also 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(D)(vii); 109 H. Rpt. 31, Part 1 (April 8, 2005) (explaining that a “master agreement for one or more securities contracts, commodity contracts, forward contracts, repurchase agreements or swap agreements will be treated as a single QFC under the FDIA or the FCUA (but only with respect to the underlying agreements are themselves QFCs)”).

    The proposed definition of “QFC” is intended to cover those financial transactions whose disorderly unwind has substantial potential to frustrate, directly or indirectly, the orderly resolution of the covered bank or any affiliate of such covered bank. The Dodd-Frank Act uses its definition of “qualified financial contract” to determine the scope of the stay-and-transfer provisions that it applies to direct default and cross-default rights in an OLA resolution. By adopting the Dodd-Frank Act's definition, the proposed rule would track Congress's judgment as to which financial transactions could, if not subject to appropriate restrictions, pose an obstacle to the orderly resolution of a systemically important financial company.

    Question 6: With regard to the proposed definitions of “QFC” and “covered QFC” are there other types of financial contracts or transactions that should be included in the definition of a “covered QFC” in the proposed rule because they could pose a similar risk to the safety and soundness of the covered national banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies and to the Federal banking system? Conversely, is the definition of covered QFC too broad? Are there types of financial contracts that fall within the definition of covered QFC that could be excluded without compromising the policy objectives of the proposed rule?

    Question 7: Should this proposed rule include a reservation of authority provision that would maintain OCC's supervisory flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to include or exclude from the proposed rule (1) specific OCC-supervised entities (and their subsidiaries) and (2) financial contracts or transactions, if consistent with the purposes of the proposed rule?

    Exclusion of cleared QFCs. The proposed rule would exclude from the definition of “covered QFC” all QFCs that are cleared through a central counterparty (CCP). The OCC continues to consider the appropriate treatment of centrally cleared QFCs, in light of differences between cleared and uncleared QFCs with respect to contractual arrangements, counterparty credit risk, default management, and supervision.

    Question 8: Should the QFCs between a CCP (or other financial market utility) and a member covered bank be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule? What additional risks do such cleared QFCs pose to the orderly resolution of covered banks and the Federal banking system? What other factors should be considered?

    Exclusion of certain QFCs under foreign bank multi-branch master agreements. Under the proposed rule, the definition of a “QFC” would include a master agreement that covers other QFCs. In addition, under this definition those QFCs covered by the master agreement would be treated as a single QFC. By design, this definition of QFC is intended to ensure that the proposed rule would apply to all of the relevant QFCs entered into by a covered bank. However, as applied to the QFCs of Federal branches and agencies under a multi-branch master agreement, this definition may be too broad in its scope.

    Foreign banks have multi-branch master agreements that permit transactions to be entered into both at a U.S. branch or agency of the foreign bank and at a foreign branch (located outside of the United States) of the foreign bank. Under this proposed rule, a QFC of a Federal branch or agency, as well as all of the QFCs entered into by foreign branches under the same multi-branch master agreement would be treated as a single QFC of the Federal branch or agency, and would therefore be subject to the requirements of this proposed rule. Where the QFC of the foreign branch has some U.S. nexus, such as permitting payment or delivery in the United States, the OCC believes that subjecting those QFCs to this proposed rule is reasonable and consistent with protecting the safety and soundness of the Federal banking system. However, where the QFC of the foreign branch does not permit any payment or delivery in the United States, the OCC believes that applying this proposed rule to such QFCs lacks a sufficient connection to the U.S. operations of the Federal branch or agency and may be unduly broad.

    Absent the possibility under the QFC of payment or delivery in the United States, the OCC believes that the impact of such QFCs on the Federal branch or agency covered by this proposed rule, or on the Federal banking system and the United States as a whole, is indirect and relatively immaterial. For this reason, the proposed rule would exclude QFCs under such a “multi-branch master agreement” that are not booked at a Federal branch or agency covered by this proposed rule, and for which no payment or delivery may be made at the Federal branch or agency. Conversely, the multi-branch master agreement would be a covered QFC with respect to QFC transactions that are booked and permits payment and delivery at a Federal branch or agency covered by this proposed rule.

    Question 9: Should the scope of the proposed rule be limited to only those transactions that are booked, or provide for payment and delivery, at the Federal branch or agency?

    D. Definition of “Default Right”

    As discussed previously, a party to a QFC generally has a number of rights that it can exercise if its counterparty defaults on the QFC by failing to meet certain contractual obligations. These rights are generally, but not always, contractual in nature. One common default right is a setoff right which is the right to reduce the total amount that the non-defaulting party must pay by the amount that its defaulting counterparty owes. A second common default right is the right to liquidate pledged collateral and use the proceeds to pay the defaulting party's net obligation to the non-defaulting party. Other common rights include the ability to suspend or delay the non-defaulting party's performance under the contract or to accelerate the obligations of the defaulting party.

    Finally, the non-defaulting party typically has the right to terminate the QFC, meaning that the parties would not make payments that would have been required under the QFC in the future. The phrase “default right” in the proposed rule text at § 47.2 is broadly defined to include these common rights as well as “any similar rights.” Additionally, the definition includes all such rights regardless of source, including rights existing under contract, statute, or common law.

    However, the proposed definition excludes two rights that are typically associated with the business-as-usual functioning of a QFC. First, same-day netting that occurs during the life of the QFC in order to reduce the number and amount of payments each party owes the other is excluded from the definition of “default right.” 32 Second, contractual margin requirements that arise solely from the change in the value of the collateral or the amount of an economic exposure are also excluded from the definition.33 The effect of these exclusions is to leave such rights unaffected by the proposed rule. The exclusions are appropriate because the proposed rule is intended to improve resolvability by addressing default rights that could disrupt an orderly resolution, and not to interrupt the parties' business-as-usual dealings under a QFC.

    32See Proposed Rule § 47.2.

    33See id.

    However, certain QFCs are also commonly subject to rights that would increase the amount of collateral or margin that the defaulting party (or a guarantor) must provide upon an event of default. The financial impact of such default rights on a covered bank could be similar to the impact of the liquidation and acceleration rights discussed previously. Therefore, the proposed definition of “default right” includes such rights (with the exception discussed in the previous paragraph for margin requirements that depend solely on the value of collateral or the amount of an economic exposure).34

    34See id.

    Finally, contractual rights to terminate without the need to show cause, including rights to terminate on demand and rights to terminate at contractually specified intervals, are excluded from the definition of “default right” for purposes the proposed rule's restrictions on cross-default rights (section 47.5 of the proposed rule).35 This is consistent with the proposed rule's objective of restricting only default rights that are related, directly or indirectly, to the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the covered bank, while leaving other default rights unrestricted.

    35 See Proposed Rule §§ 47.2 and 47.5.

    Question 10: The OCC invites comment on all aspects of the proposed definition of “default right” In particular, are the proposed exclusions appropriate in light of the objectives of the proposal? To what extent does the exclusion of rights that allow a party to terminate the contract “on demand or at its option at a specified time, or from time to time, without the need to show cause” create an incentive for firms to include these rights in future contracts to evade the proposed restrictions? To what extent should other regulatory requirements (e.g., liquidity coverage ratio or the short-term wholesale funding components of the GSIB surcharge rule) be revised to create a counterincentive? Would additional exclusions be appropriate? To what extent should it be clarified that the “need to show cause” includes the need to negotiate alternative terms with the other party prior to termination or similar requirements (e.g., Master Securities Loan Agreement, Annex III—Term Loans)?

    E. Required Contractual Provisions Related to U.S. Special Resolution Regimes (Section 47.4)

    Under the proposed rule, a covered QFC would be required to explicitly provide both (a) that the transfer of the QFC (and any interest or obligation in or under it and any property collateralizing it) from the covered bank to a transferee would be effective to the same extent as it would be under the U.S. special resolution regimes if the covered QFC were governed by the laws of the United States or of a state of the United States and (b) that default rights with respect to the covered QFC that could be exercised against a covered bank could be exercised to no greater extent than they could be exercised under the U.S. special resolution regimes if the covered QFC were governed by the laws of the United States or of a state of the United States.36 The proposed rule would define the term “U.S. Special Resolution Regimes” to mean the FDIA 37 and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act,38 along with regulations issued under those statutes.39

    36 See Proposed Rule § 47.4.

    37 12 U.S.C. 1811-1835a.

    38 12 U.S.C. 5381-5394.

    39 See Proposed Rule § 47.2.

    The proposed requirements are not intended to imply that a given covered QFC is not governed by the laws of the United States or of a state of the United States, or that the statutory stay-and-transfer provisions would not in fact apply to a given covered QFC. This section of the proposed rule would not have any substantive impact on those covered QFCs that are already subject to the U.S. special resolution regimes. Rather, the requirements are intended to provide certainty that all covered QFCs would be treated the same way in the context of a receivership of a covered bank under the Dodd-Frank Act or the FDIA. Thus, the purpose of this provision is to ensure that if a national bank or FSA covered by this proposed rule is placed into receivership under any U.S. special resolution regime, the stay-and-transfer provisions would extend to all foreign counterparties as a matter of contract law.

    The stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. special resolution regimes should be enforced with respect to all contracts of any U.S. GSIB entity that enters resolution under a U.S. special resolution regime as well as all transactions of the subsidiaries of such an entity. Nonetheless, it is possible that a court in a foreign jurisdiction would decline to enforce those provisions in cases brought before it (such as a case regarding a covered QFC between a covered bank and a non-U.S. entity that is governed by non-U.S. law and secured by collateral located outside the United States). By requiring that the effect of the statutory stay-and-transfer provisions be incorporated directly into the QFC contractually, the proposed requirement would help ensure that a court in a foreign jurisdiction would enforce the effect of those provisions, regardless of whether the court would otherwise have decided to enforce the U.S. statutory provisions themselves.40 For example, the proposed provisions should prevent a U.K. counterparty of a U.S. GSIB from persuading a U.K. court that it should be permitted to seize and liquidate collateral located in the United Kingdom in response to the U.S. GSIB's entry into OLA resolution. And the knowledge that a court in a foreign jurisdiction would reject the purported exercise of default rights in violation of the required provisions would deter covered banks' counterparties from attempting to exercise such rights.

    40See generally Financial Stability Board, “Principles for Cross-border Effectiveness of Resolution Actions” (November 3, 2015), available at http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/Principles-for-Cross-border-Effectiveness-of-Resolution-Actions.pdf.

    The OCC believes that this proposed rule directly addresses a major QFC-related obstacle to the orderly resolution of covered banks. As discussed previously, restrictions on the exercise of QFC default rights are an important prerequisite for an orderly GSIB resolution. Congress recognized the importance of such restrictions when it enacted the stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. special resolution regimes. As demonstrated by the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the modern financial system is global in scope, and covered banks are party to large volumes of QFCs with connections to foreign jurisdictions. The stay-and-transfer provisions of the U.S. special resolution regimes would not achieve their purpose of facilitating orderly resolution in the context of the failure of a GSIB with large volumes of such QFCs if QFCs could escape the effect of those provisions. As discussed in detail in Section I of this proposed rule, the OCC has a supervisory interest in preventing or mitigating the destabilizing effects of a disorderly GSIB resolution; otherwise, the result will be adverse to safety and soundness of covered banks individually and collectively, as well as the broader Federal banking system. To remove any doubt about the scope of coverage of these provisions, the proposed requirement would ensure that the stay-and-transfer provisions apply as a matter of contract to all covered QFCs, wherever the transaction. This will advance the resolvability goals of the Dodd-Frank Act and the FDIA.41

    41 As noted in the Board's Proposal, this proposed rule is consistent with efforts by regulators in other jurisdictions to address similar risks by requiring that financial firms within their jurisdictions ensure that the effect of the similar provisions under these foreign jurisdictions' respective special resolution regimes would be enforced by courts in other jurisdictions, including the United States. See e.g., PRA Rulebook: CRR Firms and Non-Authorised Persons: Stay in Resolution Instrument 2015, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/pra/Documents/publications/ps/2015/ps2515app1.pdf; see also Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority, “Contractual stays in financial contracts governed by third-country law” (PS25/15).

    Question 11: While the direct default requirements are proposed to apply broadly to all covered QFCs of covered banks, the primary focus of this requirements is with QFCs with foreign counterparties not directly subject to the U.S. special resolution regimes. U.S. counterparties are less of a concern because these counterparties would already be subject to the stay-and-transfer requirements under statutory requirements of the U.S. special resolution regimes. With respect to the direct default requirements, the proposed rule does not distinguish between U.S. and foreign counterparties because the OCC believes that the broad application of this proposed rule would be simpler to implement and less burdensome given the standardized nature of QFCs and their associated master netting agreements. Should the direct default requirements of the proposed rule apply only to covered QFCs with foreign counterparties not subject to U.S. special resolution regimes? What would be the costs and regulatory burden associated with identifying and maintaining separate versions of covered QFCs for U.S. and foreign counterparties?

    F. Prohibited Cross-Default Rights (Section 47.5)

    Definitions. Section 47.5 of the proposed rule pertains to cross-default rights in QFCs between covered banks and their counterparties, many of which are subject to credit enhancements (such as guarantees) provided by an affiliate of the covered bank. Because credit enhancements on QFCs are themselves “qualified financial contracts” under the Dodd-Frank Act's definition of that term (which this proposed rule would adopt), the proposed rule includes the following additional definitions in order to precisely describe the relationships to which this section applies.

    First, the proposed rule distinguishes between a credit enhancement and a “direct QFC,” which is defined as any QFC that is not a credit enhancement. The proposed rule also defines “direct party” to mean a covered bank that itself is a party to the direct QFC, as distinct from an entity that provide a credit enhancement. In addition, the proposed rule defines “affiliate credit enhancement” to mean “a credit enhancement that is provided by an affiliate of the party to the direct QFC that the credit enhancement supports,” as distinct from a credit enhancement provided by either the direct party itself or by an unaffiliated party. Moreover, the proposed rule defines “covered affiliate credit enhancement” to mean an affiliate credit enhancement provided by a covered bank, or a covered entity under the Board's proposal, and defines “covered affiliate support provider to mean the covered bank that provides the covered affiliate credit enhancement. Finally, the proposed rule defines the term “supported party” to mean any party that is the beneficiary of a covered affiliate credit enhancement (that is, the QFC counterparty of a direct party, assuming that the direct QFC is subject to a covered affiliate credit enhancement).

    General Prohibition. Subject to the substantial exceptions to be discussed, the proposed rule would prohibit a covered bank from being a party to a covered QFC that allows for the exercise of any default right that is related, directly or indirectly, to the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the covered bank. The proposed rule also would generally prohibit a covered bank from being party to a covered QFC that would prohibit the transfer of any credit enhancement applicable to the QFC (such as another entity's guarantee of the covered bank's obligations under the QFC), along with associated obligations or collateral, upon the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the covered bank.42

    42 This prohibition would be subject to an exception that would allow supported parties to exercise default rights with respect to a QFC if the supported party would be prohibited from being the beneficiary of a credit enhancement provided by the transferee under any applicable law, including the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. This exception is substantially similar to an exception to the transfer restrictions in section 2(f) of the ISDA 2014 Resolution Stay Protocol (2014 Protocol) and the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol, which was added to address the concerns expressed by asset managers during the drafting of the 2014 Protocol.

    A primary purpose of the proposed restrictions is to facilitate the resolution of a GSIB outside of Title II, including under the Bankruptcy Code. As discussed in the background section, the potential for the mass exercise of QFC default rights is a major reason why the failure of a global systemically important BHC could have a severe negative impact on financial stability and on the Federal banking system. In the context of an SPOE resolution, if the global systemically important BHC's entry into resolution triggers the mass exercise of cross-default rights by the subsidiaries' QFC counterparties of the covered QFCs against the national bank or FSA subsidiary, then the national bank or FSA could themselves experience financial distress or failure. Moreover, the mass exercise of covered QFC default rights would entail asset fire sales, which could affect other U.S. financial companies and undermine financial stability of the U.S. financial system. Similar disruptive results can occur with an MPOE resolution of an affiliate of an otherwise performing entity triggers default rights on QFCs involving the performing covered bank.

    In an SPOE resolution, this damage can be avoided if actions of the following two types are prevented: The exercise of direct default rights against the top-tier holding company that has entered resolution, and the exercise of cross-default rights against the national bank and FSA subsidiaries and other operating subsidiaries based on their parent's entry into resolution. Direct default rights against the national bank or FSA subsidiary would not be exercisable, because that subsidiary would continue normal operations and would not enter resolution. In an MPOE resolution, this damage occurs from the exercise of default rights against a performing entity based on the failure of an affiliate.

    Under the OLA, the Dodd-Frank Act's stay-and-transfer provisions would address both direct default rights and cross-default rights. But, as explained in the Background section, no similar statutory provisions would apply to a resolution under the Bankruptcy Code. This proposed rule attempts to address these obstacles to orderly resolution under the Bankruptcy Code by extending the stay-and transfer-provisions to any type of resolution. Similarly, the proposed rule would facilitate a transfer of the GSIB parent's interests in its subsidiaries, along with any credit enhancements it provides for those subsidiaries, to a solvent financial company by prohibiting covered banks from having QFCs that would allow the QFC counterparty to prevent such a transfer or to use it as a ground for exercising default rights. Accordingly, the proposed rule would broadly prevent the unanticipated failure of any one GSIB entity from bringing about the disorderly failures of its affiliates by preventing the affiliates' QFC counterparties from using the first entity's failure as a ground for exercising default rights against those affiliates that continue meet to their obligations.43

    43 As noted in the Board's Proposal, this proposed rule will also facilitate many approaches to GSIB resolution, including where the U.S. intermediate holding company of a foreign GSIB enters proceedings as part of a broader MPOE resolution.

    The proposed rule is intended to enhance the potential for orderly resolution of a GSIB under the Bankruptcy Code, the FDIA, or similar resolution proceedings. In doing so, the proposed rule would advance the Dodd-Frank Act's goal of making orderly resolution of a workable covered bank under the Bankruptcy Code.44

    44See 12 U.S.C. 5365(d).

    The proposed rule could also prevent the disorderly failure of the national bank or FSA subsidiary and allow it to continue normal operations. In addition, while it may be in the individual interest of any given counterparty to exercise any available contractual rights to run on the national bank or FSA subsidiary, the mass exercise of such rights could harm the collective interest of all the counterparties by causing the subsidiary to fail. Therefore, like the automatic stay in bankruptcy, which also serves to maximize creditors' ultimate recoveries by preventing a disorderly liquidation of the debtor, the proposed rule would mitigate this collective action problem to the benefit of the creditors and counterparties of covered banks by preventing a disorderly resolution. And because many of these counterparties and creditors are themselves covered banks, or other systemically important financial firms, improving outcomes for these creditors and counterparties would further protect the safety and soundness of the Federal banking system and financial stability of the United States.

    General creditor protections. While the proposed restrictions would facilitate orderly resolution, they would also have the effect of diminishing the ability of the counterparties of the covered banks to include protections for themselves in covered QFCs. In order to reduce this effect, the proposed rule includes several significant exceptions to the proposed restrictions. These permitted creditor protections are intended to allow creditors to exercise cross-default rights outside of an orderly resolution of a GSIB (as described previously and in the Board's Proposal) and therefore would not be expected to undermine such a resolution.

    First, to ensure that the proposed prohibitions would apply only to cross-default rights (and not direct default rights), the proposed rule would provide that a covered QFC may permit the exercise of default rights based on the direct party's entry into a resolution proceeding, other than a proceeding under a U.S. or foreign special resolution regime.45 This provision would help ensure that, if the direct party to a QFC were to enter bankruptcy, its QFC counterparties could exercise any relevant direct default rights. Thus, a covered bank's direct QFC counterparties would not risk the delay and expense associated with becoming involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, and would be able to take advantage of default rights that would fall within the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions.

    45 Special resolution regimes typically stay direct default rights, but may not stay cross-default rights. For example, as discussed previously, the FDIA stays direct default rights, see 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(10)(B), but does not stay cross-default rights, whereas the Dodd-Frank Act's OLA stays direct default rights and cross-defaults arising from a parent's receivership, see 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(10)(B), 5390(c)(16).

    The proposed rule would also allow covered QFCs to permit the exercise of default rights based on the failure of (1) the direct party, (2) a covered affiliate support provider, or (3) a transferee that assumes a credit enhancement to satisfy its payment or delivery obligations under the direct QFC or credit enhancement. Moreover, the proposed rule would allow covered QFCs to permit the exercise of a default right in one QFC that is triggered by the direct party's failure to satisfy its payment or delivery obligations under another contract between the same parties. This exception takes appropriate account of the interdependence that exists among the contracts in effect between the same counterparties.

    The proposed exceptions for the creditor protections described are intended to help ensure that the proposed rule permits a covered bank's QFC counterparties to protect themselves from imminent financial loss and does not create a risk of delivery gridlocks or daisy-chain effects, in which a covered bank's failure to make a payment or delivery when due leaves its counterparty unable to meet its own payment and delivery obligations (the daisy-chain effect would be prevented because the covered bank's counterparty would be permitted to exercise its default rights, such as by liquidating collateral). These exceptions are generally consistent with the treatment of payment and delivery obligations under the U.S. special resolution regimes.46

    46See 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)(G)(ii), 5390(c)(8)(F)(ii) (suspending payment and delivery obligations for one business day or less).

    These exceptions also help to ensure that a covered entity's QFC counterparty would not risk the delay and expense associated with becoming involved in a bankruptcy proceeding, since, unlike a typical creditor of an entity that enters bankruptcy, the QFC counterparty would retain its ability under the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbors to exercise direct default rights. This should further reduce the counterparty's incentive to run. Reducing incentives to run in the lead up to resolution promotes orderly resolution because a QFC creditor run (such as a mass withdrawal of repo funding) could lead to a disorderly resolution and pose a threat to financial stability.

    Additional creditor protections for supported QFCs. The proposed rule would allow additional creditor protections for a non-defaulting counterparty that is the beneficiary of a credit enhancement from an affiliate of the covered bank that is also a covered bank under the proposed rule. The proposed rule would allow these creditor protections in recognition of the supported party's interest in receiving the benefit of its credit enhancement. The Board has concluded that these creditor protections would not undermine an SPOE resolution of a GSIB.47

    47 See 81 FR 29169 (May 11, 2016).

    Where a covered QFC is supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement,48 the covered QFC and the credit enhancement would be permitted to allow the exercise of default rights under the circumstances after the expiration of a stay period. Under the proposed rule, the applicable stay period would begin when the credit support provider enters resolution and would end at the later of 5:00 p.m. (eastern time) on the next business day and 48 hours after the entry into resolution. This portion of the proposed rule is similar to the stay treatment provided in a resolution under the OLA or the FDIA.49

    48 Note that the proposed rule would not apply with respect to credit enhancements that are not covered affiliate credit enhancements. In particular, it would not apply with respect to a credit enhancement provided by a non-U.S. entity of a foreign GSIB, which would not be a covered bank under the proposed rule.

    49See U.S.C. 1821(e)(10)(B)(I), 5390(c)(10)(B)(i), 5390(c)(16)(A). While the proposed stay period is similar to the stay periods that would be imposed by the U.S. special resolution regimes, it could run longer than those stay periods under some circumstances.

    Under the proposed rule, default rights could be exercised at the end of the stay period if the covered affiliate credit enhancement has not been transferred away from the covered affiliate support provider and that support provider becomes subject to a resolution proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.50 Default rights could also be exercised at the end of the stay period if the transferee (if any) of the credit enhancement enters a resolution proceeding, protecting the supported party from a transfer of the credit enhancement to a transferee that is unable to meet its financial obligations.

    50 Chapter 11 (11 U.S.C. 1101-1174) is the portion of the Bankruptcy Code that provides for the reorganization of the failed company, as opposed to its liquidation, and, relative to special resolution regimes, is generally well-understood by market participants.

    Default rights could also be exercised at the end of the stay period if the original credit support provider does not remain, and no transferee becomes, obligated to the same (or substantially similar) extent as the original credit support provider was obligated immediately prior to entering a resolution proceeding (including a Chapter 11 proceeding) with respect to (a) the credit enhancement applicable to the covered QFC, (b) all other credit enhancements provided by the credit support provider on any other QFCs between the same parties, and (c) all credit enhancements provided by the credit support provider between the direct party and affiliates of the direct party's QFC counterparty. Such creditor protections would be permitted to prevent the support provider or the transferee from “cherry picking” by assuming only those QFCs of a given counterparty that are favorable to the support provider or transferee. Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act and the FDIA contain similar provisions to prevent cherry picking.

    Finally, if the covered affiliate credit enhancement is transferred to a transferee, then the non-defaulting counterparty could exercise default rights at the end of the stay period unless either (a) all of the support provider's ownership interests in the direct party are also transferred to the transferee or (b) reasonable assurance is provided that substantially all of the support provider's assets (or the net proceeds from the sale of those assets) will be transferred to the transferee in a timely manner. These conditions would help to assure the supported party that the transferee would be at least roughly as financially capable of providing the credit enhancement as the covered affiliate support provider.

    Creditor protections related to FDIA proceedings. Moreover, in the case of a covered QFC that is supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement, both the covered QFC and the credit enhancement would be permitted to allow the exercise of default rights related to the credit support provider's entry into resolution proceedings under the FDIA 51 under the following circumstances: (a) After the FDIA stay period,52 if the credit enhancement is not transferred under the relevant provisions of the FDIA 53 and associated regulations, and (b) during the FDIA stay period, to the extent that the default right permits the supported party to suspend performance under the covered QFC to the same extent as that party would be entitled to do if the covered QFC were with the credit support provider itself and were treated in the same manner as the credit enhancement. This provision is intended to ensure that a QFC counterparty of a subsidiary of a covered bank that goes into FDIA receivership can receive the same level of protection that the FDIA provides to QFC counterparties of the covered bank itself.

    51 As discussed, the FDIA stays direct default rights against the failed depository institution but does not stay the exercise of cross-default rights against its affiliates.

    52 Under the FDIA, the relevant stay period runs until 5:00 p.m. (eastern time) on the business day following the appointment of the FDIC as receiver. 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(10)(B)(I).

    53 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(9)-(10).

    Prohibited terminations. In case of a legal dispute as to a party's right to exercise a default right under a covered QFC, the proposed rule would require that a covered QFC must provide that, after an affiliate of the direct party has entered a resolution proceeding, (a) the party seeking to exercise the default right shall bear the burden of proof that the exercise of that right is indeed permitted by the covered QFC and (b) the party seeking to exercise the default right must meet a “clear and convincing evidence” standard,54 a similar standard, or a more demanding standard.

    54 The reference to a “similar” burden of proof is intended to allow covered QFCs to provide for the application of a standard that is analogous to clear and convincing evidence in jurisdictions that do not recognize that particular standard. A covered QFC would not be permitted to provide for a lower standard.

    The purpose of this proposed requirement is to prevent QFC counterparties from circumventing the limitations on resolution-related default rights in this proposal by exercising other contractual default rights in instances where such QFC counterparty cannot demonstrate that the exercise of such other contractual default rights is unrelated to the affiliate's entry into resolution.

    Agency transactions. In addition to entering into QFCs as principal, GSIBs may engage in QFCs as agent for other principals. For example, a GSIB subsidiary may enter into a master securities lending arrangement with a foreign bank as agent for a U.S.-based pension fund. The GSIB would document its role as agent for the pension fund, often through an annex to the master agreement, and would generally provide to its customer (the principal party) a securities replacement guarantee or indemnification for any shortfall in collateral in the event of the default of the foreign bank.55 A covered bank may also enter into a QFC as principal where there is an agent acting on its behalf or on behalf of its counterparty.

    55 The definition of QFC under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act includes security agreements and other credit enhancements as well as master agreements (including supplements). 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D).

    This proposed rule would apply to a covered QFC regardless of whether the covered bank or the covered bank's direct counterparty is acting as a principal or as an agent. This proposed rule does not distinguish between agents and principals with respect to default rights or transfer restrictions applicable to covered QFCs. The proposed rule would limit default rights and transfer restrictions that the principal and its agent may have against a covered bank consistent with the U.S. special resolution regimes. This proposed rule would ensure that, subject to the enumerated creditor protections, neither the agent nor the principal could exercise cross-default rights under the covered QFC against the covered bank based on the resolution of an affiliate of the covered bank.56

    56 If a covered bank (acting as agent) is a direct party to a covered QFC, then the general prohibitions of section 47.5(d) would only affect the substantive rights of the agent's principal(s) to the extent that the covered QFC provides default rights based directly or indirectly on the entry into resolution of an affiliate of the covered bank (acting as agent).

    Question 12: With respect to the proposed restrictions on cross-default rights in covered banks' QFCs, is the proposed rule sufficiently clear, such that parties to a conforming QFC will understand what default rights are, and are not exercisable, in the context of a GSIB resolution? How could the proposed restrictions be further clarified?

    Question 13: Section 47.5(e)(2) of the proposed rule, addressing general creditor protections, would permit the exercise of default rights based on the failure of the direct party to satisfy its payment or delivery obligations under the covered QFC or “another contract between the same parties” that give rise to a default right in the covered QFC. This exception is not limited to covered QFCs but is intended to reflect the interdependence among all contracts between the same counterparties. Does the scope of the terms “contract” and “same parties” need to be clarified? Should the term “same parties” be clarified to include affiliate credit support providers as well as counterparties?

    Question 14: Are the proposed restrictions on cross-default rights under-inclusive, such that the proposed terms would permit default rights that would have the same or similar potential to undermine an orderly SPOE resolution and should therefore be subjected to similar restrictions?

    Question 15: Would it be appropriate for the prohibition to explicitly cover default rights that are based on or related to the “financial condition” of an affiliate of the direct party (for example, rights based on an affiliate's credit rating, stock price, or regulatory capital levels)?

    Question 16: Should the proposed restrictions be expanded to cover contractual rights that a QFC counterparty may have to exit the termination at will or without cause, including rights that arise on a periodic basis? Could such rights be used to circumvent the proposed restrictions on cross-default rights? If so, how, if at all, should the proposed rule regulate such contractual rights?

    Question 17: With respect to the proposed provisions permitting specific creditor protections in a covered QFC, does the proposed rule draw an appropriate balance between protecting financial stability from risks associated with QFC unwinds and maintaining important creditor protections? Should the proposed set of permitted creditor protections be expanded to allow for other creditor protections that would fall within the proposed restrictions? Is the proposed set of permitted creditor protections sufficiently clear?

    Question 18: With respect to the proposed requirement for burden-of-proof provisions in a covered QFC, is the standard clear? Would the proposed requirement advance the goals of this proposed rule? Would those goals be better advanced by alternative or complementary provisions?

    Question 19: Should the proposed rule require periodic legal review of the legal enforceability of the required provisions in relevant jurisdictions? If periodic legal review is not required, should covered banks be required to monitor the applicable law in the relevant jurisdiction for material changes in law?

    Question 20: The OCC invites comment on all aspects of the proposed treatment of agency transactions, including whether credit protections should apply to QFCs where the direct party is acting as agent under the QFC.

    G. Process for Approval of Enhanced Creditor Protections (Section 47.6)

    As discussed previously, the proposed restrictions would leave many creditor protections that are commonly included in QFCs unaffected. The proposed rule would also allow any covered bank to submit to the OCC a request to approve as compliant with the proposed rule one or more QFCs that contain additional creditor protections—that is, creditor protections that would be impermissible under the proposed restrictions set forth previously. A covered bank making such a request would be required to explain how its request is consistent with the purposes of this proposed rule, including an analysis of the contractual terms for which approval is requested in light of a range of factors that are laid out by the proposed rule and intended to facilitate the OCC's consideration of whether permitting the contractual terms would be consistent with the proposed restrictions. The OCC expects to consult with the FDIC and Board during its consideration of a request under this section.

    The first two factors concern the potential impact of the requested creditor protections on GSIB resilience and resolvability. The next four concern the potential scope of the covered bank's request: A doption on an industry-wide basis, coverage of existing and future transactions, coverage of one or multiple QFCs, and coverage of some or all covered banks. Creditor protections that may be applied on an industry-wide basis may help to ensure that impediments to resolution are addressed on a uniform basis, which could increase market certainty, transparency, and equitable treatment. Creditor protections that apply broadly to a range of QFCs and covered banks would increase the chance that all of a GSIB's QFC counterparties would be treated the same way during a resolution of that GSIB and may improve the prospects for an orderly resolution of that GSIB. By contrast, covered bank requests that would expand counterparties' rights beyond those afforded under existing QFCs would conflict with the proposed rule's goal of reducing the risk of mass unwinds of GSIB QFCs. The proposed rule also includes three factors that focus on the creditor protections specific to supported parties. The OCC may weigh the appropriateness of additional protections for supported QFCs against the potential impact of such provisions on the orderly resolution of a GSIB.

    In addition to analyzing the request under the enumerated factors, a covered bank requesting that the OCC approve enhanced creditor protections would be required to submit a legal opinion stating that the requested terms would be valid and enforceable under the applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, along with any additional relevant information requested by the OCC.

    Under the proposed rule, the OCC could approve a request for an alternative set of creditor protections if the terms of that QFC, as compared to a covered QFC containing only the limited exceptions discussed previously, would promote the orderly resolution of federally chartered or licensed institutions or their affiliates, prevent or mitigate risks to the financial stability of the United States or the Federal banking system that could arise from the failure of a global systemically important BHC or global systemically important FBO, and protect the safety and soundness of covered banks to at least the same extent. The proposed request-and-approval process would improve flexibility by allowing for an industry-proposed alternative to the set of creditor protections permitted by the proposed rule while ensuring that any approved alternative would serve the proposed rule's policy goals to at least the same extent.

    Compliance with the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol. In lieu of the process for the approval of enhanced creditor protections that are described previously, a covered bank would be permitted to comply with the proposed rule by amending a covered QFC through adherence to the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol (including immaterial amendments to the Protocol).57 The Protocol “enables parties to amend the terms of their financial contracts to contractually recognize the cross-border application of special resolution regimes applicable to certain financial companies and support the resolution of certain financial companies under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.” 58 The Protocol amends ISDA Master Agreements, which are used for derivatives transactions. Market participants also may amend their master agreements for securities financing transactions by adhering to the Securities Financing Transaction Annex 59 to the Protocol and may amend all other QFCs by adhering to the Other Agreements Annex. Thus, a covered bank would be able to comply with the proposed rule with respect to all of its covered QFCs through adherence to the Protocol and the annexes.

    57 International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., “ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol” (November 4, 2015), available at http://assets.isda.org/media/ac6b533f-3/5a7c32f8-pdf/. The Protocol was developed by a working group of member institutions of the ISDA, in coordination with the FRB, the FDIC, the OCC, and foreign financial supervisory agencies. ISDA is expected to supplement the Protocol with ISDA Resolution Stay Jurisdictional Modular Protocols for the United States and other jurisdictions. A U.S. module that is the same in all respects to the Protocol aside from exempting QFCs between adherents that are not covered banks would be consistent with the current proposed rule.

    58 Protocol Press Release at http://www2.isda.org/functional-areas/protocol-management/protocol/22.

    59 The Securities Financing Transaction Annex was developed by the International Capital Markets Association, the International Securities Lending Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, in coordination with the ISDA.

    The Protocol has the same general objective as the proposed rule, which is to make GSIB entities more resolvable by amending their contracts to, in effect, contractually recognize the applicability of special resolution regimes (including the OLA and the FDIA) and to restrict cross-default provisions to facilitate orderly resolution under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The provisions of the Protocol largely track the requirements of the proposed rule.60 However, the Protocol does have a narrower scope than the proposed rule,61 and it allows for somewhat stronger creditor protections than would otherwise be permitted under the proposed rule.62

    60 For example, sections 2(a) and 2(b) of the Protocol impose general prohibitions on cross-default rights based on the entry of an affiliate of the direct party into the most common U.S. resolution proceedings, including resolution under the Bankruptcy Code. By allowing the exercise of “Performance Default Rights” and “Unrelated Default Rights,” as those terms are defined in section 6 of the Protocol, sections 2(a) and 2(b) also generally permit the creditor protections that would be allowed under the proposed rule. Section 2(f) of the Protocol overrides certain contractual provisions that would block the transfer of a credit enhancement to a transferee entity. Section 2(i), complemented by the Protocol's definition of the term “Unrelated Default Rights,” provides that a party seeking to exercise permitted default rights must bear the burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that those rights may indeed be exercised.

    61 The restrictions on default rights imposed by section 2 of the Protocol apply only when an affiliate of the direct party enters “U.S. Insolvency Proceedings,” which is defined to include proceedings under Chapters 7 and 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, the FDIA, and the Securities Investor Protection Act. By contrast, section 47.4 of the proposed rule would apply broadly to default rights related to affiliates of the direct party “becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding,” which encompasses proceedings under State and foreign law.

    62 For example, the Protocol allows a non-defaulting party to exercise cross-default rights based on the entry of an affiliate of the direct party into certain resolution proceedings if the direct party's U.S. parent has not gone into resolution. See paragraph (b) of the Protocol's definition of “Unrelated Default Rights”; see also sections 1 and 3(b) of the Protocol. As another example, if the affiliate credit support provider that has entered bankruptcy remains obligated under the credit enhancement, rather than transferring it to a transferee, then the Protocol's restrictions on the exercise of default rights continue to apply beyond the stay period only if the Bankruptcy Court issues a “Creditor Protection Order.” Such an order would, among other things, grant administrative expense status to the non-defaulting party's claims under the credit enhancement. See sections 2(b)(i)(B) and 2(b)(iii)(B) of the Protocol and the Protocol's definitions of “Creditor Protection Order” and “DIP Stay Conditions.”

    The Protocol also includes a feature, not included in the proposed rule, that compensates for the Protocol's narrower scope and allowance for stronger creditor protections: When an entity (whether or not it is a covered bank) adheres to the Protocol, it necessarily adheres to the Protocol with respect to all covered entities that have also adhered to the Protocol.63 Thus, if all covered banks adhere to the Protocol, any other entity that chooses to adhere will simultaneously adhere with respect to all covered entities and covered banks. By allowing for all covered QFCs to be modified by the same contractual terms, this “all-or-none” feature would promote transparency, predictability, and equal treatment with respect to counterparties' default rights during the resolution of a GSIB entity and thereby advance the proposed rule's objective of increasing the likelihood that such a resolution could be carried out in an orderly manner.

    63 Under section 4(a) of the Protocol, the Protocol is generally effective as between any two adhering parties, once the relevant effective date has arrived. Under section 4(b)(ii), an adhering party that is not a covered bank may choose to opt out of section 2 of the Protocol with respect to its contracts with any other adhering party that is also not a covered bank. However, the Protocol will apply to relationships between any covered bank that adheres and any other adhering party.

    Like section 47.5 of the proposed rule, section 2 of the Protocol was developed to increase GSIB resolvability under the Bankruptcy Code and other U.S. insolvency regimes. The Protocol does allow for somewhat broader creditor protections than would otherwise be permitted under the proposed rule, but, consistent with the Protocol's purpose, those additional creditor protections would not materially diminish the prospects for the orderly resolution of a GSIB. And the Protocol carries the desirable all-or-none feature, which would further increase a GSIB entity's resolvability and which the proposed rule otherwise lacks. For these reasons, and consistent with the broad policy objective of enhancing the stability of the U.S. financial system by increasing the resolvability of systemically important financial companies in the United States, the proposed rule would allow a covered bank to bring its covered QFCs into compliance by amending them through adherence to the Protocol (and, as relevant, the annexes to the Protocol).

    Question 21: Are the proposed considerations for the approval of enhanced credit protections the appropriate factors for the OCC to take into account in deciding whether to grant a request for approval? What other considerations are potentially relevant to such a decision?

    Question 22: Should the OCC provide greater specificity for the process and procedures for the submission and approval of requests for alternative enhanced credit protections? If so, what processes and procedures could be adopted without imposing undue regulatory burden?

    Question 23: The OCC invites comment on its proposal to treat as compliant with section 47.6 of the proposal any covered QFC that has been amended by the Protocol. Does adherence to the Protocol suffice to meet the goals of this proposed rule, appropriately protect the Federal banking system and safeguard U.S. financial stability? Should additional guidance be provided that would clarify the consultation process with the FRB or any other relevant supervisory agency?

    H. Transition Periods (Sections 47.4 and 47.5)

    Under this proposed rule, the final rule would take effect on the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins at least one year after the issuance of the final rule (effective date).64 National banks, FSAs, and Federal branches and agencies that are covered banks when the final rule is issued would be required to comply with the proposed requirements beginning on the effective date. Thus, a covered bank would be required to ensure that covered QFCs entered into on or after the effective date comply with the rule's requirements. Moreover, a covered bank would be required to bring preexisting covered QFCs entered into prior to the effective date into compliance with the rule no later than the first date on or after the effective date on which the covered bank enters into a new covered QFC with the counterparty to the preexisting covered QFC or with an affiliate of that counterparty. Thus, a covered bank would not be required to conform a preexisting QFC if that covered bank does not enter into any new QFCs with the same counterparty or an affiliate of that counterparty on or after the effective date. Finally, a national bank, FSA, or Federal branch or agency that becomes a covered bank after the final rule is issued would be required to comply by the first day of the first calendar quarter that begins at least one year after it becomes a covered bank.

    64 Under section 302(b) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994, new regulations that impose requirements on insured depository institutions generally must “take effect on the first day of a calendar quarter which begins on or after the date on which the regulations are published in final form.” 12 U.S.C. 4802(b).

    By permitting a covered bank to remain party to nonconforming QFCs entered into before the effective date unless the covered bank enters into new QFCs with the same counterparty or its affiliate, the proposed rule draws a balance between ensuring QFC continuity if a global systemically important BHC or FBO were to fail and ensuring that covered banks and their existing counterparties can avoid any compliance costs associated with conforming existing QFCs by refraining from entering into new QFCs and avoiding unnecessary disruption to existing QFCs. The requirement that a covered bank ensure that all existing QFCs are compliant before entering into a new QFC with the same counterparty or its affiliate will provide covered banks with an incentive to seek the modifications necessary to ensure that their QFCs with the most significant counterparties are compliant.

    A covered bank would be required to bring a preexisting covered QFC entered into prior to the effective date into compliance with the rule no later than the first date on or after the effective date on which the covered bank or an affiliate (that is also a covered entity or covered bank) enters into a new covered QFC with the counterparty to the preexisting covered QFC or an affiliate of the counterparty. The OCC believes such an approach is warranted to ensure that adoption of the contractual provisions required by the proposed rule are consistent between a given counterparty, any affiliate of the counterparty, and the covered bank and all of the affiliates of the covered bank (which would essentially be all of the entities under a global systemically important BHC or FBO). The OCC is concerned that to allow counterparties to adopt the required contractual provisions with affiliated covered entities, but not the covered bank, poses a risk to the safety and soundness of the covered bank and would frustrate the goal of facilitating the orderly resolution of the covered bank (and its affiliate covered entities). Furthermore, the OCC expects that, as a practical matter, the decision of how to comply with this proposed rule and the FRB Proposal with respect to a given counterparty, and its affiliates, will be made in close coordination between the covered bank and its affiliated covered entities.

    The OCC believes that adoption of the modifications required by the proposed rule should be consistent between a given counterparty and all entities under a global systemically important BHC or FBO, which necessitates allowing a trade by either a covered bank or a covered entity to trigger adoption of the required provisions. Moreover, the volume of nonconforming covered QFCs outstanding can be expected to decrease over time and eventually to reach zero. In light of these considerations, and to avoid creating potentially inappropriate compliance costs with respect to existing QFCs (which a covered bank would generally be unable to modify without its counterparty's consent), it may be appropriate to permit a limited number of nonconforming QFCs to remain outstanding, in keeping with the terms described previously. The OCC will monitor covered banks' levels of nonconforming QFCs and evaluate the risk, if any, that they pose to the safety and soundness of the covered banks or to the Federal banking system and to U.S. financial stability.

    Question 24: With respect to the proposed transaction periods, would there be a reasonable basis for adopting different compliance deadlines with respect to different classes of QFCs? If so, how should those classes be distinguished, and what would be a reasonable time frame for compliance?

    Question 25: Is it necessary for a covered bank to bring preexisting covered QFCs entered into prior to the effective date into compliance with the rule based on a covered bank's affiliate's (that is also a covered entity or covered bank) transaction with a counterparty or its affiliates? Is it appropriate to ensure consistent treatment across all affiliated covered banks, covered entities, and affiliated counterparties?

    I. Amendments to Capital Rules

    The Basel III Capital Framework, as implemented by the OCC and the other banking agencies, permits a bank to measure exposure from certain types of financial contracts on a net basis and recognize the risk-mitigating effect of financial collateral for other types of exposures, provided that the contracts are subject to a “qualifying master netting agreement,” a collateral agreement, eligible margin loan, or repo-style transaction (collectively referred to as netting agreements) that provides for certain rights upon a counterparty default. With limited exception, to qualify for netting treatment, a qualifying netting agreement must permit a bank to terminate, apply close-out netting, and promptly liquidate or set-off collateral upon an event of default of the counterparty (default rights), thereby reducing its counterparty exposure and market risks.65 Measuring the amount of exposure of these contracts on a net basis, rather than a gross basis, results in a lower measure of exposure, and thus, a lower capital requirement.

    65See 12 CFR 3.2 definition of collateral agreement, eligible margin loan, repo-style transaction, and qualifying master netting agreement.

    An exception to the immediate close-out requirement is made for the stay of default rights if the financial company is in receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act,66 or the FDIA.67 Accordingly, transactions conducted under netting agreements where default rights may be stayed under Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act or the FDIA would not be disqualified from netting treatment.

    66See 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)-(16).

    67See 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(8)-(13).

    On December 30, 2014, the OCC and the FRB issued an interim final rule (effective January 1, 2015) that amended the definitions of “qualifying master netting agreement,” “collateral agreement,” “eligible margin loan,” and “repo-style transaction,” in the OCC and FRB regulatory capital rules, and “qualifying master netting agreement” in the OCC and FRB liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) rules to expand the exception to the immediate close-out requirement to ensure that the current netting treatment under the regulatory capital, liquidity, and lending limits rules for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives, repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and other collateralized transactions would be unaffected by the adoption of various foreign special resolution regimes through the ISDA Protocol.68 In particular, the interim final rule amended these definitions to provide that a relevant netting agreement or collateral agreement may provide for a limited stay or avoidance of rights where the agreement is subject by its terms to, or incorporates, certain resolution regimes applicable to financial companies, including Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIA, or any similar foreign resolution regime that provides for limited stays substantially similar to the stay for qualified financial contracts provided in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act or the FDIA.

    68 The FDIC issued a NPRM on January 30, 2015 to propose these conforming amendments. See 80 FR 5063 (January 30, 2015).

    Section 47.4 of the proposed rule essentially limits the default rights exercisable against a covered bank to the same stay and transfer restrictions imposed under the U.S. special resolution regime against a direct counterparty. Section 47.4 of the proposed rule mirrors the contractual stay and transfer restrictions reflected in the ISDA Protocol with one notable difference. While adoption of the ISDA Protocol is voluntary, covered banks subject to the proposed rule must conform their covered QFCs to the stay and transfer restrictions in section 47.4.

    With respect to limitations on cross-default rights in proposed section 47.5, the OCC is proposing amendments in order to maintain the existing netting treatment for covered QFCs for purposes of the regulatory capital, liquidity, and lending limits rules. Specifically, the OCC is proposing to amend the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement,” as well as to make conforming amendments to “collateral agreement, “eligible margin loan,” and “repo-style transaction,” in the regulatory capital rules in part 3, and “qualifying master netting agreement” in the LCR rules in part 50 to ensure that the regulatory capital, liquidity, and lending limits treatment of OTC derivatives, repo-style transactions, eligible margin loans, and other collateralized transactions would be unaffected by the adoption of proposed section 47.5. Without these proposed amendments, covered banks that amend their covered QFCs to comply with this proposed rule would no longer be permitted to recognize covered QFCs as subject to a qualifying master netting agreement or satisfying the criteria necessary for the current regulatory capital, liquidity, and lending limits treatment, and would be required to measure exposure from these contracts on a gross, rather than net, basis. This result would undermine the proposed requirements in section 47.5. The OCC does not believe that the disqualification of covered QFCs from master netting agreements would accurately reflect the risk posed by these OTC derivative transactions.

    Although the proposed rule reformats some of the definitions in parts 3 and 50 to include the text from the interim final rule, the proposed amendments do not alter the substance or effect of the prior amendment adopted by the interim final rule.

    The rule establishing margin and capital requirements for covered swap entities (swap margin rule) defines the term “eligible master netting agreement” in a manner similar to the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement.” 69 Thus, it may also be appropriate to amend the definition of “eligible master netting agreement” to account for the proposed restrictions on covered entities' QFCs.

    69 80 FR 74840, 74861-74862 (November 30, 2015).

    Question 26: As noted, the requirements of this proposed rule are mandatory for all covered banks with respect to their covered QFCs. Under the proposed rule failure by a covered bank to conform its covered QFCs to the mandatory requirements would be a violation of the rule. In light of the important policy objectives of this proposed rule, should the regulatory capital and LCR rules require that nonconforming covered QFCs that violate the requirements of the proposed rule be disqualified from netting treatment?

    Question 27. In order to qualify for netting treatment under the regulatory capital rules, eligible margin loans, qualifying master netting agreements, and repo-style transactions require national banks and FSAs to conduct sufficient legal review to ensure that the provisions of these financial contracts would be enforceable in all relevant jurisdictions. Should the scope of the legal review requirement be expanded to explicitly include the enforceability of the direct default and cross-default provisions required by the proposed rule?

    IV. Request for Comments

    In addition to the specifically enumerated questions in the preamble, the OCC requests comment on all aspects of this proposed rule. The OCC requests that, for the specifically enumerated questions, commenters include the number of the question in their response to make review of the comments more efficient.

    V. Regulatory Analysis A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    In accordance with section 3512 of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) (as amended), the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.

    Certain provisions of the proposed rule contain “collection of information” requirements within the meaning of the PRA. In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently-valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements contained in this proposed rulemaking have been submitted to OMB for review and approval under section 3507(d) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) and section 1320.11 of the OMB's implementing regulations (5 CFR 1320).

    Comments are invited on:

    (a) Whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility;

    (b) The accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collections, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

    (c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

    (d) Ways to minimize the burden of the information collections 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.

    All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments on aspects of this notice that may affect reporting, recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements and burden estimates should be sent to the addresses listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. A copy of the comments may also be submitted to the OMB desk officer for the agencies: by mail to U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., #10235, Washington, DC 20503; by facsimile to (202) 395-5806; or by email to: [email protected], Attention, Federal Banking Agency Desk Officer.

    Title of Information Collection: Mandatory Contractual Stay Requirements for Qualified Financial Contracts.

    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit.

    Respondents: Banks or FSAs (including any subsidiary of a bank or FSA) that are subsidiaries of a global systemically important BHC that has been designated pursuant to 252.82(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY; Banks or FSAs (including any subsidiary of a bank or FSA) that are subsidiaries of a global systemically important FBO designated pursuant to section 252.87 of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY; and Federal branches and agencies (including any U.S. subsidiary of a Federal branch or agency), of a global systemically important FBO that has been designated pursuant to section 252.87 of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY.

    Abstract: Section 47.6 provides that a covered bank may request that the OCC approve as compliant with the requirements of section 47.5, regarding insolvency proceedings, provisions of one or more forms of covered QFCs, or amendments to one or more forms of covered QFCs, with enhanced creditor protection conditions. The request must include: (1) an analysis of the proposal under each consideration of the relevance of creditor protection provisions; (2) a written legal opinion verifying that proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, including, in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and (3) any additional information relevant to its approval that the OCC requests.

    Burden Estimates:

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 42.

    Estimated Burden per Respondent:

    Reporting (§ 47.7): 40 hours.

    Total Estimated Burden: 1,680 hours.

    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. (“RFA”), generally requires that, in connection with a NPRM, an agency prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of a proposed rule on small entities.70 The Small Business Administration has defined “small entities” for banking purposes to include a bank or savings association with $175 million or less in assets.71

    70See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).

    71See 13 CFR 121.201.

    The OCC currently supervises approximately 1,032 small entities. The scope of the proposal is limited to large banks and their affiliates. Therefore, the proposed rule will not impact any OCC-supervised small entities. Accordingly, the proposal will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The OCC has analyzed the proposed rule under the factors in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).72 Under this analysis, the OCC considered whether the proposed 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 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation). The UMRA does not apply to regulations that incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law.

    72 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.

    The OCC's estimated UMRA cost is less than $2 million. Therefore, the OCC finds that the proposed rule does not trigger the UMRA cost threshold. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared the written statement described in section 202 of the UMRA.

    D. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994

    Pursuant to section 302(a) of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 (RCDRI Act),73 in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for new regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosure, or other requirements on insured depository institutions, the OCC will consider, consistent with the principles of safety and soundness and the public interest: (1) Any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions and customers of depository institutions, and (2) the benefits of the proposed rule. The OCC requests comment on any administrative burdens that the proposed rule would place on depository institutions, including small depository institutions, and their customers, and the benefits of the proposed rule that the OCC should consider in determining the effective date and administrative compliance requirements for a final rule.

    73 12 U.S.C. 4802(a).

    List of Subjects 12 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure; Capital; Federal savings associations; National banks; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Risk.

    12 CFR Part 47

    Administrative practice and procedure; Banks and banking; Bank resolution; Default rights; Federal savings associations, National banks, Qualified financial contracts; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Securities.

    12 CFR Part 50

    Administrative practice and procedure; Banks and banking; Liquidity; Reporting and recordkeeping requirements; Savings associations.

    Authority and Issuance

    For the reasons stated in the Supplementary Information, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposes to amend part 3, add a new part 47, and amend part 50 as follows:

    PART 3—CAPITAL ADEQUACY STANDARDS 1. The authority citation for part 3 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1818, 1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n note, 1835, 3907, 3909, and 5412(b)(2)(B).

    2. Section 3.2 is amended by: a. Revising the definition of “collateral agreement” by: i. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (1); ii. Removing the period at the end of paragraph (2) and adding in its place “; or”; and iii. Adding a new paragraph (3). b. Revising paragraph (1)(iii) of the definition of “eligible margin loan”; and c. Revising the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” by: i. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (2)(i); ii. Removing the ”;” at the end of paragraph (2)(ii) and adding in its place “; or”; and iii. Adding a new paragraph (2)(iii). d. Revising paragraph (3)(ii)(A) of the definition of “repo-style transaction”.

    The revisions are set forth below:

    § 3.2 Definitions.

    Collateral agreement means * * *

    (3) Where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is limited only to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of part 47 of this title 12 or any similar requirements of another U.S. Federal banking agency, as applicable.

    Eligible margin loan means: (1) * * *

    (iii) The extension of credit is conducted under an agreement that provides the national bank or Federal savings association the right to accelerate and terminate the extension of credit and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, insolvency, liquidation, conservatorship, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case, any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:

    (A) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or under any similar insolvency law applicable to GSEs,5 or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar 6 to the U.S. laws referenced in this paragraph in order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the defaulting counterparty; or

    5 This requirement is met where all transactions under the agreement are (i) executed under U.S. law and (ii) constitute “securities contracts” under section 555 of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 555), qualified financial contracts under section 11(e)(8) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, or netting contracts between or among financial institutions under sections 401-407 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act or the FRB's Regulation EE (12 CFR part 231).

    6 The OCC expects to evaluate jointly with the FRB and FDIC whether foreign special resolution regimes meet the requirements of this paragraph.

    (B) Where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is limited only to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of part 47 of this title 12 or any similar requirements of another U.S. Federal banking agency, as applicable;

    or

    Qualifying master netting agreement means a written, legally enforceable agreement provided that:

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is limited only to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of part 47 of this title 12 or any similar requirements of another U.S. Federal banking agency, as applicable.

    Repo-style transaction means a repurchase or reverse repurchase transaction, or a securities borrowing or securities lending transaction, including a transaction in which the national bank or Federal savings association acts as agent for a customer and indemnifies the customer against loss, provided that:

    (3) * * *

    (ii) * * *

    (A) The transaction is executed under an agreement that provides the national bank or Federal savings association the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out the transaction on a net basis and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default, including upon an event of receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding, of the counterparty, provided that, in any such case, any exercise of rights under the agreement will not be stayed or avoided under applicable law in the relevant jurisdictions, other than:

    (1) In receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, or under any similar insolvency law applicable to GSEs, or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar 8 to the U.S. laws referenced in this paragraph (3)(ii)(a) in order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the defaulting counterparty; or

    8 The OCC expects to evaluate jointly with the FRB and FDIC whether foreign special resolution regimes meet the requirements of this paragraph.

    (2) Where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is limited only to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of part 47 of this title 12 or any similar requirements of another U.S. Federal banking agency, as applicable; or

    PART 47—MANDATORY CONTRACTUAL STAY REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED FINANCIAL CONTRACTS 3. The authority citation for Part 47 shall read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 481, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831o, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835, 3102(b), 3108(a), 5412(b)(2)(B), (D)-(F).

    4. Add new Part 47 to read as follows: PART 47—MANDATORY CONTRACTUAL STAY REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED FINANCIAL CONTRACTS Sec. 47.1 Authority and Purpose. 47.2 Definitions. 47.3 Applicability. 47.4 U.S. Special Resolution Regimes. 47.5 Insolvency Proceedings. 47.6 Approval of Enhanced Creditor Protection Conditions. 47.7 Exclusion of Certain QFCs. 47.8 Foreign Bank Multi-Branch Master Agreements. PART 47—MANDATORY CONTRACTUAL STAY REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED FINANCIAL CONTRACTS
    § 47.1 Authority and Purpose.

    (a) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 1, 93a, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 1818, 1828, 1831n, 1831p-1, 1831w, 1835, 3102(b), 3108(a), 5412(b)(2)(B), (D)-(F).

    (b) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to promote the safety and soundness of federally chartered or licensed institutions by mitigating the potential destabilizing effects of the resolution of a global significantly important banking entity on an affiliate that is a covered bank (as defined by this part) by requiring covered banks to include in financial contracts covered by this part certain mandatory contractual provisions relating to stays on acceleration and close out rights and transfer rights.

    § 47.2 Definitions.

    Central counterparty or CCP has the same meaning as in section 252.81 of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.81).

    Chapter 11 proceeding means a proceeding under the provisions of Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy laws of the United States at 11 U.S.C. 1101-74 (Chapter 11 of Title 11, United States Code).

    Covered entity has the same meaning as in section 252.82(a) of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.82).

    Covered QFC means a QFC as defined in sections 47.4(a) and 47.5(a) of this part.

    Credit enhancement means a QFC of the type set forth in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act at section 210(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XII), (iii)(X), (iv)(V), (v)(VI), or (vi)(VI), 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XII), (iii)(X), (iv)(V), (v)(VI), or (vi)(VI); or a credit enhancement that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation determines by regulation is a QFC pursuant to section 210(c)(8)(D)(i), 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(i), of the Dodd-Frank Act.

    Default right (1) Means, with respect to a QFC, any:

    (i) Right of a party, whether contractual or otherwise (including, without limitation, rights incorporated by reference to any other contract, agreement, or document, and rights afforded by statute, civil code, regulation, and common law), to liquidate, terminate, cancel, rescind, or accelerate such agreement or transactions thereunder, set off or net amounts owing in respect thereto (except rights related to same-day payment netting), exercise remedies in respect of collateral or other credit support or property related thereto (including the purchase and sale of property), demand payment or delivery thereunder or in respect thereof (other than a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure), suspend, delay, or defer payment or performance thereunder, or modify the obligations of a party thereunder, or any similar rights; and

    (ii) Right or contractual provision that alters the amount of collateral or margin that must be provided with respect to an exposure thereunder, including by altering any initial amount, threshold amount, variation margin, minimum transfer amount, the margin value of collateral, or any similar amount, that entitles a party to demand the return of any collateral or margin transferred by it to the other party or a custodian or that modifies a transferee's right to reuse collateral or margin (if such right previously existed), or any similar rights, in each case, other than a right or operation of a contractual provision arising solely from a change in the value of collateral or margin or a change in the amount of an economic exposure;

    (2) With respect to section 47.5 of this part, does not include any right under a contract that allows a party to terminate the contract on demand, or at its option at a specified time, or from time to time, without the need to show cause.

    Dodd-Frank Act means the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (July 21, 2010).

    FDIA proceeding means a proceeding in which the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is appointed as conservator or receiver under section 11 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821.

    FDIA stay period means, in connection with an FDIA proceeding, the period of time during which a party to a QFC whose counterparty is subject to an FDIA proceeding may not exercise any right that the counterparty has to terminate, liquidate, or net such QFC, in accordance with section 11(e) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. 1821(e), and any implementing regulations.

    Master agreement means a QFC of the type set forth in Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act at section 210(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XI), (iii)(IX), (iv)(IV), (v)(V), or (vi)(V), 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(ii)(XI), (iii)(IX), (iv)(IV), (v)(V), or (vi)(V); or a master agreement that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation determines by regulation is a QFC pursuant to section 210(c)(8)(D)(i) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D)(i).

    QFC or qualified financial contract has the same meaning as in section 210(c)(8)(D) of Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5390(c)(8)(D).

    Subsidiary of covered bank means any operating subsidiary of a national bank, Federal savings association, or Federal branch or agency as defined in 12 CFR 5.34 (national banks) or 12 CFR 5.38 (FSAs), or any other subsidiary of a covered bank as defined in section 252.82(a)(2) and (3) of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.82(a)(2) and (3)).

    U.S. special resolution regimes means the Federal Deposit Insurance Act at 12 U.S.C. 1811-1835a and regulations promulgated thereunder and Title II of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5381-5394, and regulations promulgated thereunder.

    § 47.3 Applicability.

    (a) Scope of applicability. This part applies to a “covered bank,” which includes:

    (i) A national bank or Federal savings association (including any subsidiary of a national bank or a Federal savings association) that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important bank holding company that has been designated pursuant to section 252.82(a)(1) of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.82(a)(1)); or

    (ii) A national bank or Federal savings association (including any subsidiary of a national bank or a Federal savings association) that is a subsidiary of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to section 252.87 of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.87); or

    (iii) A Federal branch or agency, as defined in the Subpart B of Part 28 of this Chapter (governing Federal branches and agencies), and any U.S. subsidiary of the Federal branch or agency, of a global systemically important foreign banking organization that has been designated pursuant to section 252.87 of the Federal Reserve Board's Regulation YY (12 CFR 252.87).

    (b) Subsidiary of a covered bank. This part generally applies to the subsidiary of any national bank, Federal savings association, or Federal branch or agency that is a covered bank under paragraph (a)(1) of this section. Specifically, the covered bank is required to ensure that a covered QFC to which the subsidiary is a party (as a direct counterparty or a support provider) satisfies the requirements of sections 47.4 and 47.5 of this part in the same manner and to the same extent applicable to the covered bank.

    (c) Initial applicability of requirements for covered QFCs. A covered bank must comply with the requirements of sections 47.4 and 47.5 beginning on the later of

    (1) The first day of the calendar quarter immediately following 365 days (1 year) after becoming a covered bank; or

    (2) The date this subpart first becomes effective.

    (d) Rule of construction. For purposes of this subpart, the exercise of a default right with respect to a covered QFC includes the automatic or deemed exercise of the default right pursuant to the terms of the QFC or other arrangement.

    § 47.4 U.S. Special Resolution Regimes.

    (a) QFCs required to be conformed. (1) A covered bank must ensure that each of its covered QFCs conforms to the requirements of this section 47.4.

    (2) For purposes of this section 47.4, a covered QFC means a QFC that the covered bank:

    (i) Enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to; or

    (ii) Entered, executed, or otherwise became a party to before the date this subpart first becomes effective, if the covered bank or any affiliate that is a covered bank or covered entity also enters, executes, or otherwise becomes a party to a QFC with the same person or affiliate of the same person on or after the date this subpart first becomes effective.

    (3) To the extent that the covered bank is acting as agent with respect to a QFC, the requirements of this section apply to the extent the transfer of the QFC relates to the covered bank or the default rights relate to the covered bank or an affiliate of the covered bank.

    (b) Provisions required. A covered QFC must explicitly provide that:

    (1) The transfer of the covered QFC (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, the covered QFC) from the covered bank will be effective to the same extent as the transfer would be effective under the U.S. special resolution regimes if the covered QFC (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, the covered QFC) were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States and the covered bank were under the U.S. special resolution regime; and

    (2) Default rights with respect to the covered QFC that may be exercised against the covered bank are permitted to be exercised to no greater extent than the default rights could be exercised under the U.S. special resolution regimes if the covered QFC was governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States and the covered bank were under the U.S. special resolution regime.

    (c) Relevance of creditor protection provisions. The requirements of this section apply notwithstanding paragraphs (e), (g), and (i) of section 47.5.

    § 47.5 Insolvency Proceedings.

    (a) QFCs required to be conformed. (1) A covered bank must ensure that each covered QFC conforms to the requirements of this section 47.5.

    (2) For purposes of this section 47.5, a covered QFC has the same definition as in paragraph (a)(2) of section 47.4.

    (3) To the extent that the covered bank is acting as agent with respect to a QFC, the requirements of this section apply to the extent the transfer of the QFC relates to the covered bank or the default rights relate to an affiliate of the covered bank.

    (b) General Prohibitions. (1) A covered QFC may not permit the exercise of any default right with respect to the covered QFC that is related, directly or indirectly, to an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding.

    (2) A covered QFC may not prohibit the transfer of a covered affiliate credit enhancement, any interest or obligation in or under the covered affiliate credit enhancement, or any property securing the covered affiliate credit enhancement to a transferee upon an affiliate of the direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding unless the transfer would result in the supported party being the beneficiary of the credit enhancement in violation of any law applicable to the supported party.

    (c) Definitions relevant to the general prohibitions and this part. (1) Direct party. Direct party means covered bank, or covered entity referenced in section 47.2, that is a party to the direct QFC.

    (2) Direct QFC. Direct QFC means a QFC that is not a credit enhancement, provided that, for a QFC that is a master agreement that includes an affiliate credit enhancement as a supplement to the master agreement, the direct QFC does not include the affiliate credit enhancement.

    (3) Affiliate credit enhancement. Affiliate credit enhancement means a credit enhancement that is provided by an affiliate of a party to the direct QFC that the credit enhancement supports.

    (d) Treatment of agent transactions. With respect to a QFC that is a covered QFC for a covered bank solely because the covered bank is acting as agent under the QFC, the covered bank is the direct party.

    (e) General creditor protections. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a covered direct QFC and covered affiliate credit enhancement that supports the covered direct QFC may permit the exercise of a default right with respect to the covered QFC that arises as a result of:

    (1) The direct party becoming subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding other than a receivership, conservatorship, or resolution under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title II of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, or laws of foreign jurisdictions that are substantially similar to the U.S. laws referenced in this paragraph (e)(1) in order to facilitate the orderly resolution of the direct party;

    (2) The direct party not satisfying a payment or delivery obligation pursuant to the covered QFC or another contract between the same parties that gives rise to a default right in the covered QFC; or

    (3) The covered affiliate support provider or transferee not satisfying a payment or delivery obligation pursuant to a covered affiliate credit enhancement that supports the covered direct QFC.

    (f) Definitions relevant to the general creditor protections and this part. (1) Covered direct QFC. Covered direct QFC means a direct QFC to which a covered bank, or a covered entity referenced in section 47.2, is a party.

    (2) Covered affiliate credit enhancement. Covered affiliate credit enhancement means an affiliate credit enhancement in which a covered bank, or a covered entity referenced in section 47.2, is the obligor of the credit enhancement.

    (3) Covered affiliate support provider. Covered affiliate support provider means, with respect to a covered affiliate credit enhancement, the affiliate of the direct party that is obligated under the covered affiliate credit enhancement and is not a transferee.

    (4) Supported party. Supported party means, with respect to a covered affiliate credit enhancement and the direct QFC that the covered affiliate credit enhancement supports, a party that is a beneficiary of the covered affiliate support provider's obligation under the covered affiliate credit enhancement.

    (g) Additional creditor protections for supported QFCs. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, with respect to a covered direct QFC that is supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement, the covered direct QFC and the covered affiliate credit enhancement may permit the exercise of a default right that is related, directly or indirectly, to the covered affiliate support provider after the stay period if:

    (1) The covered affiliate support provider that remains obligated under the covered affiliate credit enhancement becomes subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding other than a Chapter 11 proceeding;

    (2) Subject to paragraph (i) of this section, the transferee, if any, becomes subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding;

    (3) The covered affiliate support provider does not remain, and a transferee does not become, obligated to the same, or substantially similar, extent as the covered affiliate support provider was obligated immediately prior to entering the receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding with respect to:

    (i) The covered affiliate credit enhancement,

    (ii) All other covered affiliate credit enhancements provided by the covered affiliate support provider in support of other covered direct QFCs between the direct party and the supported party under the covered affiliate credit enhancement referenced in paragraph 47(g)(3)(i), and

    (iii) All covered affiliate credit enhancements provided by the covered affiliate support provider in support of covered direct QFCs between the direct party and affiliates of the supported party referenced in paragraph 47.5(g)(3)(ii); or

    (4) In the case of a transfer of the covered affiliate credit enhancement to a transferee:

    (i) All of the ownership interests of the direct party directly or indirectly held by the covered affiliate support provider are not transferred to the transferee; or

    (ii) Reasonable assurance has not been provided that all or substantially all of the assets of the covered affiliate support provider (or net proceeds therefrom), excluding any assets reserved for the payment of costs and expenses of administration in the receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding, will be transferred or sold to the transferee in a timely manner.

    (h) Definitions relevant to the additional creditor protections for supported QFCs and this part. (1) Stay period. Stay period means, with respect to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding, the period of time beginning on the commencement of the proceeding and ending at the later of 5:00 p.m. (eastern time) on the business day following the date of the commencement of the proceeding and 48 hours after the commencement of the proceeding.

    (2) Business day. Business day means a day on which commercial banks in the jurisdiction the proceeding is commenced are open for general business (including dealings in foreign exchange and foreign currency deposits).

    (3) Transferee. Transferee means a person to whom a covered affiliate credit enhancement is transferred upon the covered affiliate support provider entering a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding or thereafter as part of the restructuring or reorganization involving the covered affiliate support provider.

    (i) Creditor protections related to FDIA proceedings. Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, with respect to a covered direct QFC that is supported by a covered affiliate credit enhancement, the covered direct QFC and the covered affiliate credit enhancement may permit the exercise of a default right that is related, directly or indirectly, to the covered affiliate support provider becoming subject to FDIA proceedings:

    (1) After the FDIA stay period, if the covered affiliate credit enhancement is not transferred pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 1821(e)(9)-(e)(10) and any regulations promulgated thereunder; or

    (2) During the FDIA stay period, if the default right may only be exercised so as to permit the supported party under the covered affiliate credit enhancement to suspend performance with respect to the supported party's obligations under the covered direct QFC to the same extent as the supported party would be entitled to do if the covered direct QFC were with the covered affiliate support provider and were treated in the same manner as the covered affiliate credit enhancement.

    (j) Prohibited terminations. A covered QFC must require, after an affiliate of the direct party has become subject to a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding:

    (1) The party seeking to exercise a default right to bear the burden of proof that the exercise is permitted under the covered QFC; and

    (2) Clear and convincing evidence or a similar or higher burden of proof to exercise a default right.

    § 47.6 Approval of Enhanced Creditor Protection Conditions.

    (a) Protocol compliance. A covered QFC may permit the exercise of a default right with respect to the covered QFC if the covered QFC has been amended by the ISDA 2015 Universal Resolution Stay Protocol, including the Securities Financing Transaction Annex and Other Agreements Annex published by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc., as of May 3, 2016, and minor or technical amendments thereto.

    (b) Proposal of enhanced creditor protection conditions. (1) A covered bank may request that the OCC approve as compliant with the requirements of section 47.5 of this part provisions of one or more forms of covered QFCs, or amendments to one or more forms of covered QFCs, with enhanced creditor protection conditions.

    (2) Enhanced creditor protection conditions means a set of limited exemptions to the requirements of section 47.5(b) of this part that are different than that of paragraphs (e), (g), and (i) of section 46.5 of this part.

    (3) A covered bank making a request under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must provide:

    (i) An analysis of the proposal that addresses each consideration in paragraph (d) of this section;

    (ii) A written legal opinion verifying that proposed provisions or amendments would be valid and enforceable under applicable law of the relevant jurisdictions, including, in the case of proposed amendments, the validity and enforceability of the proposal to amend the covered QFCs; and

    (iii) Any other relevant information that the OCC requests.

    (c) OCC approval. The OCC may approve, subject to any conditions or commitments the OCC may impose, a proposal by a covered bank under paragraph (b) of this section if the proposal, as compared to a covered QFC that contains only the limited exemptions in paragraphs of (e), (g), and (i) of section 47.5 of this part, would promote the safety and soundness of federally chartered or licensed institutions by mitigating the potential destabilizing effects of the resolution of a global significantly important banking entity that is an affiliate of the covered bank, at least to the same extent.

    (d) Considerations. In reviewing a proposal under this section, the OCC may consider all facts and circumstances related to the proposal, including:

    (1) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would reduce the resiliency of such covered banks during distress or increase the impact of the failure of one or more of the covered banks;

    (2) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would materially decrease the ability of a covered bank, or an affiliate of a covered bank, to be resolved in a rapid and orderly manner in the event of the financial distress or failure of the entity that is required to submit a resolution plan pursuant to Section 165(d) of the Dodd-Frank Act, 12 U.S.C. 5635(d), and the implementing regulations in 12 CFR part 243 (FRB) and 12 CFR part 381 (FDIC);

    (3) Whether, and the extent to which, the set of conditions or the mechanism in which they are applied facilitates, on an industry-wide basis, contractual modifications to remove impediments to resolution and increase market certainty, transparency, and equitable treatment with respect to the default rights of non-defaulting parties to a covered QFC;

    (4) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal applies to existing and future transactions;

    (5) Whether, and the extent to which, the proposal would apply to multiple forms of QFCs or multiple covered banks;

    (6) Whether the proposal would permit a party to a covered QFC that is within the scope of the proposal to adhere to the proposal with respect to only one or a subset of covered banks;

    (7) With respect to a supported party, the degree of assurance the proposal provides to the supported party that the material payment and delivery obligations of the covered affiliate credit enhancement and the covered direct QFC it supports will continue to be performed after the covered affiliate support provider enters a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, resolution, or similar proceeding;

    (8) The presence, nature, and extent of any provisions that require a covered affiliate support provider or transferee to meet conditions other than material payment or delivery obligations to its creditors;

    (9) The extent to which the supported party's overall credit risk to the direct party may increase if the enhanced creditor protection conditions are not met and the likelihood that the supported party's credit risk to the direct party would decrease or remain the same if the enhanced creditor protection conditions are met; and

    (10) Whether the proposal provides the counterparty with additional default rights or other rights.

    § 47.7 Exclusion of Certain QFCs.

    (a) Exclusion of CCP-cleared QFCs. A covered bank is not required to conform a covered QFC to which a CCP is a party to the requirements of sections 47.4 and 47.5.

    (b) Exclusion of covered entity QFCs. A covered bank is not required to conform a covered QFC to the requirements of sections 47.4 and 47.5 to the extent that a covered entity is required to conform the covered QFC to similar requirements of the Federal Reserve Board if the QFC is either a direct QFC to which a covered entity is a direct party or an affiliate credit enhancement to which a covered entity is the obligor.

    § 47.8 Foreign Bank Multi-branch Master Agreements.

    (a) Treatment of foreign bank multi-branch master agreements. With respect to a Federal branch or agency of a globally significant foreign banking organization, a foreign bank multi-branch master agreement that is a covered QFC solely because the master agreement permits agreements or transactions that are QFCs to be entered into at one or more Federal branches or agencies of the globally significant foreign banking organization will be considered a covered QFC for purposes of this subpart only with respect to such agreements or transactions booked at such Federal branches or agencies or for which a payment or delivery may be made at such Federal branches or agencies.

    (b) Definition of foreign bank multi-branch master agreements. A foreign bank multi-branch master agreement means a master agreement that permits a Federal branch or agency and another place of business of a foreign bank that is outside the United States to enter transactions under the agreement.

    PART 50—LIQUIDITY RISK MEASUREMENT STANDARDS 5. The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 93a, 481, 1818, and 1462 et seq.

    6. Section 50.3 is amended by revising the definition of “qualifying master netting agreement” by: i. Removing the word “or” at the end of paragraph (2)(i); ii. Removing the ”;” at the end of paragraph (2)(ii) and adding in its place “; or”; and iii. Adding a new paragraph (2)(iii).

    The revisions are set forth below:

    § 50.3 Definitions.

    Qualifying master netting agreement means a written, legally enforceable agreement provided that:

    (2) * * *

    (iii) Where the right to accelerate, terminate, and close-out on a net basis all transactions under the agreement and to liquidate or set-off collateral promptly upon an event of default of the counterparty is limited only to the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of part 47 of this title 12 or any similar requirements of another U.S. Federal banking agency, as applicable.

    Dated: August 10, 2016. Thomas J. Curry, Comptroller of the Currency.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19671 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0322; FRL-9950-95-Region 9] Approval and Limited Approval and Limited Disapproval of California State Implementation Plan Revisions; Butte County Air Quality Management District; Stationary Source Permits AGENCY:

    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the Butte County Air Quality Management District (BCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern the District's New Source Review (NSR) permitting program for new and modified sources of air pollution. We are proposing action on these local rules under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

    DATES:

    Any comments must arrive by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R09-OAR-2016-0332] at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to [email protected] For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-3534, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

    Table of Contents Definitions I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria? C. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Incorporation by Reference IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

    (i) The word or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The initials CARB mean or refer to the California Air Resources Board.

    (iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal Regulations.

    (iv) The initials or words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

    (v) The initials FR mean or refer to Federal Register.

    (vi) The word or initials BCAQMD or District mean or refer to the Butte County Air Quality Management District.

    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

    (viii) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.

    (ix) The initials PM 10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse particulate matter).

    (x) The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

    (xi) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

    (xii) The initials TSD mean or refer to the technical support document for this action.

    I. The State's Submittal A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were adopted by BCAQMD and submitted by CARB, which is the governor's designee for California SIP submittals.

    Table 1—Submitted Rules Rule No. Rule title Adopted date Submitted date 400 Permit Requirements 04/24/14 11/06/14 401 Permit Exemptions 04/24/14 11/06/14 432 Federal New Source Review 04/24/14 11/06/14

    On December 18, 2014, EPA determined that the submittal of these rules met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

    B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There is no previous version of Rule 432 in the SIP; EPA approved previous versions of the rules to be replaced by Rules 400 and 401 into the SIP as indicated in Table 2.

    Table 2—SIP Approved Rules Rule No. Rule title SIP approval date Federal
  • Register
  • Citation
  • 4-4 Exemptions from Permit Requirement 05/31/72 37 FR 10856 401 General Requirements 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 402 Authority to Construct 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 403 Permit to Operate 5/2/01 66 FR 21875 405 Permit Conditions 05/31/72 37 FR 10856 406 Emission Calculations 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 407 Anniversary Date 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 420 Standards for Granting Applications 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 421 Conditional Approval 02/03/87 52 FR 3226 424 State Implementation Plan 5/2/01 66 FR 21875

    EPA's approval of Rule 401 would have the effect of entirely superseding our prior approval of Rule 4-4 in the SIP. Likewise, approval of Rules 400 and 432 will have the effect of entirely superseding our prior SIP approval of Rules 401, 402, 403, 405, 406, 407, 420, 421 and 424.

    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?

    Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Part D of Title I of the CAA.

    The purpose of District Rule 400 (Permit Requirements), Rule 401 (Permit Exemptions) and Rule 432 (Federal New Source Review) is to implement a federal preconstruction permit program for all new and modified minor sources, and new and modified major sources of NAAQS pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment. BCAQMD is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hr ozone and 2006 24-hr PM2.5 NAAQS. We present our evaluation under the CAA and EPA's regulations of the amended NSR rules submitted by CARB, as identified in Table 1, and provide our reasoning in general terms below and in more detail in our TSD, which is available in the docket for this proposed rulemaking.

    II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    The submitted rules must meet the CAA's general requirements for SIPs and SIP revisions in CAA sections 110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193, as well as the applicable requirements contained in part D of title I of the Act (sections 172, 173, 182(a) and 189(e)) for a nonattainment NSR permit program. In addition, the submitted rules must contain the applicable regulatory provisions required by 40 CFR 51.160-51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.

    Among other things, section 110 of the Act requires that SIP rules be enforceable and provides that EPA may not approve a SIP revision if it would interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other requirement of the CAA. In addition, section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act require that each SIP or revision to a SIP submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public hearing.

    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires each SIP to include a permit program to regulate the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the SIP as necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.160-51.164 provide general programmatic requirements to implement this statutory mandate commonly referred to as the “minor NSR” or “general NSR” permit program. These NSR program regulations impose requirements for SIP approval of State and local programs that are more general in nature as compared to the specific statutory and regulatory requirements for nonattainment NSR permitting programs under Part D of title I of the Act.

    Part D of title I of the Act contains the general requirements for areas designated nonattainment for a NAAQS (section 172), including preconstruction permit requirements for new major sources and major modifications proposing to construct in nonattainment areas (section 173). Part D of title I of the Act also includes section 182(a), which contains the additional requirements for areas designated as a marginal ozone nonattainment area, and section 189(e), which requires the control of major stationary source of PM10 precursors (and hence PM2.5 precursors) “except where the Administrator determines that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM10 [and PM2.5] levels which exceed the standard in the area.” Additionally, 40 CFR 51.165 sets forth EPA's regulatory requirements for SIP-approval of a nonattainment NSR permit program and 40 CFR 51.165(a)(13) contains specific requirements for regulating sources emitting PM2.5.

    The protection of visibility requirements that apply to NSR programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.307. This provision requires that certain actions be taken in consultation with the local Federal Land Manager if a new major source or major modification may have an impact on visibility in any mandatory Class I Federal Area.

    Section 110(l) of the Act prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Section 193 of the Act, which only applies in nonattainment areas, prohibits the modification of a SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in any manner unless the modification insures equivalent or greater emission reductions of such air pollutant.

    Our TSD, which can be found in the docket for this rule, contains a more detailed discussion of the approval criteria.

    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the rule evaluation criteria described above. With respect to procedures, based on our review of the public process documentation included in the November 6, 2014 submittal, we are proposing to approve the submitted rules in part because we have determined that BCAQMD has provided sufficient evidence of public notice and opportunity for comment and public hearings prior to adoption and submittal of these rules, in accordance with the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l).

    With respect to substantive requirements, we have reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the evaluation criteria discussed above. We are proposing to approve Rules 400 and 401 as part of BCAQMD's general NSR permitting program because we have determined that these rules satisfy the substantive statutory and regulatory requirements for a general NSR permit program as contained in CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) and 40 CFR 51.160-51.164.

    In addition, we are proposing a limited approval of Rule 432 because we have determined that Rule 432 satisfies all of the statutory and regulatory requirements for a nonattainment NSR permit program as set forth in the applicable provisions of part D of title I of the Act (sections 172, 173 and 182(a)) and in 40 CFR 51.165 and 40 CFR 51.307.

    We are also proposing a limited disapproval of Rule 432 because we have determined that the rule does not fully satisfy CAA section 189(e) requirements for regulation of PM2.5 precursors. The rule does not specify ammonia as a PM2.5 precursor and the demonstration provided by Butte County as part of their NSR program submittal is not adequate to allow the Administrator to determine whether potential new major sources and major modifications of ammonia emissions will not contribute significantly to PM2.5 levels that exceed the standard in the area. Our TSD for this action contains additional information regarding our proposed limited disapproval.

    EPA is also proposing to find that it is acceptable for BCAQMD to not incorporate the NSR Reform provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 into its NSR permit program because BCAQMD's permitting program will not be any less stringent than the federal permitting program. In addition, EPA is proposing to find that Rules 400, 401 and 432 meet the statutory requirements for SIP revisions as specified in sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.

    Please see our TSD for more information regarding our evaluation of Rules 400, 401 and 432.

    C. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized by CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we are proposing approval of Rule 400 (Permit Requirements) and Rule 401 (Permit Exemptions), and we are proposing limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 432 (Federal New Source Review) into the BCAQMD portion of the California SIP. If finalized, this action will incorporate the submitted rules into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient.1 The approval of Rule 432 is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of Rule 432 under section 110(k)(3). If this limited disapproval is finalized, it will trigger sanctions under CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.31 unless the EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of the final action.

    1 If this proposed rule is finalized, Butte County Rules 400, 401 and 432, will supersede the existing SIP approved rules listed in Table 2.

    Note that Rule 432 has been adopted by the BCAQMD, and the EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992 EPA memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/pdf/memo-s.pdf.

    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

    III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to finalize the incorporation by reference the BCAQMD rules described in Table 1 of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available electronically through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

    IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

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

    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

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

    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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

    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

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

    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

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

    F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

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

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

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

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

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

    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

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

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

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

    List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Authority:

    42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 9, 2016. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19766 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 48 CFR Parts 701, 722 and Appendix J RIN 0412-AA80 Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR): Agency Warrant Program for Individual Cooperating Country National Personal Services Contractors (CCNPSCs) AGENCY:

    U.S. Agency for International Development.

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule.

    SUMMARY:

    The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) proposes to amend the Agency for International Development Acquisition Regulation (AIDAR) to incorporate a warrant program for cooperating country national personal service contractors (CCN PSCs) into the regulation. The purpose of the CCN PSC warrant program is not only to address a shortage of U.S. direct-hire contracting officers by delegating limited contracting officer authorities to a select number of Cooperating Country National personal services contractors, but also to bolster the Agency to succeed in terms of building long-term, host country technical capacity to materially assist the Missions with procurement responsibility. In addition, USAID is proposing to clarify that third country nationals (TCNs) and cooperating country nationals (CCNs) employment requirements, contained in section 722.170, do not apply to consultants.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received no later than October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Address all comments concerning this notice to Lyudmila Bond, Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, Policy Division (M/OAA/P), Room 867, SA-44, Washington, DC 20523-2052. Submit comments, identified by title of the action and Regulatory Information Number (RIN) by any of the following methods:

    1. Through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by following the instructions for submitting comments.

    2. By Mail addressed to: USAID, Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition & Assistance, Policy Division, Room 867J, SA-44, 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20523-2052.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lyudmila Bond, Telephone: 202-567-4753 or Email: [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    A. Instructions

    All comments must be in writing and submitted through one of the methods specified in the Addresses section above. All submissions must include the title of the action and RIN for this rulemaking. Please include your name, title, organization, postal address, telephone number, and email address in the text of the message.

    Please note that USAID recommends sending all comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal because security screening precautions have slowed the delivery and dependability of surface mail to USAID/Washington.

    After receipt of a comment and until finalization of the action, all comments will be made available at http://www.regulations.gov for public review without change, including any personal information provided. We recommend you do not submit information that you consider Confidential Business Information (CBI) or any information that is otherwise protected from disclosure by statute. USAID will only address substantive comments on the rule. Comments that are insubstantial or outside the scope of the rule may not be considered.

    B. Background

    USAID is seeking comments on the proposed rule as described below:

    (1) 722.170 Employment of Third Country Nationals (TCN's) and Cooperating Country Nationals (CCN's)

    In response to numerous inquiries, USAID is proposing a revision of this section of the AIDAR to clarify that employment requirements for TCN and CCN employees of a contractor do not apply to consultants. It is the responsibility of a contractor to determine whether an individual being hired is an employee or a consultant.

    (2) Cooperating Country National (CCN) Warrant Program Background

    In 2011, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) approved a two-year Worldwide CCN Administrative Contracting and Agreement Officer (ACO/AAO) Pilot Warrant Program. The purpose of this program was to address the shortage of USAID contracting officers and build long-term, host country technical capacity to materially assist the Missions with procurement responsibility.

    USAID is located in offices in over 80 countries with programs in over 100 nations. USAID operates in a fluid environment responding to a myriad of crises such as war, natural disasters, epidemics, as well as its long term mission of ending extreme poverty, promoting resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity. The warranted contracting force to manage this effort consists of 150 US direct hire foreign service contracting officers overseas, 105 direct hire civil service contract officers, 83 warranted foreign service executive officers, 3 warranted US personal service contractors managing mission's acquisition portfolio, and 4 warranted US personal service contractors serving as executive officers. In addition to, and perhaps partially because of having such a relatively small warranted work force to manage a portfolio that is large and varied with a global footprint, the foreign service contracting staff has one of the highest attrition rates in USAID's work force.

    USAID made a strategic decision to create a cadre of highly qualified Cooperating Country Nationals, who have demonstrated high potential for assuming responsibilities to serve as administrative contracting officers within designated Missions. The purpose was to alleviate some of the workload of our contracting officer staff. During the two phases of the program, USAID added 6 warranted CCN administrative contracting officers. Currently, by the end of fiscal year 2016, we anticipate that there will be approximately 12 warranted CCN contracting officers. While a seemingly small number, that would represent an 8 percent increase of our overseas US direct hire warranted contracting officer staff.

    When designing the CCN Pilot Warrant Program, USAID consulted with the Senior Procurement Executive at the State Department and the unions. The State Department's SPE advised that State conducted a similar pilot several years ago, to great success. They now have a permanent program that extends limited authority to their locally-employed staff in selected countries. The vice president of the American Foreign Service Association concurred with the Pilot, and was pleased by several of its protections.

    Based on that two-year pilot program, revisions were made to the program structure to better suit the Agency's needs before the permanent program was launched in September 2014. USAID eliminated the portion of the program that allowed for third country nationals to receive warrants. A comprehensive review of the CCN Pilot Warrant Program underscored a need to broaden participation through among other things, revision of qualifications and inclusion of full obligation warrant authority up to $150,000 per transaction and an annual cumulative amount of $1 million at the CCN Grade 13 Level to assist the Missions' procurement function. A better understanding of CCN grades and the grading process allowed for better clarity of expectations for Missions and warrant applicants. To help mitigate CCN inexperience from leading to mistakes or malfeasance, the revised CCN Warrant Program includes several levels of obligation authority and non-monetary administrative responsibility correlating to CCN grade/experience within the acquisition backstop. Increasing degrees of responsibility and/or obligation authority, as applicable, are granted.

    The permanent CCN Warrant Program currently establishes three levels of contracting officer responsibilities that can be designated to a CCN personal services contractor depending on the needs of each mission, complexity and dollar value of the acquisitions, and the individual's experience, training, education, business acumen, judgment, reputation and grade level.

    At the first level, a CCN PSC may be delegated authority for select contract administration functions listed in (48 CFR) FAR 42.302(a), including, for example, conducting post-award orientation conferences, approving contractors' requests for payments under the progress payments or performance-based payments clauses.

    At the second level, in addition to performing the administrative functions discussed above, a CCN PSC contracting officer may be delegated authority to obligate incremental funding of any amount within the scope and total estimated cost of a contract (to include task orders and purchase orders).

    At the third and highest participating grade level, in addition to the incremental funding obligation authority and post-award administration duties described in levels one and two above, a CCN PSC contracting officer may be delegated authority to execute new awards for a total award amount not to exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). This authority is further subject to a new award cumulative obligation limit of one million dollars ($1 million) per Fiscal Year. No deviation from these limitations is authorized.

    Regulatory Authorities and Limitations

    (48 CFR) FAR part 1 establishes the authority for Agency heads to select and appoint contracting officers and it does not specify that contracting officers must be U.S. citizen direct-hire employees of the Federal government. (48 CFR) FAR part 7.5 includes contracting officer duties in the list of inherently governmental functions or functions that must be treated as such, but does not exclude personal services contractors hired under a statutory authority from performing such functions.

    (48 CFR) AIDAR 701.603-70 currently limits delegations of contracting officer authorities to U.S. citizen direct-hire employees of the U.S. Government as a matter of Agency policy. However, section 4(b)(3) of (48 CFR) AIDAR Appendix D and the corresponding section of Appendix J contain an exception for PSCs to be delegated contracting officer authority with approval from the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau of Management.

    In September 2014, USAID issued a two-year class deviation from 48 CFR) AIDAR 701.603-70 to establish the permanent CCN PSC warrant program to allow a limited number of selected and qualified CCN PSCs to be delegated contracting officer authorities. In conjunction with the approval of the class deviation described above, the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Management approved a class exception to the limitations in (48 CFR) AIDAR Appendix J 4(b)(3). By this rule USAID is proposing to revise (48 CFR) AIDAR to permanently authorize delegation of contracting officer authorities to a limited number of selected and qualified CCN PSCs.

    Discussion

    Prior to establishing the permanent CCN warrant program, the Agency reviewed the risks associated with issuing CO warrants to Non-U.S. citizens who are not direct-hire employees of USAID. In particular, such factors as proper accountability, adequate security considerations, conflicts of interest, and appropriate legal jurisdiction over the employee were considered. Adequate management controls and warrant limitations established under the CCN PSC warrant program, as discussed below, were established to mitigate such risks.

    To address the risks associated with adequate accountability and conflict of interest, the warrant program requires candidates for the CCN PSC warrant program to show commitment to the profession by meeting stringent acquisition competencies, education and training requirements. In addition to meeting these requirements, potential candidates must have extensive experience in Direct U.S. Federal Government Contracting and clearly demonstrate professional and ethical behavior. When reviewing applications for a CCN PSC warrant, the agency contacts past performance references (typically, the candidate's last three Supervisory Contracting Officers) and any other sources deemed appropriate for signs of potential risks or cautions that may be detrimental to the responsibilities inherent in this Program. The candidate's supervisor must also attest to the candidate's education, training, experience, business acumen, judgment, character, reputation and ethical behavior.

    Additionally, the Program requires the CCN contracting officer's supervisor to closely and frequently monitor the CCN PSC's work and review performance and progress every six months. This review is followed by periodic reviews conducted by the Bureau for Management, Office of Acquisition and Assistance, Evaluation Division, which is responsible for the program implementation.

    CCN PSC contracting officers will support the functions of the overseas Mission's Office of Acquisition & Assistance (A&A), which typically include acquisition and assistance awards implementing the Agency's foreign assistance programs and activities. CCN PSC contracting officers are currently not delegated authority to award any personal services contracts. The program also limits delegated authority for select contract administration functions listed in (48 CFR) FAR 42.302(a), specifically, the contracting officer functions in which disputes or possible legal challenges may arise due to decisions of the contracting officer, functions related to novation and contractor name changes, which may be a result of changes in a contractor's business structure as governed under applicable U.S. state law and other functions based on U.S. state laws, functions related to small business contracting matters and those requiring extensive knowledge of specific U.S. laws and government-wide policies not specifically related to contracting. Accordingly, the functions specified in items 5-7, 9-12, 18, 21-26, 29, 32,50, 52-55, 62-63, 66 and 68-71 of (48 CFR) FAR 42.302(a) will not be redelegated to CCN PSC contracting officers.

    To address conflict of interest concerns, the program relies on the standard clause entitled “Compliance with Laws and Regulations Applicable Abroad”, included in all personal services contracts with CCNs, that mandates compliance with the Standards of Conduct for Executive Branch Employees. These standards, available at https://www2.oge.gov/web/oge.nsf/All%20Documents/5D633072D0B2DB5085257E96006A90E7?opendocument, contain two provisions addressing financial interests that conflict with an individual's official duties. The first provision, entitled “Disqualifying financial interests,” prohibits an employee from participating in an official government capacity in a matter in which he has a financial interest or in which his spouse, minor child, employer, or any one of several other specified persons has a financial interest. The second provision, entitled “Prohibited financial interests,” contains authority by which agencies may prohibit employee from acquiring or retaining certain financial interests. To address the security concerns, the Program uses the current process, in which the USAID Office of Security and Department of State, Office of Security conduct background checks on potential personal service contractors. Recognizing the fact that some countries may not have adequate legal systems or may be unwilling to provide assistance in prosecuting their citizens for U.S. procurement infractions, the CCN PSC Warrant Program established the following management controls designed to minimize the risk that such legal actions might be necessary:

    —Stringent eligibility criteria, —Reasonable single purchase and cumulative annual limits for new awards. —CCN participation in this program is limited to one candidate per contracting officer warrant level per overseas mission. This limitation may be expanded only if it is deemed by the Senior Procurement Executive to be in the best interest of the Agency. —Ongoing risk assessments are performed throughout the Program implementation to assure compliance with the program requirements.

    USAID is seeking public comments on the proposed changes to the AIDAR to implement the agency CCN PSC Warrant Program.

    C. Impact Assessment

    (1) Regulatory Planning and Review. Under E.O. 12866, USAID must determine whether a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to the requirements of the E.O. and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). USAID has determined that this Rule is not an “economically significant regulatory action” under Section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

    (2) Regulatory Flexibility Act. The rule will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. Therefore, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has not been performed.

    (3) Paperwork Reduction Act. The proposed rule does not establish a new collection of information that requires the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

    List of Subjects in 48 CFR Chapter 7 Parts 701, 722 and Appendix J

    Government procurement.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, USAID amends 48 CFR Chapter 7 as set forth below:

    1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Chapter 7 parts 701, 722 and Appendix J continues to read as follows: Authority:

    Sec. 621, Pub. L. 87-195, 75 Stat. 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381) as amended; E.O. 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673; and 3 CFR 1979 Comp., p. 435.

    PART 701—FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SYSTEM Subpart 701.6—Career Development, Contracting Authority, And Responsibilities 2. Amend 701.603-70 by adding two sentences to the end to read as follows:
    701.603-70 Designation of contracting officers.

    * * * However, upon approval of an exception by the Assistant Administrator for the Bureau for Management (AA/M), in accordance with the limitations in AIDAR Appendix D, the Senior Procurement Executive may designate a USPSC as a Contracting Officer or delegate the USPSC authority to sign obligating and subobligating documents. The Senior Procurement Executive may also delegate limited contracting officer authority to Cooperating Country National personal service contractors (CCN PSCs) who meet the requirements in the Agency's warrant program for CCN PSCs, as specified in Appendix J.

    PART 722—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITION Subpart 722.1—Basic Labor Policies 3. Amend 722.170 by adding two sentences at the end of paragraph(a) to read as follows:
    722.170 Employment of third country nationals (TCN's) and cooperating country nationals (CCN's).

    (a) * * * This policy does not apply to consultants, as defined in AIDAR Clause 752.202-1(e), who are engaged to advise the contractor on a temporary or intermittent basis and do not receive standard benefits available to the contractor's employees. It is the contractor's responsibility to identify if the individual being hired is an employee or a consultant.

    4. Revise paragraphs (b)(3)b. and (b)(4) to read as follows: Appendix J to Chapter 7—Direct USAID Contracts With a Cooperating Country National and With a Third Country National for Personal Services Abroad 4—Policy

    (b) Limitations on Personal Services Contracts.

    (3) * * *

    b. They may not be designated as Contracting Officers or delegated authority to sign obligating or subobligating documents, unless specifically delegated limited contracting officer authority by the Senior Procurement Executive. In order to be delegated limited contracting officer authority, Cooperating Country National PSCs (CCN PSCs) must meet the requirements in the Agency's warrant program for CCN PSCs.

    (4) Exceptions. Exceptions to the limitations in (b)(3)(a), (c), (d) and (e) must be approved by the Assistant Administrator for Management (AA/M).

    Dated: July 27, 2016. Roy Plucknett, Chief Acquisition Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19709 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6116-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Parts 300 and 679 [Docket No. 151001910-6690-01] RIN 0648-BF42 Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic Zone Off Alaska; Allow the Use of Longline Pot Gear in the Gulf of Alaska Sablefish Individual Fishing Quota Fishery; Amendment 101 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Proposed rule; request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    NMFS issues a proposed rule to implement Amendment 101 to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA FMP) for the sablefish individual fishing quota (IFQ) fisheries in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This proposed rule would authorize the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This proposed rule would establish management measures to minimize potential conflicts between hook-and-line and longline pot gear used in the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the GOA. This proposed rule also includes proposed regulations developed under the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act) to authorize harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This proposed rule is necessary to improve efficiency and provide economic benefits for the sablefish IFQ fleet and minimize potential fishery interactions with whales and seabirds. This action is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Halibut Act, the GOA FMP, and other applicable laws.

    DATES:

    Submit comments on or before September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2015-0126, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submission: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-2015-0126, click the “Comment Now!” icon, complete the required fields, and enter or attach your comments.

    Mail: Submit written comments to Glenn Merrill, Assistant Regional Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Alaska Region NMFS, Attn: Ellen Sebastian. Mail comments to P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668.

    Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous).

    Electronic copies of Amendment 101 to the GOA FMP, the Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Review (RIR), and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) (collectively, Analysis) prepared for this action are available from www.regulations.gov or from the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this rule may be submitted by mail to NMFS at the above address; by email to [email protected]; or by fax to 202-395-5806.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Rachel Baker, 907-586-7228.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Authority for Action

    NMFS manages U.S. groundfish fisheries of the GOA under the GOA FMP. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) prepared, and the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) approved, the GOA FMP under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq. Regulations governing U.S. fisheries and implementing the GOA FMP appear at 50 CFR parts 600 and 679. Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) is managed as a groundfish species under the GOA FMP. The Council is authorized to prepare an FMP amendment for conservation and management of a fishery managed under the FMP. NMFS conducts rulemaking to implement FMP and regulatory amendments.

    The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) and NMFS manage fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) through regulations at 50 CFR part 300, subpart E, established under authority of the Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act), 16 U.S.C. 773-773k. The IPHC adopts annual management measures governing fishing for halibut under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, DC, on March 29, 1979). The IPHC regulations are subject to acceptance by the Secretary of State with concurrence from the Secretary. After acceptance by the Secretary of State and the Secretary, NMFS publishes the annual management measures in the Federal Register pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62. The final rule implementing the 2016 annual management measures published March 16, 2016 (81 FR 14000). The Halibut Act, at section 773c(c), also authorizes the Council to develop halibut fishery regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations.

    Under the authority of the GOA FMP and the Halibut Act, the Council has recommended and NMFS has established regulations that implement the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program allocates sablefish and halibut harvesting privileges among U.S. fishermen. NMFS manages the IFQ Program pursuant to regulations at 50 CFR part 679 and 50 CFR part 300 under the authority of section 773c of the Halibut Act and section 303(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Council has recommended Amendment 101 to the GOA FMP (Amendment 101) to amend provisions of the GOA FMP applicable to the sablefish IFQ fishery and implementing regulations applicable to the sablefish IFQ fisheries. FMP amendments and regulations developed by the Council may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary. This proposed rule also includes regulations developed by the Council under the Halibut Act to authorize harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Halibut fishery regulations developed by the Council may by implemented by NMFS only after approval of the Secretary in consultation with the United States Coast Guard.

    A notice of availability for Amendment 101 was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2016 (81 FR 52394). Comment on Amendment 101 is invited through October 7, 2016. Written comments may address Amendment 101, this proposed rule, or both, but must be received by October 7, 2016, to be considered in the decision to approve or disapprove Amendment 101.

    Background

    NMFS proposes regulations to implement Amendment 101 for the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the GOA and regulations to authorize harvest of halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This proposed rule would make three types of changes to the sablefish and halibut IFQ Program. First, this proposed rule would authorize longline pot gear to harvest sablefish IFQ in the GOA. Under current regulations, only longline gear is authorized for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Longline gear includes hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline gear. Participants have used longline hook-and-line gear (hook-and-line gear) to harvest sablefish IFQ in the GOA because it is more efficient than jig, troll, or handline gear. However, various species of whales can remove or damage sablefish caught on hook-and-line gear (depredation). Depredation occurs with hook-and-line gear because sablefish are captured on hooks that lie on the ocean floor. Whales can completely remove or damage sablefish captured on these hooks before the gear is retrieved. Longline pot is an efficient gear and prevents depredation because whales cannot remove or damage sablefish enclosed in a pot. This proposed rule would authorize, but not require, vessel operators to use longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Second, this proposed rule would implement several regulations to minimize potential interactions between hook-and-line gear and longline pot gear. These provisions include a pot limit, requirements for vessel operators to use pot tags issued by NMFS, requirements that longline pot gear be redeployed within a certain amount of time after being deployed, requirements that longline pot gear be removed from the fishing grounds when making a sablefish landing, and requirements to mark longline pot gear deployed on the fishing grounds.

    Third, to minimize halibut discards in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, this proposed rule would implement a requirement for halibut IFQ harvesters to retain halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pots.

    This proposed rule would improve efficiency in harvesting sablefish IFQ and reduce adverse economic impacts on harvesters that occur from depredation. This proposed rule would mitigate impacts on sablefish IFQ harvesters using hook-and-line gear by minimizing the potential for interactions between hook-and-line gear and longline pot gear. Finally, this proposed rule would reduce whale and seabird interactions with fishing gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    The following sections of this preamble describe 1) the sablefish fishery in the GOA, 2), the need for Amendment 101 and this proposed rule, 3) the impacts of Amendment 101 and this proposed rule, and 4) the specific provisions that would be implemented by this proposed rule.

    Sablefish Fishery in the GOA IFQ Program

    The commercial sablefish fisheries in the GOA and the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI) are managed primarily under the IFQ Program. The Council and NMFS designed the IFQ Program to allocate harvest privileges among participants in the hook-and-line fishery to reduce fishing capacity that had led to an unsafe “race for fish” as vessels raced to harvest their allocation of the annual total allowable catch (TAC) of sablefish as quickly as possible before the TAC was reached. The IFQ Program design and subsequent amendments were intended to support the social and economic character of the fisheries and the coastal fishing communities where many of these fisheries are based. NMFS also allocates a small portion of the annual sablefish TAC to vessels using trawl gear. The trawl sablefish fishery is not managed under the IFQ Program, and this proposed rule does not modify regulations applicable to the trawl sablefish fishery.

    The commercial halibut fisheries in the GOA and the BSAI are also managed under the IFQ Program. The halibut fisheries experienced overcapacity and short fishing seasons similar to the sablefish fisheries. In addition, many fishermen participate in both fisheries because the species overlap in some fishing areas and are harvested with the same type of fishing gear.

    The IFQ Program was implemented in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). Under the IFQ Program, access to the non-trawl sablefish and halibut fisheries is limited to those persons holding quota share. NMFS issued separate quota share for sablefish and halibut to qualified applicants based on their historical participation during a set of qualifying years in the sablefish and halibut fisheries. Quota share is an exclusive, revocable privilege that allows the holder to harvest a specific percentage of either the TAC in the sablefish fishery or the annual commercial catch limit in the halibut fishery. In addition to being specific to sablefish or halibut, quota share are designated for specific geographic areas of harvest, a specific vessel operation type (catcher vessel or catcher/processor), and for a specific range of vessel sizes that may be used to harvest the sablefish or halibut (vessel category).

    Quota share allocation is given effect on an annual basis through the issuance of an IFQ permit. An annual IFQ permit authorizes the permit holder to harvest a specified amount of the IFQ species in a regulatory area from a specific operation type and vessel category. IFQ is expressed in pounds and is based on the amount of quota share held in relation to the total quota share pool for each regulatory area with an assigned catch limit.

    Implementation of the IFQ Program ended the race for fish by providing IFQ permit holders with an exclusive portion of the sablefish TAC or annual commercial catch limit in the halibut fishery. This provided fishermen with flexibility to determine when and where they would fish sablefish and halibut IFQ. The fishing season for sablefish and halibut was expanded from a few days to nine months following implementation of the IFQ Program. Sections 3.1 and 4.5 of the Analysis (see ADDRESSES) provide additional information on the IFQ Program and the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    IFQ Regulatory Areas

    The IFQ fisheries are prosecuted in accordance with catch limits established by regulatory area. The sablefish IFQ regulatory areas defined for sablefish in the GOA are the Southeast Outside District of the GOA (SEO), West Yakutat District of the GOA (WY), Central GOA (CGOA), and Western GOA (WGOA). The sablefish regulatory areas are defined and shown in Figure 14 to part 679. This proposed rule preamble refers to these areas collectively as sablefish areas.

    This proposed rule would implement provisions that affect halibut IFQ fisheries in the GOA. The halibut regulatory areas (halibut areas) are defined by the IPHC, described in Section 6 of the annual management measures (81 FR 14000, March 16, 2016), and shown in Figure 15 to part 679. The halibut areas are not separated into GOA or BSAI management areas like sablefish areas. The halibut areas encompass different geographic areas than the sablefish areas, and the boundary lines do not coincide except at the border between the United States and Canada.

    The halibut areas in the GOA include Areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and part of Area 4A. All of these areas except Area 4A are completely contained in the GOA. The portion of Area 4A in waters south of the Aleutian Islands, west of Area 3B and east of 170° W. longitude, is included in the WGOA sablefish area. This affected area includes the western part of the WGOA sablefish area and a small strip along the eastern border (east of 170° W. longitude) of the Aleutian Islands sablefish area in the BSAI. Figure 1 and Figure 11 in the Analysis show the boundaries of the sablefish and halibut areas.

    Retention of Halibut

    Sablefish IFQ fishermen who also hold halibut IFQ are required to retain halibut that are 32 inches or greater in length (legal size) harvested in the sablefish IFQ fishery, provided they have remaining halibut IFQ. This regulation was implemented with the IFQ Program in 1995 and is intended to promote full utilization of halibut by reducing discards of halibut caught incidentally in the sablefish IFQ fishery. Section 4.5 of the Analysis states that many IFQ fishermen hold sablefish and halibut IFQ, and the species can overlap in some fishing areas (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993).

    Authorized Gear

    This proposed rule would revise regulations to add a new authorized gear for catcher vessels and catcher/processors participating in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Under § 679.2, vessels in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery are authorized to use only longline gear (e.g., hook-and-line gear). Catcher vessels and catcher/processors in the BSAI sablefish IFQ fishery are authorized to use longline gear and pot gear. Pot gear includes pot-and-line gear and longline pot gear. Pot-and-line gear is pot gear with a stationary, buoyed line with a single pot attached. Longline pot gear is pot gear with a stationary, buoyed, and anchored line with two or more pots attached. Longline pot gear is often deployed as a series of many pots attached together in a “string” of gear. For additional information on longline gear, pot-and-line, and longline pot gear see the definition of Authorized Fishing Gear in § 679.2.

    Longline pot gear was historically used to harvest sablefish in the GOA. However, under the open access management program that existed prior to the implementation of the IFQ Program, vessel operators sometimes deployed hook-and-line and pot gear in the same fishing areas. This resulted in gear conflicts and the loss of gear on the fishing grounds. The longline pot groundline (i.e., the line attaching the pots together) is heavier and stronger than the groundline used to attach the series of hooks on hook-and-line gear. If longline pot gear is set over previously deployed hook-and-line gear, the weaker hook-and-line gear can be damaged or lost as it is being retrieved. The Council and NMFS have not received reports of gear conflicts between hook-and-line gear.

    Deployment of hook-and-line and pot gear in the same fishing areas also resulted in grounds preemption under the race for fish. Fishing grounds preemption occurs when a fisherman sets marked gear in an area and prevents other fishery participants from setting gear in the same area. Pot gear is generally soaked for multiple days so that smaller, less valuable fish are able to swim out of the pots. This optimizes fishing effort by allowing fishermen to use their knowledge of catch rates and fish size in a particular area to choose the amount of soak time that selects for larger fish, but allows them to keep rotating and re-baiting their pot longline gear. Fishing grounds can be preempted for an extended period of time by pot gear, for example, when a vessel hauls, re-baits, and redeploys the gear in the same area while they return to port to make a landing. Fishing grounds preemption has not occurred between hook-and-line gear because the gear is deployed for less than 24 hours before hauling. Section 2.1.1 of the Analysis provides additional information on interactions between hook-and-line and pot gear prior to implementation of the IFQ Program, and a brief summary follows.

    In 1986, NMFS implemented a phased-in prohibition of pot gear in the GOA sablefish fishery (50 FR 43193, October 24, 1985) to eliminate gear conflicts between hook-and-line and pot gear. In 1992, the Council recommended, and NMFS approved, a prohibition on the use of longline pot gear in the sablefish fishery in the Bering Sea subarea (57 FR 37906, August 21, 1992). The Council recommended a prohibition against longline pot gear in the Bering Sea subarea to prevent longline pot gear from preempting access to fishing grounds by hook-and-line gear. The Council did not recommend a prohibition on longline pot gear in the Aleutian Islands subarea because the Council did not receive reports of gear conflicts in that sablefish area.

    During the same period in the early 1990s, the Council developed and recommended the IFQ Program for a hook-and-line gear fishery for sablefish and halibut in the GOA and BSAI. Fishing under the IFQ Program began in 1995 (58 FR 59375, November 9, 1993). The IFQ Program extended the fishing season and allowed the sablefish and halibut fleets to spread out fishing operations over time. The IFQ Program reduced the possibility of gear conflicts and preemption of common fishing grounds that had previously affected the fisheries (73 FR 28733, May 19, 2008).

    During the first IFQ season in 1995, fishing industry representatives reported to the Council that the Bering Sea sablefish TAC had not been fully harvested due, in part, to depredation on hook-and-line gear. Depredation negatively impacts the sablefish IFQ fleet through reduced catch rates and increased operating costs. Depredation also has negative consequences for whales through increased risk of vessel strike, gear entanglement, and altered foraging strategies. Based on this information, the Council determined that authorizing longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ fishery could reduce depredation. The Council also determined that implementation of the IFQ Program had substantially reduced the possibility of gear conflicts and a complete prohibition on longline pot gear was not necessary. The Council and NMFS recognized that the reintroduction of longline pot gear into the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ fishery posed less of a concern for fishing grounds preemption in 1996 than in 1992, when longline pot gear originally was prohibited. Authorizing the use of longline pot gear in the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ fishery allowed fishermen to use fishing gear that would reduce interactions with whales.

    On September 18, 1996, NMFS published a final rule to replace the year-round longline pot gear prohibition with a regulation that allowed the use of longline pot gear except during the month of June (61 FR 49076). The Council and NMFS decided to retain the prohibition on longline pot gear in June because it generally has fair weather, and small vessels using hook-and-line gear that would otherwise be subject to pre-emption tend to operate primarily during June.

    In October 2004, a representative for longline pot fishermen in the Bering Sea proposed that gear competition between the sablefish longline pot fleet and the hook-and-line fleet had not occurred in June, and asserted that the regulatory prohibition on the use of longline pot gear during June was unnecessary and burdensome. After review of an analysis and public testimony, the Council recommended, and NMFS implemented, a regulation to remove the prohibition on the use of longline pot gear during June in the Bering Sea sablefish IFQ fishery (73 FR 28733, May 19, 2008). Currently, both longline pot and hook-and-line gear is authorized during the entire year in both the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands sablefish fisheries.

    Need for Amendment 101 and This Proposed Rule

    Beginning in 2009, the Council and NMFS received reports from fishermen in the GOA that there have been numerous sperm whale and killer whale interactions with the sablefish fleet in the GOA. Sperm whale depredation is most common in the CGOA, WY, and SEO sablefish areas and killer whale depredation is most common in the WGOA and BSAI. Section 3.4.1.1 of the Analysis provides the most recent information on depredation in the sablefish IFQ fishery, and Figure 17 in the Analysis shows a map of observed depredation on sablefish longline surveys. While depredation events are difficult to observe because depredation occurs on the ocean floor in deep water, fishery participants have testified to the Council that depredation continues to be a major cost to the sablefish IFQ fishery, and appears to be occurring more frequently.

    Depredation can result in lost catch, additional time waiting for whales to leave fishing grounds before hauling gear, and additional time and fuel spent relocating to avoid whales. Depredation can reduce fishing efficiency by increasing operating costs (e.g., fuel, labor) and the opportunity cost of time lost that would have been available for additional fishing effort or dedicated to other fishing and non-fishing activities. Section 3.4.1.1 of the Analysis notes that depredation can reduce harvesting efficiency and impose substantial costs on fishermen using hook-and-line gear, thereby reducing revenue in the sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Industry groups have tested a variety of methods to deter whales from preying on fish caught on hook-and-line gear, such as gear modifications and acoustic decoys, but these methods have not substantially reduced the problem of depredation in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. A summary of efforts to mitigate whale depredation in Alaska and elsewhere is provided in Section 4.7 of the Analysis.

    Participants in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery indicated to the Council and NMFS that authorizing longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery would reduce the adverse impacts of depredation for those vessel operators who choose to switch from hook-and-line gear. The Council and NMFS agree that interactions with whales throughout the GOA could affect the ability of sablefish IFQ permit holders to harvest sablefish by reducing catch per unit of effort and decreasing fishing costs. Section 1.2 of the Analysis provides additional information on the Council's development and recommendation of Amendment 101 and this proposed rule.

    The following section describes the impacts of Amendment 101 and this proposed rule on affected fishery participants and on the environment.

    Impacts of Amendment 101 and This Proposed Rule Impacts on the Sablefish IFQ Fishery

    Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis notes that vessel operators using longline pot gear would benefit from this proposed rule from reduced operating costs and reduced fishing time needed to harvest sablefish IFQ. This proposed rule would provide vessel operators with the option to use longline pot gear if they determine it is appropriate for their fishing operation.

    The Analysis states that it is not possible to estimate how many vessel operators would switch to longline pot gear from hook-and-line gear under this proposed rule. The total number of vessels using longline pot gear likely would be limited by the costs of longline pot gear and vessel reconfiguration. The Analysis estimates that the cost to purchase longline pot gear and reconfigure a vessel could be $100,000 or more depending on the configuration of the vessel. For some vessel operators, the costs of reconfiguration likely would be prohibitive. The Analysis suggests that vessel operators who already use pot gear in other fisheries (e.g., Pacific cod) could be the most likely operators to use longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery because their conversion costs likely would be lower relative to participants who use only hook-and-line gear. Of the 404 catcher vessels harvesting sablefish IFQ in the GOA between 2009 and 2013, 40 vessels deployed pot gear in another fishery.

    As described in Section 3.4.1.2 of the Analysis, no temporal or seasonal shift in sablefish IFQ fishing is expected to occur under this proposed rule. Harvest of sablefish IFQ would be authorized only during the sablefish fishing period specified at § 679.23(g)(1) and established by the Council and NMFS through the annual harvest specifications (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016). Harvest of sablefish IFQ would be limited to the TAC for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery established by the Council and NMFS through the annual harvest specifications (81 FR 14740, March 18, 2016).

    If some portion of the sablefish IFQ fleet switches to longline pot gear, there would likely be decreased interactions between killer whales and sperm whales and the sablefish fishery. Unaccounted sablefish mortality due to depredation would be expected to decline as sablefish IFQ fishermen voluntarily switch from hook-and-line gear to longline pot gear. Because the amount of depredation is not known with certainty, the potential effects of reduced depredation from this proposed rule cannot be quantified. Section 3.1.1 of the Analysis notes that although hook-and-line and longline pot gear may catch slightly different sizes of sablefish, the best available information indicates that the use of pot longline gear would not have a significant impact on the sablefish resource.

    During the development of this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS received public testimony from IFQ fishery participants who did not support the use of longline pot gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery. These fishermen indicated that use of longline pot gear could result in conflicts between hook-and-line and longline pot gear similar to those that occurred prior to implementation of the IFQ Program. These fishermen testified that longline pot gear is typically left unattended on the fishing grounds for several days before the pots are retrieved. The testimony expressed concerns that longline pot gear left on the sablefish fishing grounds could preempt the use of these fishing grounds by fishermen using hook-and-line gear as had occurred prior to implementation of the IFQ Program.

    In recommending Amendment 101 and this proposed rule, the Council and NMFS recognize that longline pot gear had previously been authorized in the GOA sablefish fishery, but its use was prohibited prior to implementation of the IFQ Program. The Council and NMFS also recognize that the prohibition on pot gear was based on fishery data and scientific information on depredation that is not reflective of the present fishery. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that authorizing longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery under Amendment 101 and this proposed rule is appropriate because the IFQ Program provides fishermen with substantially more flexibility on when and where to harvest sablefish. The IFQ Program makes it much less likely that hook-and-line and longline pot gear conflicts would occur or that fishing grounds would be preempted for extended periods in the same manner previously analyzed by the Council and NMFS.

    The Council and NMFS analyzed the extent to which this proposed rule, which would allow hook-and-line gear and pot gear to be used in the same areas, could result in gear conflicts and grounds preemption. Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis explains gear conflict and grounds preemption impose costs on fishermen that are unable to, or choose not to, deploy hook-and-line gear in an area because longline pot gear is used in that area. In the case of the sablefish IFQ fishery, the Council and NMFS received public testimony that vessel operators using hook-and-line gear could incur increased operating costs if their vessels would have to travel farther or to less productive fishing grounds to find an area unoccupied by longline pot gear. The testimony suggested that these costs could potentially be greater for participants in the SEO and WY sablefish areas. In these sablefish areas, fishing grounds are constrained to a narrow area on the edge of the continental shelf and fishing gear is concentrated into a relatively smaller area compared to the CGOA and WGOA sablefish areas. Section 4.9.4 of the Analysis notes that fishery data is not available at a sufficiently fine spatial scale to identify particular areas where competition for fishing grounds may occur in the SEO and WY sablefish areas.

    The Analysis explains that it is not possible to determine with certainty the extent to which gear conflicts and grounds preemption might occur under this proposed rule because it is unknown how many vessel operators will use longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. After reviewing the Analysis and receiving public testimony, the Council and NMFS determined the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption was low. However, the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption is not possible to determine with certainty. The Council received testimony from several stakeholders noting this uncertainty and expressing concern that this proposed rule would negatively impact fishermen who continue to use hook-and-line gear. These stakeholders requested specific measures to further minimize the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption. Therefore, this proposed rule addresses these stakeholder concerns by recommending a number of management measures that are intended to minimize the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption. These measures include (1) authorizing only the use of longline pot gear, (2) limiting the number of pots that may be deployed by a vessel in each sablefish area, (3) requiring all pots to be identified with a tag assigned to the vessel, (4) requiring a vessel operator to redeploy longline pot gear from the fishing grounds within a specified time period, (5) requiring a vessel operator to remove longline pot gear when leaving certain fishing grounds to make a landing, (6) requiring a vessel operator to mark longline pot gear to make it more visible on the fishing grounds, and (7) recordkeeping and reporting requirements to monitor and enforce provisions of this rule. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that these management measures would likely further reduce the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery under this proposed rule.

    Longline Pot Gear

    Amendment 101 and this proposed rule would authorize the use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Vessel operators would be prohibited from using pot-and-line gear (i.e., single pot gear) to harvest sablefish in the GOA. Section 2.4 of the Analysis notes that the Council considered authorizing longline pot gear and pot-and-line gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery for this action. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that pot-and-line gear may have a greater potential for conflict with hook-and-line gear because it has a larger number of anchor lines and buoys than longline pot gear. In addition, single pots that are deployed in a pot-and-line format are larger and heavier than pots deployed in a longline pot format because a single pot is more likely to drift than pots deployed in a longline format. Single pots deployed in a pot-and-line format could result in greater gear entanglement and conflicts because they are likely to drift into other areas from the deployed location than pots deployed in a longline pot format. Section 2.4 of the Analysis also states that compared to pot-and-line gear, longline pot gear would be expected to enhance crew safety and may make it feasible for smaller vessels that could not use pot-and-line gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery to use longline pot gear.

    Pot Limits

    This proposed rule would implement different pot limits for different GOA sablefish areas. Section 4.9.3 of the Analysis notes that a pot limit would control vessel fishing effort and limit the total amount of fishing grounds that any single vessel could use at a given time. A vessel operator would be limited to deploying a specific amount of pots in each area in which they hold IFQ: 120 pots in the SEO and WY sablefish areas and 300 pots in the CGOA and WGOA sablefish areas.

    The Council considered area-specific pot limits to account for the physical nature of the sablefish fishing grounds and the composition of the IFQ sablefish fleet in each sablefish area. The Council also considered testimony on the number of pots that vessels in the GOA could feasibly deploy in the sablefish IFQ fishery. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that smaller pot limits are appropriate in the SEO and WY fisheries because these sablefish areas have more spatially concentrated fishing grounds than the CGOA and WGOA sablefish areas.

    Pot Tags

    This proposed rule would implement a requirement that all pots deployed in GOA sablefish areas have a pot tag that is (1) issued by NMFS and (2) assigned by NMFS to a vessel that is licensed by the State of Alaska. This proposed rule would require a vessel owner to request and receive pot tags by submitting an application to NMFS. NMFS would require a vessel owner to specify on the application for pot tags the vessel name and Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) vessel registration number. The State of Alaska requires the owner of a fishing vessel used in waters of the state to register with the State of Alaska and receive an ADF&G vessel registration number (AS 16.05.475). If the ADF&G vessel registration number is current at the time the application for pot tags is submitted, NMFS would consider the vessel eligible to participate in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery using longline pot gear and assign pot tags to that vessel. NMFS would assign the number of tags requested for each GOA sablefish area, not to exceed the pot limits for each sablefish area, to the vessel and issue the tags to the vessel owner. Vessel owners should allow up to 10 days from receipt of a pot tag application by NMFS for NMFS to issue pot tags. Each pot tag would have a unique number and be a color specific to the GOA sablefish area in which it may be deployed. This proposed rule would require the operator of the vessel to attach a pot tag that is assigned to the vessel to each pot before deploying the gear. Because the proposed pot tag requirements are intended to facilitate monitoring of the proposed pot limits on the fishing grounds, this proposed rule would make the vessel operator responsible for complying with the pot tag requirements and the pot limits in each GOA sablefish area.

    Section 4.9.3.2 of the Analysis states that in instances where the vessel is leased by the owner, each vessel operator would need to obtain the pot tags from the vessel owner to ensure the proper use of the pot tags in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. In cases where multiple sablefish IFQ permit holders fish from the same vessel, the vessel operator would be responsible for ensuring that no more pots are deployed from a vessel than the pot limit for a specific sablefish area.

    The Council and NMFS recognized that pot tags may be lost on the fishing grounds if a tag becomes unattached from the pot or if a pot becomes unattached from the longline and cannot be retrieved. Under this proposed rule, the vessel owner could request replacement pot tags from NMFS if pot tags are lost. The vessel owner would be required to provide NMFS with the pot tag numbers that were lost and provide a description of the circumstances under which the pot tags were lost. NMFS would issue the appropriate number of replacement tags, up to the pot limit specified for the sablefish area. Vessel owners should allow up to 10 days from receipt of a pot tag application by NMFS for NMFS to issue replacement pot tags.

    The Council and NMFS anticipated that some vessel operators may want to share longline pot gear during the fishing season to help reduce operating costs. To minimize the potential for grounds preemption by multiple vessels using the same longline pot gear, this proposed rule would allow multiple vessels to use the same longline pot gear during one fishing season but would prohibit use of the same longline pot gear simultaneously. In order for more than one vessel to use the same longline pot gear, this proposed rule would require a vessel operator to remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds, return the gear to port and remove the pot tags assigned to the vessel before pot tags assigned to another vessel could be attached to the pots and used on another vessel in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Gear Redeployment and Removal

    This proposed rule would require vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to redeploy or remove their gear within a specified time period after deployment or when leaving the fishing grounds to make a landing. The Council recommended area-specific requirements because vessel operations and fishing grounds vary by management areas. Section 4.9.4 and Section 4.10 of the Analysis note that this provision is intended to minimize the potential for vessels using longline pot gear to preempt fishing grounds for extended periods. These provisions were supported by sablefish IFQ holders who intend to use longline pot gear and sablefish IFQ holders who intend to continue to use hook-and-line gear under this proposed rule.

    The Council based its recommendations on information on the use of pot gear in the BSAI sablefish IFQ fishery and on testimony from sablefish IFQ holders. Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis notes that pot gear typically remains deployed (“soaked”) on the fishing grounds for longer periods of time than hook-and-line gear. As described above in this preamble, pot gear is generally soaked for multiple days. Figure 8 in Section 3.1.1.2 of the Analysis shows that sablefish pot gear deployed by catcher vessels and catcher/processors in the BSAI was typically “soaked” for two to four days from 1995 through 2005, and 90 percent of the observed pot sets were soaked for seven or fewer days. Section 3.1.2.2 of the Analysis notes that hook-and-line fishermen tend to soak their gear for less than 24 hours before hauling, and are less apt to leave their gear on the grounds when returning to port.

    In addition to the information on pot soak times in the BSAI sablefish fishery presented in Section 4.9.2 of the Analysis, the Council considered testimony from vessel operators. This testimony suggested it was unlikely that vessels using pot gear would preempt fishing grounds in the GOA by leaving pot gear deployed for extended periods of time because (1) longline pot gear likely would be deployed in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery from two to four days, similar to operations in the BSAI fisheries, (2) gear conflicts and grounds preemption has not occurred in the BSAI sablefish IFQ fishery, and (3) vessel operators have an incentive to optimize their pot gear fishing effort to maximize their sablefish IFQ harvest in the minimum amount of time.

    Nevertheless, these vessel operators acknowledged to the Council that the likelihood of gear conflicts and grounds preemption cannot be determined with certainty. These vessel operators also noted that many GOA sablefish IFQ holders intending to continue to use hook-and-line gear were concerned about the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption under this proposed rule. These operators noted that these concerns likely were greater for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery than the BSAI sablefish IFQ fishery because some GOA sablefish areas have more constrained fishing grounds due to a smaller overall area and a larger number of participating vessels than in the BSAI. To address this concern, several sablefish IFQ holders recommended that the Council establish area-specific requirements for catcher vessels and catcher/processors to redeploy or remove gear from the grounds in order to further reduce the likelihood that longline pot gear would be deployed on the GOA fishing grounds for extended periods of time and result in gear conflicts and grounds preemption.

    The Council determined that establishing these gear redeployment or removal limits would provide an additional incentive for operators using longline pot gear to closely monitor the amount of time their gear is left on the grounds and further minimize potential for gear conflicts or grounds preemption. The Council recommended these provisions to balance its objective to provide economic benefits to fishermen using longline pot gear with its objective to minimize potential negative impacts on fishermen continuing to use hook-and-line gear.

    In recommending Amendment 101 and this proposed rule, the Council indicated its intent to monitor interactions between longline pot and hook-and-line gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. The Council recommended that if Amendment 101 and this proposed rule are approved, NMFS would annually report to the Council the amount of longline pot gear effort in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery in addition to any reported gear conflicts or instances of grounds preemption. The Council also indicated its intent to conduct a review of Amendment 101 and this action three years following implementation of the final rule, if approved. The Council specified its intent to consider the impact of Amendment 101 and this proposed rule on GOA sablefish IFQ holders that continue to use hook-and-line gear in determining whether changes to regulatory provisions are needed in the future.

    The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that the following provisions of this proposed rule would minimize the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption. For each area of the GOA, this proposed rule would specify a maximum time limit for which longline pot gear could be left unattended on the fishing grounds. The Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that requiring vessel operators to tend the gear within a specified time period reduces the likelihood that longline pot gear will be left on the grounds unattended for an extended period of time.

    In the SEO sablefish area, a catcher vessel operator would be required to remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds when the vessel leaves the fishing grounds to make a landing. This would prohibit the vessel operator from preempting fishing grounds by retrieving pots and redeploying the gear in the same fishing location while the vessel made a landing. This restriction responds to concerns expressed by fishermen holding sablefish IFQ in the SEO sablefish area. These fishermen testified that a substantial portion of sablefish IFQ fishermen in SEO likely would continue to use hook-and-line gear under this proposed rule because the vessels are too small to feasibly use longline pot gear.

    Section 4.9.8.1 in the Analysis notes that vessels ranging from between 55 feet (16.7 m) and 95 feet (28.9 m) length overall (LOA) participate in sablefish pot fisheries in Canada. The Analysis shows that the majority of the vessels that participate in sablefish fisheries in the GOA are greater than 50 feet (15.2 m) LOA, indicating that these vessels may be able to feasibly use longline pot gear. The Analysis also shows that approximately 30 percent of sablefish IFQ fishermen in SEO use vessels 50 feet (15.2 m) or less LOA. This is a higher percentage of smaller vessels compared to the other GOA sablefish areas. Therefore, the Council determined, and NMFS agrees, that requiring a vessel in the SEO sablefish area to remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds when the vessel leaves the fishing grounds to make a landing would minimize the potential for grounds preemption while providing fishermen using longline pot gear with an opportunity to efficiently harvest sablefish.

    The Council did not recommend a specific redeployment or removal provision for catcher/processors in the SEO sablefish area because relatively few catcher/processors operate in the area and the Council did not receive testimony suggesting specific limitations for these vessels. However, NMFS has determined that this proposed rule should require operators of catcher/processors in SEO to haul and reset (redeploy) in the same location or remove longline pot gear from that location within a specified time period. This provision would be consistent with requirements for sablefish IFQ vessels in other GOA areas in order to minimize the potential for catcher/processors using longline pot gear in SEO to preempt fishing grounds for extended periods. The Council and NMFS determined that redeploying or removing longline pot gear from a specific location would meet the requirements to tend gear in this proposed rule (see Section 2.2 of the Analysis). This would provide sablefish IFQ permit holders with flexibility to harvest sablefish IFQ while still requiring vessel operators to tend gear within a maximum time period in order to minimize the potential for gear to be left unattended on the fishing grounds for an extended period of time. NMFS proposes to require a catcher/processor in the SEO sablefish area to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish sablefish IFQ within five days after deploying the gear. This proposed regulation would mirror the effect of the provision applicable to vessels in the WY and CGOA sablefish areas.

    The Council and NMFS determined that five days was an appropriate period of time because the Council heard testimony from operators intending to use longline pot gear that this would accommodate sablefish vessel fishing plans to soak pots for two to four days, while allowing additional time to redeploy or remove gear in the event of poor weather or operational delays. The Council and NMFS determined that this requirement to redeploy or remove gear at least every five days would minimize the likelihood that one vessel would preempt the same fishing grounds for an extended period of time.

    In the WY and CGOA sablefish areas, a catcher vessel and a catcher/processor operator would be required to redeploy or remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds within five days after deploying the gear. The Council and NMFS received testimony that this would be an appropriate time period because it is unlikely that a vessel operator would leave fishing gear unattended for longer than five days in the WY and CGOA sablefish areas. The Council and NMFS determined that five days was an appropriate period of time because the Council heard testimony from operators intending to use longline pot gear that this would accommodate sablefish vessel fishing plans to soak pots for two to four days while allowing additional time to redeploy or remove gear in the event of poor weather or operational delays.

    The Council and NMFS considered testimony indicating that, although the fishing grounds in WY are spatially constrained, similar to SEO, the likelihood of grounds preemption in WY is lower because there are fewer IFQ permit holders in that area than in SEO. Therefore, the Council and NMFS determined that it would not be necessary to require a vessel operator to remove longline pot gear from WY area grounds when the vessel made a landing. The Council and NMFS received testimony that fishing grounds are not as limited in the WY and CGOA sablefish areas, and grounds preemption likely would not occur under this proposed rule.

    In the WGOA sablefish area, a catcher vessel and a catcher/processor operator would be required to redeploy or remove longline pot gear from the fishing grounds within seven days after deploying the gear. The Council and NMFS received testimony that this would be an appropriate time period because while it was unlikely that a vessel operator would leave fishing gear unattended for longer than seven days in the WGOA, this proposed rule would provide a maximum time limit for which longline pot gear could be left unattended on the fishing grounds. The Council provided a longer time period in the WGOA for operators to redeploy or remove longline pot gear relative to the other sablefish areas because the WGOA is the largest GOA sablefish area and there are substantially fewer sablefish IFQ holders in the WGOA than in SEO and the CGOA. The Council and NMFS received testimony that fishing grounds are not constrained in the WGOA and grounds preemption likely would not occur under this proposed rule.

    Gear Marking

    This proposed rule would implement additional gear marking requirements for vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA. Current regulations at § 679.24(a) require all vessel operators using hook-and-line and pot gear to mark buoys carried on board or used by the vessel to be marked with the vessel's Federal fisheries permit number or ADF&G vessel registration number. This regulation also specifies that the markings must be a specified size, shall be visible above the water line, and shall be maintained so the markings are clearly visible.

    Section 4.9.5 and Section 4.10 of the Analysis describe the impacts of the additional gear marking requirements that would be implemented by this proposed rule for a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. In addition to the current requirements at § 679.24(a), each vessel operator would be required to attach a cluster of four or more marker buoys, a flag mounted on a pole, and a radar reflector to each end of a longline pot set. The Council and NMFS received testimony that these marking requirements would enhance the visibility of the ends of a longline pot gear set to other vessels that are on the fishing grounds and would not impose a substantial cost on vessel operators using longline pot gear. The testimony indicated that these marking tools are commonly used by vessel operators that deploy pot gear in fisheries in Alaska.

    This proposed rule would require a vessel operator to use four or more buoys to mark each end of a longline pot gear set. The Council and NMFS anticipate that multiple buoys would keep the gear marking above the water line in stronger currents and facilitate visibility from greater distances. Current regulations require any vessel fishing in the sablefish or halibut IFQ fisheries to mark all buoys carried on board or used with the vessel's Federal Fisheries Permit (FFP) number or Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) vessel registration number. This provides enforcement agents and other fishermen on the grounds with information that identifies the vessel or the IFQ permit holder associated with that vessel. This proposed rule would require a vessel operator to add the initials “LP” for “Longline Pot” to one hard buoy in the buoy cluster in addition to the FFP number or ADF&G vessel registration number. This would distinguish buoys for hook-and-line gear from buoys for longline pot gear.

    This proposed rule would require a vessel operator to use a flag mounted on a pole to mark each end of a longline pot gear set. Section 4.9.5 of the Analysis explains that flags are commonly used by vessel operators to mark pot gear in fisheries in Alaska.

    This proposed rule would require a vessel operator to use a radar reflector to mark each end of a longline pot gear set. Fishing vessels use radar reflectors to help make the vessel or other objects identifiable by other vessels that use radar to scan for vessels and other obstructions. A radar reflector reflects a radar signal directly back to the radar antenna so that the object with the radar reflector is identifiable on the radar of the vessel deploying the radar. The Council and NMFS received public testimony that radar reflectors are commonly used by vessel operators to mark pot gear in fisheries in Alaska. This public testimony indicated that the requirement to mark longline pot gear with a radar reflector under this proposed rule would not impose a substantial cost on vessel operators.

    Monitoring and Enforcement

    This proposed rule would implement three additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements to monitor and enforce provisions that are intended to minimize gear conflicts and grounds preemption. First, NMFS would require all vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report specific information in logbooks about fishing gear used and catch for all sablefish IFQ fishing trips. Most vessel operators in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery are currently required to complete logbooks for sablefish IFQ fishing trips. Second, NMFS would require all vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to have an operating Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) while fishing for sablefish IFQ. Third, NMFS would add additional required fields to the Prior Notice of Landing (PNOL) for vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Section 4.9 of the Analysis notes that this proposed rule would require all vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to complete NMFS logbooks. NMFS uses logbooks to collect detailed information from vessel operators participating in the IFQ fisheries. Under current regulations, the operator of a catcher vessel 60 feet or greater (18.3 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the sablefish or halibut IFQ fisheries is required to maintain a Daily Fishing Logbook (DFL). The operator of a catcher/processor using hook-and-line gear in the sablefish or halibut IFQ fisheries must use a combination of a Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL) and the NMFS electronic reporting system for landings (eLandings). For each day during a fishing trip, vessel operators are required to record in a DFL or DCPL information on deployed, retrieved, and lost gear and catch information per unit of gear deployed.

    This proposed rule would add a requirement for all operators of a vessel using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report in a DFL (for catcher vessels) or DCPL (for catcher/processors) the number of pots and location of longline pot sets deployed on a fishing trip. Under current regulations, the operator of a vessel less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA is exempt from logbook reporting requirements. This proposed rule would remove this exemption for the operator of a vessel using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. While this would be a new regulatory requirement for these vessels, Section 4.9.3.2 of the Analysis explains that many operators of vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) in the sablefish IFQ fishery voluntarily complete and submit logbooks. Therefore, the Council and NMFS anticipate this additional reporting requirement would not negatively impact operators of vessels less than 60 feet (18.3 m) that choose to use longline pot gear.

    Current regulations allow the operator of a vessel required to complete a DFL or a DCPL to use a NMFS-approved electronic logbook (ELB) instead of a DFL or DCPL. While NMFS does not currently have an approved ELB for vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA, NMFS anticipates that an ELB would be available for use by these vessel operators in the future. Under this proposed rule, vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery would be required to complete a DFL or a DCPL and eLandings to record and report sablefish information until a NMFS-approved ELB is available.

    Section 4.10 of the Analysis notes that this proposed rule would require all vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to use VMS to track vessel activity in the GOA sablefish areas. VMS is used to monitor the location and movement of commercial fishing vessels in Federal fisheries in Alaska. NMFS would use the VMS to aid in determining compliance with requirements to redeploy or remove fishing gear from the grounds within a specified time period under this proposed rule.

    Section 5.7 of the Analysis states that this proposed rule would add a requirement for vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report the number of pots deployed, the number of pots lost, and the number of pots left deployed on the fishing grounds on the PNOL. NMFS requires vessel operators in the IFQ fisheries to submit a PNOL at least three hours before a landing occurs to alert enforcement personnel of the upcoming landing. The PNOL would be a declaration from the vessel operator that enforcement agents could compare with the gear on board while the vessel is making a landing.

    Sections 4.9.3.2, 4.9.4.1, 4.9.5.1, and 4.9.6.1 of the Analysis describe enforcement considerations for the provisions of this proposed rule that are intended to minimize gear conflicts and grounds preemption. The Council and NMFS considered the methods that would be used to enforce the proposed restrictions on use of longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. The Council and NMFS determined that the requirements in this proposed rule would provide sufficient monitoring and enforcement information to meet the Council's objectives for Amendment 101 and this proposed rule.

    Impacts on Whale Interactions in the Sablefish IFQ Fishery

    Depredation by killer whales and sperm whales is common in the sablefish IFQ fisheries in the GOA and BSAI. Section 3.4.1 of the Analysis provides available information on the interactions of the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery with killer whales and sperm whales. The Analysis examined data from the commercial fisheries and sablefish survey data and concluded that the use of longline pot gear would support the objective of this proposed rule to reduce sablefish IFQ fishery interactions with whales in the GOA. Use of longline pot gear is expected to reduce fishing gear interactions with whales and have a positive effect on killer whales and sperm whales compared to the status quo.

    Section 3.4.2 of the Analysis notes that this proposed rule could reduce the risk of whale entanglements in fishing gear. Although the likelihood of whale entanglements in hook-and-line gear is very low in Alaska fisheries, the Analysis states that neither killer whales nor sperm whales are known to depredate on pot fishing gear. Therefore, this proposed rule could reduce the risk of whale entanglements in fishing gear.

    Impacts on Seabird Interactions in the GOA Sablefish IFQ Fishery

    Many seabird species are attracted to fishing vessels to forage on bait, offal, discards, and other prey made available by fishing operations. These interactions can result in direct mortality for seabirds if they become entangled in fishing gear or strike the vessel or fishing gear while flying. In addition, seabirds are attracted to sinking baited hooks and can be hooked and drowned. Hook-and-line gear has the greatest impact on seabirds relative to other fishing gear. Since 1998, seabird avoidance measures have been required on vessels greater than or equal to 27 ft (7.9 m) LOA using hook-and-line gear in the groundfish and halibut fisheries in the GOA and BSAI (March 6, 1998, 63 FR 11161). Additional seabird avoidance measures have been adopted for the hook-and-line fishery since 1998 (72 FR 71601, December 18, 2007). These measures were intended to reduce seabird incidental catch and mortality and mitigate interactions with short-tailed albatross.

    Section 3.5.1 of the Analysis examines the effect of hook-and-line gear on seabirds. Data from 1993 through 2012 indicate the annual incidental catch of seabirds in all hook-and-line fisheries constitutes about 91 percent of fisheries-related seabird mortality in Alaska. The GOA typically accounts for 10 percent to 20 percent of overall incidental seabird catch.

    Section 3.5.1.2 of the Analysis compared the number of seabird mortalities by hook-and-line and pot gear in the GOA Pacific cod fishery and the BSAI sablefish IFQ fishery and determined that a higher level of seabird mortality occurred with hook-and-line gear. The Analysis compared seabird mortality by hook-and-line and pot gear in the GOA Pacific cod fishery because pot gear is not authorized for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. The estimated seabird mortality in the GOA Pacific cod fishery from vessels using hook-and-line gear was 1,802 seabirds and the estimated mortality from vessels using pot gear was 458 seabirds. This comprises a very small portion of total estimated seabird mortality from fisheries in Alaska. This proposed rule would likely reduce the already small incidental catch of seabirds in the sablefish IFQ fishery because it would provide vessel operators with the opportunity to use longline pot gear, which has a lower rate of incidental catch of seabirds than hook-and-line gear.

    Impacts on the Halibut IFQ Fishery

    The Council and NMFS also considered the impacts of this proposed rule on the halibut IFQ fishery. Section 3.2.1 of the Analysis notes that the overall impact of this proposed rule on the halibut IFQ fishery is likely to be small. This proposed rule would revise current regulations to authorize retention of halibut IFQ caught when using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, provided a person on the vessel holds sufficient IFQ pounds to cover the retained halibut.

    In developing this proposed rule, the Council recognized that the IPHC authorizes fishing gear for halibut in the GOA through its annual management measures. The IPHC meets annually to approve the regulations that apply to persons and vessels fishing for and retaining halibut IFQ. At its January 2016 Annual Meeting, the IPHC approved longline pot gear, as defined by the Council, as legal gear to retain halibut in Alaska if NMFS implements regulations that authorize longline pot gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery (81 FR 14000, March 16, 2016).

    Section 19(1) of the 2016 annual management measures allows a person to retain and possess halibut IFQ taken with hook-and-line or longline pot gear in the sablefish IFQ fishery provided retention and possession is authorized by NMFS regulations published at 50 CFR part 679. Current NMFS regulations require vessel operators using hook-and-line gear and holding sufficient halibut IFQ to retain legal size halibut (32 inches or greater) caught incidentally in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. If the Secretary approves a final rule to implement Amendment 101, NMFS would implement a requirement in regulations for vessel operators using longline pot gear and holding sufficient halibut IFQ to retain legal size halibut in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery as recommended by the Council and the IPHC. The Council developed this regulation pursuant to section 773c(c) of the Halibut Act. The Secretary is publishing this regulation for public comment in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

    Requiring the retention of incidentally caught halibut IFQ is intended to avoid the discard and associated discard mortality of halibut in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. The sablefish and halibut hook-and-line gear fisheries are prosecuted simultaneously. Vessels that fish sablefish IFQ typically also fish halibut IFQ. Section 4.5.6 of the Analysis notes that the majority of sablefish IFQ permit holders also hold a halibut IFQ permit. Section 4.9.6 of the Analysis concludes that replacing some amount of hook-and-line effort with longline pot gear effort could benefit permit holders in the halibut IFQ fishery because many of the sablefish IFQ fishery participants are also halibut IFQ fishery participants. This proposed rule would create efficiencies in the harvest of halibut and sablefish for these participants.

    This proposed rule would require vessel operators that catch halibut in longline pot gear to comply with current retention requirements under the IFQ Program and the provisions recommended by the Council. Currently, halibut caught with hook-and-line gear must be retained if the halibut are of legal size and a person on the vessel holds a halibut IFQ permit with sufficient halibut IFQ pounds to cover the retained halibut. The Council recommended, and NMFS agrees, that a sablefish IFQ permit holder on board a vessel that catches halibut with longline pot gear in the GOA would be required to retain the halibut provided they hold a halibut IFQ permit with sufficient halibut IFQ pounds to cover the retained halibut. Regulations at § 679.7(f)(4) prohibit an IFQ holder from retaining legal size halibut if no person on board the vessel holds sufficient IFQ pounds to cover the retained halibut. In these instances, fishermen are required to discard the halibut with a minimum of injury consistent with regulations at § 679.7(a)(13) and Section 14 of the IPHC annual management measures (81 FR 14000, March 16, 2016).

    This Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would revise regulations at 50 CFR part 300 and 50 CFR part 679 to: (1) Authorize longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, (2) minimize the potential for gear conflicts and fishing grounds preemption, and (3) require retention of halibut IFQ caught in longline pot gear used in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. NMFS also proposes additional regulatory revisions to facilitate the administration, monitoring, and enforcement of this proposed rule. This section describes the proposed changes to current regulations.

    Authorize Longline Pot Gear

    This proposed rule would revise §§ 300.61, 679.2, and 679.24 to authorize longline pot gear for use in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    This proposed rule would revise regulations at § 300.61 that supplement the annual management measures adopted by the IPHC. These proposed revisions are necessary to implement the Council's recommendation to require halibut IFQ permit holders to retain legal sized halibut IFQ caught incidentally in longline pots deployed in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, provided the halibut IFQ holders have sufficient remaining IFQ pounds to cover the retained halibut. To implement this recommendation, this proposed rule would revise the definition of “Fishing” at § 300.61 to specify that the use of longline pot gear in any halibut area in the GOA to harvest halibut IFQ would be subject to halibut regulations at part 300. This proposed rule would revise the definition of “IFQ halibut” at § 300.61 to specify that halibut IFQ may be harvested with longline pot gear while commercial fishing in any halibut area in the GOA.

    This proposed rule would revise the definition of “Fixed gear” under the definition of “Authorized fishing gear” at § 679.2(4)(i) to include longline pot gear as an authorized gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Fixed gear is a general term that describes the multiple gear types allowed to fish sablefish IFQ and halibut IFQ under the IFQ Program and is referred to throughout 50 CFR part 679.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.2(4)(iv) to the definition of “Fixed gear” under the definition of “Authorized fishing gear” to include longline pot gear as an authorized gear for halibut IFQ harvested in halibut areas in the GOA.

    This proposed rule would revise the definition of “IFQ halibut” in § 679.2 to specify that halibut IFQ may be harvested with longline pot gear while commercial fishing in any halibut area in the GOA.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.24(b) and (c) to authorize the use of longline pot gear to harvest sablefish in GOA sablefish areas.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.42(b)(1) to specify that authorized fishing gear for sablefish and halibut IFQ is defined in § 679.2. NMFS proposes to add § 679.42(b)(1)(i) to further clarify that trawl gear is not authorized for use in the sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries in the GOA and the BSAI. NMFS proposes to add § 679.42(b)(1)(ii) to clarify that pot-and-line gear is not authorized for use in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Minimize Potential Gear Conflicts and Grounds Preemption

    This proposed rule would add provisions at § 679.42(l) to minimize the potential for gear conflicts and grounds preemption. This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(1) and (2) to establish the general requirements for using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(3) to specify the requirements for vessel operators to request pot tags. This proposed rule would describe the process NMFS would use to issue pot tags and to annually register a vessel and assign pot tags for the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Section 679.42(l)(3)(i) would require a vessel operator to request pot tags from NMFS by submitting a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form that would be available on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site. NMFS would issue the number of requested tags up to the pot limit authorized in a sablefish area. The vessel owner requesting pot tags must specify the vessel to which NFMS would assign the pot tags. Under proposed § 679.42(l)(3)(ii), NMFS would assign pot tags to the registered vessel and issue them to the vessel owner upon receipt of a complete request for pot tags. Section 679.42(l)(3)(iii) would specify the process a vessel owner would use to submit a request for pot tag replacement to NMFS if one or more of the originally issued pot tags is lost or damaged such that the unique pot tag number is not legible.

    Section 679.42(l)(3)(iv) would specify the process for annual vessel registration and assignment of pot tags. The vessel owner must annually register with NMFS the vessel that will be used to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA. The vessel owner also must specify whether he or she is requesting assignment of pot tags previously issued to the vessel owner or is requesting new pot tags to be assigned to the vessel. Pot tags must be assigned to only one vessel each year. To assign pot tags, the vessel owner must submit a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form and indicate the vessel to which NMFS will assign the pot tags for the current year. The vessel owner must indicate whether he or she is assigning pot tags that were previously assigned to the vessel or requesting new pot tags.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(4) to specify the requirements for a vessel operator to use pot tags in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. This proposed rule would require a valid pot tag that is assigned to the vessel be attached to each pot on board the vessel before the vessel departs port to fish in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(5) to specify restrictions on longline pot gear deployment and retrieval. Section 679.42(l)(5)(i)(A) would require a vessel operator to mark longline pot gear as specified in § 679.24(a). Section 679.24(a) would be revised to require a vessel operator to mark each end of a set of longline pot gear with a cluster of four or more marker buoys including one hard buoy marked with the capital letters “LP,” a flag mounted on a pole, and a radar reflector. These requirements would be in addition to current requirements at § 679.24(a) that require all hook-and-line, longline pot, and pot-and-line marker buoys to be marked with the vessel's FFP number or ADF&G vessel registration number.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(5)(i)(B) to require a vessel operator to deploy longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery only during the sablefish fishing period specified in § 679.23(g)(1). NMFS annually establishes the sablefish fishing period to correspond with the halibut fishing period established by the IPHC.

    Current regulations at § 679.23(g)(2) authorize an IFQ permit holder to retain sablefish outside of the established fishing period if the permit holder has unused IFQ for the specified sablefish area. This proposed rule would revise § 679.23(g)(2) to specify that IFQ permit holders using longline pot gear in the GOA would not be authorized to retain sablefish outside of the established fishing period even if the IFQ permit holder has unused IFQ.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(5)(ii) to establish pot limits in each GOA sablefish area. This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(5)(iii) to establish gear redeployment and removal requirements for longline pot gear in each GOA sablefish area. As described in the section titled Impacts of Amendment 101 and this Proposed Rule, this proposed rule would require a vessel operator using longline pot gear to redeploy the gear within a certain amount of time after being deployed, or remove the gear from the fishing grounds when making a sablefish landing.

    This proposed rule would allow multiple vessels to use the same longline pot gear during one fishing season but would prevent use of the same longline pot gear simultaneously. To prevent use of the same longline pot gear simultaneously, this proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(5)(iv) to require a vessel operator to (1) remove longline pot gear assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish sablefish IFQ from the fishing grounds, (2) return the gear to port, and (3) remove the pot tags that are assigned to that vessel from each pot before the gear could be used on another vessel. The operator of the second vessel would be required to attach pot tags assigned to his or her vessel to each pot before deploying the gear to fish for GOA sablefish IFQ. This proposed rule would require that only one set of the appropriate vessel-specific pot tags may be attached to the pots.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(6) to require a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to retain legal sized halibut caught incidentally if any IFQ permit holder on board has sufficient halibut IFQ pounds for the retained halibut for that halibut area.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.42(l)(7) to require a vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to comply with logbook reporting requirements at § 679.5(c) and VMS requirements at § 679.42(k).

    Recordkeeping and Reporting

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.5 to implement this proposed rule and clarify current logbook reporting requirements.

    The following table describes the proposed revisions to § 679.5.

    Paragraph in § 679.5 Proposed revision (a)(4)(i) Require the operator of a vessel less than 60 feet (18.3 m) LOA using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to complete a logbook. (c)(1)(vi)(B) Clarify table footnote. (c)(2)(iii)(A) Add missing word. (c)(3)(i)(B) Revise paragraphs (1) and (2) and add paragraphs (3) through (5) to specify logbook reporting requirements for vessels in the GOA and BSAI. (c)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) Clarify tables describing current logbook reporting requirements. (c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) and (B)(2) Require the operator of a vessel using longline pot gear to record specific information in a DFL or DCPL each day the vessel is active in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. (c)(3)(v)(G) • Require the operator of a vessel using longline pot gear in the GOA or the BSAI fishery to record the length of a longline pot set, the size of the pot, and spacing of pots. • Clarify logbook reporting requirements for gear information for all vessels using longline and pot gear. (l)(1)(iii) Add paragraphs (H) and (I) to require the operator of a vessel using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to record in the PNOL the gear type used, number of pots set, number of pots lost, and number of pots left on the fishing grounds still fishing in addition to the other information required under current regulations. Monitoring and Enforcement

    This proposed rule would revise and add provisions to § 679.7 that would be necessary to monitor and enforce this proposed rule.

    This proposed rule would revise the prohibition on deployment of gear at § 679.7(a)(6) to include longline pot gear. This revision is necessary to prohibit deployment of longline pot gear in the GOA outside of the sablefish fishing period. This proposed rule would revise § 679.7(a)(6)(i) to clarify that vessels in the halibut IFQ fishery are subject to gear deployment requirements specified by the IPHC in the annual management measures pursuant to § 300.62.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.7(a)(13). Under current regulations, vessel operators in groundfish fisheries are required to discard halibut if the halibut is less than legal size and/or there are no IFQ permit holders on board with sufficient IFQ pounds for the retained halibut for that halibut area. If halibut must be discarded, current regulations at § 679.7(a)(13) specify handling and release requirements for halibut caught with hook-and-line gear in the sablefish fishery. This proposed rule would revise § 679.7(a)(13) to specify the current regulations describing handling and release methods that would apply to vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.7(f)(17) through (24) to enforce compliance with proposed regulations at §§ 679.23, 679.24, and 679.42 to minimize gear conflicts and grounds preemption.

    This proposed rule would add § 679.7(f)(25) to prohibit a vessel operator in the GOA from using longline pot gear to harvest sablefish IFQ or halibut IFQ in the GOA sablefish areas without having an operating VMS on board the vessel. This proposed rule would revise § 679.42(k)(1) and (2) to require a vessel operator using longline pot gear to possess a transmitting VMS transmitter on board the vessel while fishing for sablefish IFQ in the GOA. NMFS does not propose to change the VMS reporting requirements for vessels fishing for sablefish IFQ in the BSAI. This proposed rule would revise § 679.42(k)(2)(ii) to require a vessel operator fishing for sablefish IFQ in the GOA to comply with VMS requirements at § 679.28(f)(3) through (5), which explain the vessel owner's responsibilities to ensure a VMS is operating and transmitting. This proposed rule would revise § 679.42(k)(2)(ii) to require a vessel operator using longline pot gear to fish sablefish IFQ in the GOA to contact NMFS to confirm that VMS transmissions are being received from the vessel. The vessel operator would be required to receive a VMS confirmation number from NMFS before fishing in the sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Other Proposed Revisions

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.20(a)(4) to replace the reference to the sablefish TAC allocation to hook-and-line gear with a reference to fixed gear, as defined at § 679.2, which would include hook-and-line and longline pot gear. This proposed rule would not change the percent of the TAC allocated to the sablefish IFQ fishery in the GOA. NMFS would continue to allocate 95 percent of the sablefish TAC in the EGOA sablefish area to vessels using fixed gear and allocate 80 percent of the sablefish TACs in each of the CGOA and WGOA sablefish areas to vessels using fixed gear.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.42(b)(2) to specify that an operator of a vessel using hook-and-line gear to harvest sablefish IFQ, halibut IFQ, or halibut Community Development Quota (CDQ) must comply with seabird avoidance measures set forth in § 679.24(e). Vessel operators using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery would not be required to comply with seabird avoidance measures under this proposed rule.

    This proposed rule would revise § 679.51(a), which contains requirements for vessels in the partial observer coverage category, to remove specific reference to hook-and-line gear for vessels fishing for halibut. This revision is needed because this proposed rule would authorize the retention of halibut IFQ by vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA. It is not necessary to specify authorized gear for halibut IFQ in § 679.51(a) because § 679.50(a)(3) currently states that, for purposes of subpart E, when the term halibut is used it refers to both halibut IFQ and halibut CDQ, and the authorized gear for halibut is specified in § 679.2.

    Table 15 to 50 CFR Part 679, Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use

    This proposed rule would revise Table 15 to part 679 to identify longline pot gear as authorized gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. NMFS would revise the table to specify that authorized gear for sablefish IFQ harvested from any GOA reporting area would include longline pot gear in addition to all longline gear (i.e., hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline). NMFS would revise the table to specify that authorized gear for halibut harvest in the GOA would be fishing gear comprised of lines with hooks attached and longline pot gear. No change would be made in the table to authorized gear for sablefish or halibut IFQ in the BSAI.

    Classification

    Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) and 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the GOA FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the Halibut Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration of comments received during the public comment period.

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

    Regulatory Impact Review (RIR)

    An RIR was prepared to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. The RIR considers all quantitative and qualitative measures. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES). The Council recommended and NMFS proposes Amendment 101 and these regulations based on those measures that maximized net benefits to the Nation. Specific aspects of the economic analysis are discussed below in the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section.

    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was prepared for this action, as required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. The IRFA describes the action; the reasons why this action is proposed; the objectives and legal basis for this proposed rule; the number and description of directly regulated small entities to which this proposed rule would apply; the recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements of this proposed rule; and the relevant Federal rules that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule. The IRFA also describes significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the stated objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and any other applicable statutes, and that would minimize any significant economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The description of the proposed action, its purpose, and the legal basis are explained in the preamble and are not repeated here. A summary of the IRFA follows. A copy of the IRFA is available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES).

    For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (NAICS code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide.

    Number and Description of Small Entities Regulated by This Proposed Rule

    NMFS estimates that there are a total of 310 small catcher vessels and 1 small catcher/processor that participate in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery using hook-and-line gear. These entities would be directly regulated by this proposed rule because they would be subject to the proposed requirements for using longline pot gear if they choose to use pot longline gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Thus, NMFS estimates that 311 small entities would be directly regulated by this proposed rule.

    Description of Significant Alternatives That Minimize Adverse Impacts on Small Entities

    Several aspects of this rule directly regulate small entities. Small entities would be required to comply with the requirements for using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery, which include using only longline pot gear, pot limits, and gear retrieval and gear marking requirements. Authorizing longline pot gear in this proposed rule would provide an opportunity for small entities to choose whether to use longline pot gear to increase harvesting efficiencies and reduce operating costs in the sablefish IFQ fishery.

    Based on public testimony to the Council and NMFS, and Section 4.9 of the Analysis, the proposed requirements for using pot gear are not expected to adversely impact small entities because each entity could choose to use longline pot gear or continue to use hook-and-line gear. In addition, the requirements for using longline pot gear would not be expected to unduly restrict sablefish harvesting operations. The Council and NMFS considered requirements that would impose larger costs on directly regulated small entities. These included requiring all vessels to remove gear from the fishing grounds each time the vessel made a landing and requiring more sophisticated and costly satellite-based gear marking systems. The Council and NMFS determined that these additional requirements were not necessary to meet the objectives of the action. This proposed rule would meet the objectives of the action while minimizing adverse impacts on fishery participants.

    Small entities would be required to comply with additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements under this proposed rule if they choose to use longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery. Section 4.9 of the Analysis notes that directly regulated small entities using longline pot gear would be required to request pot tags from NMFS, maintain and submit logbooks to NMFS, have an operating VMS on board the vessel, and report additional information in a PNOL. The Analysis notes that these additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements would not be expected to adversely impact directly regulated small entities because the costs of complying with these requirements is de minimus relative to total gross fishing revenue. In addition, NMFS anticipates that many of the vessels that choose to use longline pot gear under this proposed rule currently comply with the logbook and VMS reporting requirements when participating in the sablefish IFQ fishery and in other fisheries. The Council and NMFS considered alternatives to implement additional requirements to report locations of deployed and lost gear in an electronic database. The Council and NMFS determined that these additional requirements were not necessary to meet the objectives of the action. This proposed rule would meet the objectives of the action while minimizing the reporting burden for fishery participants.

    Thus, there are no significant alternatives to this proposed rule that would accomplish the objectives to authorize longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery and minimize adverse economic impacts on small entities.

    Duplicate, Overlapping, or Conflicting Federal Rules

    NMFS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict between this proposed action and existing Federal rules.

    Recordkeeping, Reporting, and Other Compliance Requirements

    The recordkeeping, reporting, and other compliance requirements would be increased slightly under this proposed rule. This proposed rule contains new requirements for vessels participating in the proposed longline pot fishery for sablefish IFQ in the GOA.

    Presently, NMFS requires catcher vessel operators, catcher/processor operators, buying station operators, mothership operators, shoreside processor managers, and stationary floating processor managers to record and report all FMP species in logbooks, forms, eLandings, and eLogbooks. This proposed rule would revise regulations to require all vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report information on fishery participation in logbooks, forms, and eLandings.

    NMFS currently requires vessels in the BSAI to have an operating VMS on board the vessel while participating in the sablefish IFQ fishery. This proposed rule would revise regulations to extend this requirement to vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery.

    NMFS currently requires all vessels in the sablefish and halibut IFQ fisheries to submit a PNOL to NMFS. This proposed rule would revise regulations to require vessels using longline pot gear in the GOA sablefish IFQ fishery to report the number of pots deployed, the number of pots lost, and the number of pots left deployed on the fishing grounds on the PNOL, in addition to other required information.

    Collection-of-Information Requirements

    This proposed rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). These requirements have been submitted to OMB for approval. The collections are listed below by OMB control number.

    OMB Control Number 0648-0213

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 35 minutes per individual response for Catcher Vessel Longline and Pot Gear Daily Fishing Logbook; and 50 minutes for Catcher/processor Longline and Pot Gear Daily Cumulative Production Logbook.

    OMB Control Number 0648-0272

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per individual response for Prior Notice of Landing.

    OMB Control Number 0648-0353

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 15 minutes per individual response to mark longline pot gear; 15 minutes for IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags; and 15 minutes for IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear: Request for Replacement of Longline Pot Gear Tags.

    OMB Control Number 0648-0445

    Public reporting burden is estimated to average 2 hours per individual response for VMS operation; and 12 minutes for VMS check-in report.

    OMB Control Number 0648-0711

    The cost recovery program is mentioned in this rule. The cost to implement and manage the sablefish IFQ longline pot gear fishery, including the cost of the pot tags, will be included in the annual calculation of NMFS' recoverable costs. These costs will be part of the total management and enforcement costs used in the calculation of the annual fee percentage. For example, when the pot gear tags are ordered, the payment of those tags is charged 100 percent to the IFQ Program for cost recovery purposes. This rule would not change the process that harvesters use to pay cost recovery fees.

    The public reporting burden includes the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

    Public comment is sought regarding: Whether this proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the burden statements; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Send comments on these or any other aspects of the collection of information to NMFS (see ADDRESSES), and by email to [email protected] or fax to 202-395-5806.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number. All currently approved NOAA collections of information may be viewed at: http://www.cio.noaa.gov/services_programs/prasubs.html.

    List of Subjects 50 CFR Part 300

    Administrative practice and procedure, Antarctica, Canada, Exports, Fish, Fisheries, Fishing, Imports, Indians, Labeling, Marine resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Russian Federation, Transportation, Treaties, Wildlife.

    50 CFR Part 679

    Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Samuel D. Rauch III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR parts 300 and 679 are proposed to be amended as follows:

    PART 300—INTERNATIONAL FISHERIES REGULATIONS Subpart E—Pacific Halibut Fisheries 1. The authority citation for part 300, subpart E, continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773-773k.

    2. In § 300.61, revise the definitions of “Fishing” and “IFQ halibut” to read as follows:
    § 300.61 Definitions.

    Fishing means the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, or any activity that can reasonably be expected to result in the taking, harvesting, or catching of fish, including:

    (1) The deployment of any amount or component part of setline gear anywhere in the maritime area; or

    (2) The deployment of longline pot gear as defined in § 679.2 of this title, or component part of that gear in Commission regulatory areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and that portion of Area 4A in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and east of 170°00′ W. long.

    IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline gear as defined in this section or fixed gear as defined in § 679.2 of this title while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory area defined in § 679.2 of this title.

    PART 679—FISHERIES OF THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE OFF ALASKA 3. The authority citation for part 679 continues to read as follows: Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 773 et seq.; 1801 et seq.; 3631 et seq.; Pub. L. 108-447; Pub. L. 111-281.

    4. In § 679.2, a. In the definition of “Authorized fishing gear,” revise paragraphs (4)(i) and (iii), and add paragraph (4)(iv); and b. Revise the definition of “IFQ halibut”.

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 679.2 Definitions.

    Authorized fishing gear * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) For sablefish harvested from any GOA reporting area, all longline gear, longline pot gear, and, for purposes of determining initial IFQ allocation, all pot gear used to make a legal landing.

    (iii) For halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area, all fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached.

    (iv) For halibut harvested from IFQ regulatory areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and that portion of Area 4A in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B and east of 170°00′ W. long., all longline pot gear.

    IFQ halibut means any halibut that is harvested with setline gear as defined in § 300.61 of this title or fixed gear as defined in this section while commercial fishing in any IFQ regulatory area defined in this section.

    5. In § 679.5, a. Revise paragraph (a)(4)(i); b. Revise note to the table at paragraph (c)(1)(vi)(B); paragraphs (c)(2)(iii)(A); (c)(3)(i)(B); (c)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and (B)(1); (c)(3)(iv)(A)(2); (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2); and (c)(3)(v)(G); c. Revise paragraphs (l)(1)(iii)(F) and (G); and d. Add (l)(1)(iii)(H) and (I).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R).

    (a) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) Catcher vessels less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA. Except for vessels using longline pot gear as described in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(B)(1) of this section and the vessel activity report described at paragraph (k) of this section, the owner or operator of a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA is not required to comply with the R&R requirements of this section.

    (c) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (vi) * * *

    (B) * * *

    Note:

    CP = catcher/processor; CV = catcher vessel; pot = longline pot or pot-and-line; lgl = longline; trw = trawl; MS = mothership.

    (2) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (A) If a catcher vessel, record vessel name, ADF&G vessel registration number, FFP number or Federal crab vessel permit number, operator printed name, operator signature, and page number.

    (3) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (B) IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, and IFQ sablefish fisheries. (1) The operator of a catcher vessel less than 60 ft (18.3 m) LOA, using longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut in the GOA must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section.

    (2) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, the operator of a catcher vessel 60 ft (18.3 m) or greater LOA in the GOA must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section, when using longline gear or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish and when using gear composed of lines with hooks attached, setline gear (IPHC), or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ halibut.

    (3) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of this section, the operator of a catcher vessel 60 ft (18.3 m) or greater LOA in the BSAI must maintain a longline and pot gear DFL according to paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(A)(2) of this section, when using hook-and-line gear or pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish, and when using gear composed of lines with hooks attached or setline gear (IPHC) to harvest IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut.

    (4) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, the operator of a catcher/processor in the GOA must use a combination of a catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL and eLandings according to paragraph (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, when using longline gear or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish and when using gear composed of lines with hooks attached, setline gear (IPHC), or longline pot gear to harvest IFQ halibut.

    (5) Except as described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii) of this section, the operator of a catcher/processor in the BSAI must use a combination of a catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL and eLandings according to (c)(3)(iv)(B)(2) of this section, when using hook-and-line gear or pot gear to harvest IFQ sablefish, and when using gear composed of lines with hooks attached or setline gear (IPHC) to harvest IFQ halibut or CDQ halibut.

    (ii) * * *

    (A) * * *

    Reporting Time Limits, Catcher Vessel Longline or Pot Gear Required information Time limit for recording (1) FFP number and/or Federal crab vessel permit number (if applicable), IFQ permit numbers (halibut, sablefish, and crab), CDQ group number, halibut CDQ permit number, set number, date and time gear set, date and time gear hauled, beginning and end positions of set, number of skates or pots set, and estimated total hail weight for each set Within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (B) * * *

    Reporting Time Limits, Catcher/Processor Longline or Pot Gear Required information Record in DCPL Submit via eLandings Time limit for reporting (1) FFP number and/or Federal crab vessel permit number (if applicable), IFQ permit numbers (halibut, sablefish, and crab), CDQ group number, halibut CDQ permit number, set number, date and time gear set, date and time gear hauled, beginning and end positions of set, number of skates or pots set, and estimated total hail weight for each set X Within 2 hours after completion of gear retrieval. *         *         *         *         *         *         *

    (iv) * * *

    (A) * * *

    (2) If a catcher vessel identified in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(1) or (c)(3)(i)(B)(1) through (3) of this section is active, the operator must record in the longline and pot gear DFL, for one or more days on each logsheet, the information listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(v), (vi), (viii), and (x) of this section.

    (B) * * *

    (2) If a catcher/processor identified in paragraph (c)(3)(i)(A)(2) or (c)(3)(i)(B)(4) through (5) of this section is active, the operator must record in the catcher/processor longline and pot gear DCPL the information listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(v) and (vi) of this section and must record in eLandings the information listed in paragraphs (c)(3)(v), (vii), and (ix) of this section.

    (v) * * *

    (G) Gear type. Use a separate logsheet for each gear type. Place a check mark in the box for the gear type used to harvest the fish or crab. Record the information from the following table for the appropriate gear type on the logsheet. If the gear type is the same on subsequent logsheets, place a check mark in the box instead of re-entering the gear type information on the next logsheet.

    If gear type is . . . Then . . . (1) Other gear If gear is other than those listed within this table, indicate “Other” and describe. (2) Pot gear (includes pot-and-line and longline pot) (i) If using longline pot gear in the GOA, enter the length of longline pot set to the nearest foot, the size of pot in inches (width by length by height or diameter), and spacing of pots to the nearest foot. (ii) If using longline pot gear in the GOA, enter the number of pots deployed in each set (see paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(F) of this section) and the number of pots lost when the set is retrieved (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title). (iii) If using pot gear, enter the number of pots deployed in each set (see paragraph (c)(3)(vi)(F) of this section) and the number of pots lost when the set is retrieved (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title). (3) Hook-and-line gear Indicate: (i) Whether gear is fixed hook (conventional or tub), autoline, or snap (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title). (ii) Number of hooks per skate (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title), length of skate to the nearest foot (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title), size of hooks, and hook spacing in feet. (iii) Enter the number of skates set and number of skates lost (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title). (iv) Seabird avoidance gear code(s) (see § 679.24(e) and Table 19 to this part). (v) Enter the number of mammals sighted while hauling gear next to the mammal name: sperm, orca, and other (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title). (vi) Enter the number of sablefish, halibut, other fish, or hooks damaged found while hauling gear (optional, but may be required by IPHC regulations, see §§ 300.60 through 300.65 of this title).

    (l) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) * * *

    (F) IFQ regulatory area(s) in which the IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish were harvested;

    (G) IFQ permit number(s) that will be used to land the IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish;

    (H) Gear type used to harvest the IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut (see Table 15 to this part); and

    (I) If using longline pot gear in the GOA, report the number of pots set, the number of pots lost, and the number of pots left deployed on the fishing grounds.

    6. In § 679.7, a. Revise paragraph (a)(6) introductory text, (a)(6)(i), (a)(13) introductory text, (a)(13)(ii) introductory text, and (a)(13)(iv); and b. Add paragraphs (f)(17) through (25).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 679.7 Prohibitions.

    (a) * * *

    (6) Gear. Deploy any trawl, longline, longline pot, pot-and-line, or jig gear in an area when directed fishing for, or retention of, all groundfish by operators of vessels using that gear type is prohibited in that area, except that this paragraph (a)(6) shall not prohibit:

    (i) Deployment of fixed gear, as defined in § 679.2 under “Authorized fishing gear,” by an operator of a vessel fishing for IFQ halibut during the fishing period prescribed in the annual management measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to § 300.62 of this title.

    (13) Halibut. With respect to halibut caught with fixed gear, as defined in § 679.2 under the definition of “Authorized fishing gear,” deployed from a vessel fishing for groundfish, except for vessels fishing for halibut as prescribed in the annual management measures published in the Federal Register pursuant to § 300.62 of this title:

    (ii) Release halibut caught with longline gear by any method other than—

    (iv) Allow halibut caught with longline gear to contact the vessel, if such contact causes, or is capable of causing, the halibut to be stripped from the hook.

    (f) * * *

    (17) Deploy, conduct fishing with, or retrieve longline pot gear in the GOA before the start or after the end of the IFQ sablefish fishing period specified in § 679.23(g)(1).

    (18) Deploy, conduct fishing with, retrieve, or retain IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut from longline pot gear in the GOA:

    (i) In excess of the pot limits specified in § 679.42(l)(5)(ii); and

    (ii) Without a pot tag attached to each pot in accordance with § 679.42(l)(4).

    (19) Deploy, conduct fishing with, or retain IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut in the GOA from a pot with an attached pot tag that has a serial number assigned to another vessel or has been reported lost, stolen, or mutilated to NMFS in a request for a replacement pot tag as described in § 679.42(l)(3)(iii).

    (20) Deploy longline pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA without marking the gear in accordance with § 679.24(a).

    (21) Fail to retrieve and remove from the fishing grounds all deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher vessel to fish IFQ sablefish in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA when the vessel makes an IFQ landing.

    (22) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher/processor within five days of deploying the gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the Southeast Outside District of the GOA.

    (23) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher vessel or a catcher/processor within five days of deploying the gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the West Yakutat District of the GOA and the Central GOA regulatory area.

    (24) Fail to redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all deployed longline pot gear that is assigned to, and used by, a catcher vessel or a catcher/processor within seven days of deploying the gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the Western GOA regulatory area.

    (25) Operate a catcher vessel or a catcher/processor using longline pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish or IFQ halibut in the GOA and fail to use functioning VMS equipment as required in § 679.42(k)(2).

    7. In § 679.20, revise paragraphs (a)(4)(i), (a)(4)(ii) heading, and (a)(4)(ii)(A) to read as follows:
    § 679.20 General limitations.

    (a) * * *

    (4) * * *

    (i) Eastern GOA regulatory area—(A) Fixed gear. Vessels in the Eastern GOA regulatory area using fixed gear will be allocated 95 percent of the sablefish TAC.

    (B) Trawl gear. Vessels in the Eastern GOA regulatory area using trawl gear will be allocated 5 percent of the sablefish TAC for bycatch in other trawl fisheries.

    (ii) Central and Western GOA regulatory areas—(A) Fixed gear. Vessels in the Central and Western GOA regulatory areas using fixed gear will be allocated 80 percent of the sablefish TAC in each of the Central and Western GOA regulatory areas.

    8. In § 679.23, revise paragraph (g)(2) to read as follows:
    § 679.23 Seasons.

    (g) * * *

    (2) Except for catches of sablefish with longline pot gear in the GOA, catches of sablefish by fixed gear during other periods may be retained up to the amounts provided for by the directed fishing standards specified at § 679.20 when made by an individual aboard the vessel who has a valid IFQ permit and unused IFQ in the account on which the permit was issued.

    9. In § 679.24, a. Add paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(1)(iii); and b. Revise paragraphs (c)(2)(i)(A) and (B); and (c)(3).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 679.24 Gear limitations.

    (a) * * *

    (3) Each end of a set of longline pot gear deployed to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA must have attached a cluster of four or more marker buoys including one hard buoy ball marked with the capital letters “LP” in accordance with paragraph (a)(2) of this section, a flag mounted on a pole, and radar reflector floating on the sea surface.

    (b) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (iii) While directed fishing for IFQ sablefish in the GOA.

    (c) * * *

    (2) * * *

    (i) * * *

    (A) No person may use any gear other than hook-and-line, longline pot, and trawl gear when fishing for sablefish in the Eastern GOA regulatory area.

    (B) No person may use any gear other than hook-and-line gear and longline pot gear to engage in directed fishing for IFQ sablefish.

    (3) Central and Western GOA regulatory areas; sablefish as prohibited species. Operators of vessels using gear types other than hook-and-line, longline pot, and trawl gear in the Central and Western GOA regulatory areas must treat any catch of sablefish in these areas as a prohibited species as provided by § 679.21(a).

    10. In § 679.42, a. Revise paragraphs (b)(1) and (2); b. Revise paragraphs (k)(1) and (k)(2); and c. Add paragraph (l).

    The additions and revisions read as follows:

    § 679.42 Limitations on use of QS and IFQ.

    (b) * * *

    (1) IFQ Fisheries. Authorized fishing gear to harvest IFQ halibut and IFQ sablefish is defined in § 679.2.

    (i) IFQ halibut. IFQ halibut must not be harvested with trawl gear in any IFQ regulatory area, or with pot gear in any IFQ regulatory area in the BSAI.

    (ii) IFQ sablefish. IFQ sablefish must not be harvested with trawl gear in any IFQ regulatory area, or with pot-and-line gear in the GOA. A vessel operator using longline pot gear in the GOA to fish for IFQ sablefish must comply with the GOA sablefish longline pot gear requirements in paragraph (l) of this section.

    (2) Seabird avoidance gear and methods. The operator of a vessel using hook-and-line gear authorized at § 679.2 while fishing for IFQ halibut, CDQ halibut, or IFQ sablefish must comply with requirements for seabird avoidance gear and methods set forth at § 679.24(e).

    (k) * * *

    (1) Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands—(i) General. Any vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands must possess a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for IFQ sablefish.

    (ii) VMS requirements. (A) The operator of the vessel must comply with VMS requirements at § 679.28(f)(3) through (5); and

    (B) The operator of the vessel must contact NMFS at 800-304-4846 (option 1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and receive a VMS confirmation number at least 72 hours prior to fishing for IFQ sablefish in the Bering Sea or Aleutian Islands.

    (2) Gulf of Alaska. (i) General. A vessel operator using longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska must possess a transmitting VMS transmitter while fishing for sablefish.

    (ii) VMS requirements. (A) The operator of the vessel must comply with VMS requirements at § 679.28(f)(3) through (5); and

    (B) The operator of the vessel must contact NMFS at 800-304-4846 (option 1) between 0600 and 0000 A.l.t. and receive a VMS confirmation number at least 72 hours prior to using longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the Gulf of Alaska.

    (l) GOA sablefish longline pot gear requirements. Additional regulations that implement specific requirements for any vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish in the GOA using longline pot gear are set out under: § 300.61 Definitions, § 679.2 Definitions, § 679.5 Recordkeeping and reporting (R&R), § 679.7 Prohibitions, § 679.20 General limitations, § 679.23 Seasons, § 679.24 Gear limitations, and § 679.51 Observer requirements for vessels and plants.

    (1) Applicability. Any vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish with longline pot gear in the GOA must comply with the requirements of this paragraph (l). The IFQ regulatory areas in the GOA include the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, the West Yakutat District of the GOA, the Central GOA regulatory area, and the Western GOA regulatory area.

    (2) General. To use longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA, a vessel operator must:

    (i) Request and be issued pot tags from NMFS as specified in paragraph (l)(3);

    (ii) Use pot tags as specified in paragraph (l)(4);

    (iii) Deploy and retrieve longline pot gear as specified in paragraph (l)(5);

    (iv) Retain IFQ halibut caught in longline pot gear if sufficient halibut IFQ is held by persons on board the vessel as specified in paragraph (l)(6); and

    (v) Comply with other requirements as specified in paragraph (l)(7).

    (3) Pot tags. (i) Request for pot tags. (A) The owner of a vessel that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA must use pot tags issued by NMFS. A vessel owner may only receive pot tags from NMFS for each vessel that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA by submitting a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form according to form instructions. The form is located on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    (B) The vessel owner must specify the number of requested pot tags for each vessel for each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA (up to the maximum number of pots specified in paragraph (l)(5)(ii) of this section) on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form.

    (ii) Issuance of pot tags. (A) Upon submission of a completed IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form, NMFS will assign each pot tag to the vessel specified on the form.

    (B) Each pot tag will be a unique color that is specific to the IFQ regulatory area in the GOA in which it must be deployed and imprinted with a unique serial number.

    (C) NMFS will send the pot tags to the vessel owner at the address provided on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form.

    (iii) Request for pot tag replacement. (A) The vessel owner may submit a request to NMFS to replace pot tags that are lost, stolen or mutilated.

    (B) The vessel owner to whom the lost, stolen or mutilated pot tag was issued must submit a complete IFQ Sablefish Request for Replacement of Longline Pot Gear Tags form according to form instructions. The form is located on the NMFS Alaska Region Web site at alaskafisheries.noaa.gov.

    (C) A complete form must be signed by the vessel owner and is a sworn affidavit to NMFS indicating the reason for the request for a replacement pot tag or pot tags and the number of replacement pot tags requested by IFQ regulatory area.

    (D) NMFS will review a request to replace a pot tag or tags and will issue the appropriate number of replacement pot tags. The total number of pot tags issued to a vessel owner for an IFQ regulatory area in the GOA cannot exceed the maximum number of pots authorized for use by a vessel in that IFQ regulatory area specified in paragraph (l)(5)(ii) of this section. The total number of pot tags issued to a vessel owner for an IFQ regulatory area in the GOA equals the sum of the number of pot tags issued for that IFQ regulatory area that have not been replaced plus the number of replacement pot tags issued for that IFQ regulatory area.

    (iv) Annual vessel registration and pot tag assignment. (A) The owner of a vessel that uses longline pot gear to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA must annually register the vessel with NMFS and specify the pot tags that NMFS will assign to the vessel. Pot tags must be assigned to only one vessel each year.

    (B) To register a vessel and assign pot tags, the vessel owner must annually submit a complete IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form to NMFS.

    (1) The vessel owner must specify the vessel to be registered on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form. The specified vessel must have a valid ADF&G vessel registration number.

    (2) The vessel owner must specify on the IFQ Sablefish Longline Pot Gear Vessel Registration and Request for Pot Gear Tags form either that the vessel owner is requesting that NMFS assign pot tags to a vessel to which the pot tags were previously assigned or that the vessel owner is requesting new pot tags from NMFS.

    (4) Using pot tags. (i) Each pot used to fish for IFQ sablefish in the GOA must be identified with a valid pot tag. A valid pot tag is:

    (A) Issued by NMFS according to paragraph (l)(3) of this section;

    (B) The color specific to the regulatory area in which it will be used; and

    (C) Inscribed with a legible unique serial number.

    (ii) A valid pot tag must be attached to each pot on board the vessel to which the pot tags are assigned before the vessel departs port to fish.

    (iii) A valid pot tag must be attached to a pot bridge or cross member such that the entire pot tag is visible and not obstructed.

    (5) Restrictions on GOA longline pot gear deployment and retrieval—(i) General.

    (A) A vessel operator must mark longline pot gear used to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA as specified in § 679.24(a).

    (B) A vessel operator must deploy and retrieve longline pot gear to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA only during the sablefish fishing period specified in § 679.23(g)(1).

    (ii) Pot limits. A vessel operator is limited to deploying a maximum number of pots to fish IFQ sablefish in each IFQ regulatory area in the GOA.

    (A) In the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, a vessel operator is limited to deploying a maximum of 120 pots.

    (B) In the West Yakutat District of the GOA, a vessel operator is limited to deploying a maximum of 120 pots.

    (C) In the Central GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator is limited to deploying a maximum of 300 pots.

    (D) In the Western GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator is limited to deploying a maximum of 300 pots.

    (iii) Gear retrieval. (A) In the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, a catcher vessel operator must retrieve and remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish when the vessel makes an IFQ landing.

    (B) In the Southeast Outside District of the GOA, a catcher/processor must redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish within five days of deploying the gear.

    (C) In the West Yakutat District of the GOA and the Central GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator must redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish within five days of deploying the gear.

    (D) In the Western GOA regulatory area, a vessel operator must redeploy or remove from the fishing grounds all longline pot gear that is assigned to the vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish within seven days of deploying the gear.

    (iv) Longline pot gear used on multiple vessels. Longline pot gear assigned to one vessel and deployed to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA must be removed from the fishing grounds, returned to port, and must have only one set of the appropriate vessel-specific pot tags before being deployed by another vessel to fish IFQ sablefish in the GOA.

    (6) Retention of halibut. (i) A vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish using longline pot gear must retain IFQ halibut if:

    (A) The IFQ halibut is caught in IFQ regulatory areas 2C, 3A, 3B, and that portion of Area 4A in the GOA west of Area 3B and east of 170°00' W. long.; and

    (B) An IFQ permit holder on board the vessel has unused halibut IFQ for the IFQ regulatory area fished and IFQ vessel category.

    (7) Other requirements. A vessel operator who fishes for IFQ sablefish using longline pot gear in the GOA must:

    (i) Complete a longline and pot gear Daily Fishing Logbook (DFL) or Daily Cumulative Production Logbook (DCPL) as specified in § 679.5(c); and

    (ii) Comply with Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) requirements specified in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.

    11. In § 679.51, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(i) introductory text and (a)(1)(i)(B) to read as follows:
    § 679.51 Observer requirements for vessels and plants.

    (a) * * *

    (1) * * *

    (i) Vessel classes in partial coverage category. Unless otherwise specified in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the following catcher vessels and catcher/processors are in the partial observer coverage category when fishing for halibut or when directed fishing for groundfish in a federally managed or parallel groundfish fishery, as defined at § 679.2:

    (B) A catcher vessel when fishing for halibut while carrying a person named on a permit issued under § 679.4(d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), or (e)(2), or for IFQ sablefish, as defined at § 679.2, while carrying a person named on a permit issued under § 679.4(d)(1)(i) or (d)(2)(i); or

    12. In Table 15 to part 679, revise entries for “Pot”, “Authorized gear for sablefish harvested from any GOA reporting area”, and “Authorized gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area”, and add entry for “Authorized gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area in the BSAI” to read as follows: Table 15 to Part 679—Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use Gear Codes, Descriptions, and Use [X indicates where this code is used] Name of gear Use alphabetic code to complete
  • the following:
  • Alpha gear code NMFS logbooks Electronic check-in/check-out Use numeric code to complete
  • the following:
  • Numeric gear code IERS eLandings ADF&G COAR
    NMFS AND ADF&G GEAR CODES *         *         *         *         *         *         * Pot (includes longline pot and pot-and-line) POT X X 91 X X *         *         *         *         *         *         * FIXED GEAR Authorized gear for sablefish harvested from any GOA reporting area All longline gear (hook-and-line, jig, troll, and handline) and longline pot gear. For purposes of determining initial IFQ allocation, all pot gear used to make a legal landing. *         *         *         *         *         *         * Authorized gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area in the GOA All fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached and longline pot gear. Authorized gear for halibut harvested from any IFQ regulatory area in the BSAI All fishing gear composed of lines with hooks attached, including one or more stationary, buoyed, and anchored lines with hooks attached.          
    [FR Doc. 2016-19795 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    81 161 Friday, August 19, 2016 Notices DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request August 16, 2016.

    The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: [email protected] or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

    Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by September 19, 2016. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

    An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: Export Fruit Regulations—Export Apple Act (7 CFR part 33) and Export Grape and Plum Act (7 CFR part 35).

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0143.

    Summary of Collection: Fresh apples and grapes grown in the United States and shipped to any foreign destination must meet minimum quality and other requirements established by regulations issued under the Export Apple Act (7 CFR part 33) and the Export Grape and Plum Act (7 CFR part 35). These Acts were designed to promote the foreign trade of the United States in apples and grapes; to protect the reputation of these American-grown commodities; and to prevent deception or misrepresentation of the quality of such products moving in foreign commerce. Plum provisions in the marketing order were terminated in 1991. The regulation issued under the Export Grape and Plum Act (7 CFR part 35) cover fresh grapes grown in the United States and shipped to foreign destinations, except Canada and Mexico.

    Need and Use of the Information: Each shipment must be inspected by Federal or Federal-State Inspection Program (FSIP) to determine if a lot of apples or grapes intended for export meet the applicable quality requirements. FSIP inspectors use the Export Form Certificate to certify inspection of the shipment for exports bound for non-Canadian destinations. The USDA's Agricultural Marketing Services uses the certificates for compliance purposes. The inspector records specific information on the certificate relating to the quality of the fruit, the quantity shipped, the date shipped, vessel identification, and the intended foreign destination of the fruit. Export carriers are required to keep on file for three years copies of inspection certificates for apples and grapes.

    Description of Respondents: Business or other for-profit; Farms.

    Number of Respondents: 94.

    Frequency of Responses: Recordkeeping; Reporting; On occasion, Monthly, Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 4,381.

    Agricultural Marketing Service

    Title: National Sheep Industry Improvement Center.

    OMB Control Number: 0581-0263.

    Summary of Collection: The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center (NSIIC) was initially authorized under the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (Act) (Pub. L. 104-127). The initial legislation included a provision that privatized the NSIIC 10 years after its ratification. Subsequently, the NSIIC was privatized on September 30, 1996. In 2008, the NSIIC was re-established under Title XI of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 also known as the 2008 Farm Bill. Section 11009 of the 2008 Farm Bill repealed the requirement in section 375(e)(6) of the Act to privatize the NSIIC.

    The management of the NSIIC is vested in a Board of Directors (Board) that is appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. The primary objective of the NSIIC is to assist U.S. sheep and goat industries by strengthening and enhancing the production and marketing of sheep, goats, and their products in the United States.

    Need and Use of the Information: Information is collected using the forms “Nominations for Appointments;” “Background Information, AD-755;” and “Nominee's Agreement to Serve.” AMS accepts nominations for membership on the Board from national organizations that (1) consist primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the United States and (2) have the primary interest of sheep or goat production in the United States. The information collection requirements in the request are essential to carry out the intent of the enabling legislation.

    Description of Respondents: National Organizations consisting primarily of active sheep or goat producers in the U.S.

    Number of Respondents: 10.

    Frequency of Responses: Reporting: Annually.

    Total Burden Hours: 6.

    Ruth Brown, Departmental Information Collection Clearance Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19826 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
    DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Missoula Resource Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Forest Service, USDA.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Missoula Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Missoula, Montana. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act. RAC information can be found at the following Web site: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/lolo/workingtogether/advisorycommittees.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on Tuesday, September 6th, 2016, at 6:00 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 Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, 5705 Grant Creek Road Missoula, Montana.

    Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Ninemile Ranger District. Please call ahead at 406-626-5201 to facilitate entry into the building.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Sari Lehl, RAC Coordinator by phone at 406-626-5201, or via email at [email protected]

    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss, recommend, and vote on RAC projects.

    The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by September 1, 2016, to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time to make oral comments must be sent to Sari Lehl, RAC Coordinator, Ninemile Ranger District, 20325 Remount Road, Huson, Montana 59846; or by email to [email protected], or via facsimile to 406-626-5201.

    Meeting Accommodations: If you are a person requiring reasonable accommodation, please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices, or other reasonable accommodation. For access to the facility or proceedings, please contact the person listed in the section titled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    All reasonable accommodation requests are managed on a case by case basis.

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Erin M. Phelps, District Ranger.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19822 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3411-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of the Census Census Scientific Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Bureau of the Census (Census Bureau) is giving notice of a meeting of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee (C-SAC). The Committee will address policy, research, and technical issues relating to a full range of Census Bureau programs and activities, including communications, decennial, demographic, economic, field operations, geographic, information technology, and statistics. The C-SAC will meet in a plenary session on September 15-16, 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. The meeting will be available via webcast at: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/census-live.html or at http://www.ustream.tv/embed/6504322?wmode=direct.

    DATES:

    September 15-16, 2016. On September 15, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 5:00 p.m. On September 16, the meeting will begin at approximately 8:30 a.m. and end at approximately 4:00 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the U.S. Census Bureau Auditorium, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Suitland, Maryland 20746.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tara Dunlop Jackson, Branch Chief for Advisory Committees, 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 members of the C-SAC are appointed by the Director, U.S. Census Bureau. The Committee provides scientific and technical expertise, as appropriate, to address Census Bureau program needs and objectives. The Committee has been established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2, Section 10).

    All meetings are open to the public. A brief period will be set aside at the meeting for public comment on September 16. However, individuals with extensive questions or statements must submit them in writing to: [email protected] (subject line “September 2016 C-SAC Meeting Public Comment”), or by letter submission to Kimberly L. Leonard, Committee Liaison Officer, Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Room 8H179, 4600 Silver Hill Road, Washington, DC 20233.

    If you plan to attend the meeting, please register by Monday, September 12, 2016. You may access the online registration from the following link: http://www.regonline.com/csac_meeting_sep2016. Seating is available to the public on a first-come, first-served basis.

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should also be directed to the Committee Liaison Officer as soon as known, and preferably two weeks prior to the meeting.

    Due to increased security and for access to the meeting, please call 301-763-9906 upon arrival at the Census Bureau on the day of the meeting. A photo ID must be presented in order to receive your visitor's badge. Visitors are not allowed beyond the first floor.

    Topics of discussion will include the following items:

    • 2020 Census Program Updates • Economic Programs Updates ○ 2017 Economic Census ○ Census of Governments ○ Improving Economic Statistics • Disclosure Avoidance Overview • Evidence Based Policy Making Commission Overview • CSAC Working Groups Progress Reports Dated: August 11, 2016. John H. Thompson, Director, Bureau of the Census.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19853 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Foreign-Trade Zones Board [B-24-2016] Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 22—Chicago, Illinois, Authorization of Production Activity, Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc. (Automotive Electronic Components), St. Charles, Illinois

    On April 14, 2016, Omron Automotive Electronics, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board for its facility within FTZ 22—Site 41, in St. Charles, Illinois.

    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 26200, May 2, 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 12, 2016. Andrew McGilvray, Executive Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19862 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Bureau of Industry and Security In the Matter of: Walter Anders, 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078; Terand, Inc., 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078, Respondents; Order Relating to Walter Anders and Terand, Inc.

    The Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce (“BIS”), has notified Walter Anders (“Anders”) and Terand, Inc. (“Terand”) (collectively, referred to as “Terand/Anders” or the “Respondents”) of its intention to initiate an administrative proceeding against Respondents pursuant to Section 766.3 of the Export Administration Regulations (the “Regulations”),1 and Section 13(c) of the Export Administration Act of 1979, as amended (the “Act”),2 through the issuance of a Proposed Charging Letter to Respondents that alleges that Respondents committed eight violations of the Regulations. Specifically, the charges are:

    1 The Regulations are currently codified in the Code of Federal Regulations at 15 CFR parts 730-774 (2016). The violations alleged occurred in 2012. The Regulations governing the violations at issue are found in the 2012 version of the Code of Federal Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774). The 2016 Regulations set forth the procedures that apply to this matter.

    2 50 U.S.C. 4601-4623 (available at http://uscode.house.gov/). Since August 21, 2001, the Act has been in lapse and the President, through Executive Order 13222 of August 17, 2001 (3 CFR, 2001 Comp. 783 (2002)), which has been extended by successive Presidential Notices, the most recent being that of August 4, 2016 (81 FR 52587 (Aug. 8, 2016)), has continued the Regulations in effect under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, et seq. (2012)).

    Charges 1-8 15 CFR 764.2(b)—Causing, Aiding, and/or Abetting Unlicensed Exports of Controlled Carbon Fiber

    On at least eight occasions between on or about April 5, 2012, and on or about December 1, 2012, Terand/Anders caused, aided, and/or abetted the export of approximately 6,557 kg of U.S.-origin T300 carbon fiber to Singapore without the required BIS licenses. The T300 carbon fiber is subject to the Regulations, classified under Export Control Classification Number (“ECCN”) 1C210.a, and controlled for nuclear proliferation reasons, and was valued at approximately $288,736. Each of the eight exports required a license pursuant to Section 742.3 of the Regulations.

    Terand/Anders' involvement in the transactions began soon after Performance Engineered Nonwovens, of Middletown, NY, was informed by BIS that its license to export T300 carbon fiber to Singapore was revoked based on concerns regarding the recipients of the items. Performance Engineered Nonwovens thereafter sought to camouflage its involvement in unlicensed exports of the carbon fiber to Singapore. Within weeks of the license revocation, Terand/Anders had agreed—following discussions between Anders, Terand's president and sole employee, and Performance Engineered Nonwovens' president, Peter Gromacki—that Terand would falsely act as the U.S. exporter of record for exports of the items to Singapore in return for a $1,400 commission for each successful export on Performance Engineered Nonwovens' behalf.

    Aware of the license requirement, Terand/Anders took various actions to cause, aid, and abet unlicensed exports of the items to Singapore, while seeking to minimize the risk that the U.S. Government would learn of Performance Engineered Nonwovens' involvement in the transactions. Terand/Anders created and issued commercial invoices on Terand letterhead that falsely named Terand as the exporter and falsely stated that: “This commodity technology exported from the United States is in accordance with the Export Administration Regulations.”

    Terand/Anders also acted as the intermediary between Performance Engineered Nonwovens/Gromacki and the freight forwarder, providing instructions to the forwarder, signing any required shipping documents, and receiving status reports on the progress of exports to Singapore. In addition, Terand's name appeared as the U.S. Principal Party in Interest on each of the Shippers Export Declarations filed with the U.S. Government in connection with the eight exports at issue, including after the customer in Singapore refused to place additional purchase orders through Terand after the first five of the exports. On or about September 28, 2012, Performance Engineered Nonwovens/Gromacki assured Terand/Anders that their crucial role in facilitating the unlawful exports, and their compensation for doing so, could nonetheless continue:

    Starting with today's shipment, I accepted [the purchase order] under PEN [Performance Engineered Nonwovens] name but Terand can continue to serve as exporter of record as you have been doing. . . . You continue to play a crucial role. I cannot export without your help and hence the commission checks will continue to flow in your direction. I shall forward you a copy of each PO.

    Terand/Anders did, in fact, continue to falsely act as the U.S. exporter of record for the remaining three exports at issue.

    In so causing, aiding, and/or abetting eight exports of the items without the required BIS export licenses, Terand and Anders committed eight violations of Section 764.2(b) of the Regulations, for which they are jointly and severally liable.

    WHEREAS, BIS and Respondents have entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to Section 766.18(a) of the Regulations, whereby they agreed to settle this matter in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth therein;

    WHEREAS, I have approved of the terms of such Settlement Agreement;

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

    FIRST, for a period of eight (8) years from the date of this Order, Walter Anders, with last known address 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078, and when acting for or on his behalf, his successors, assigns, employees, representatives, or agents, and Terand, Inc., with a last known address of 10701 Huntersville Commons Drive, Suite C, Huntersville, NC 28078, and when acting for or on its behalf, its successors, assigns, directors, officers, employees, representatives, or agents (each a “Denied Person” and collectively the “Denied Persons”), may not, directly or indirectly, participate in any way in any transaction involving any commodity, software or technology (hereinafter collectively referred to as “item”) exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations, including, but not limited to:

    A. Applying for, obtaining, or using any license, License Exception, or export control document;

    B. Carrying on negotiations concerning, or ordering, buying, receiving, using, selling, delivering, storing, disposing of, forwarding, transporting, financing, or otherwise servicing in any way, any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations; or

    C. Benefitting in any way from any transaction involving any item exported or to be exported from the United States that is subject to the Regulations, or in any other activity subject to the Regulations.

    SECOND, no person may, directly or indirectly, do any of the following:

    A. Export or reexport to or on behalf of a Denied Person any item subject to the Regulations;

    B. Take any action that facilitates the acquisition or attempted acquisition by a Denied Person of the ownership, possession, or control of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States, including financing or other support activities related to a transaction whereby a Denied Person acquires or attempts to acquire such ownership, possession or control;

    C. Take any action to acquire from or to facilitate the acquisition or attempted acquisition from a Denied Person of any item subject to the Regulations that has been exported from the United States;

    D. Obtain from a Denied Person in the United States any item subject to the Regulations with knowledge or reason to know that the item will be, or is intended to be, exported from the United States; or

    E. Engage in any transaction to service any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States and which is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person, or service any item, of whatever origin, that is owned, possessed or controlled by a Denied Person if such service involves the use of any item subject to the Regulations that has been or will be exported from the United States. For purposes of this paragraph, servicing means installation, maintenance, repair, modification or testing.

    THIRD, after notice and opportunity for comment as provided in Section 766.23 of the Regulations, any person, firm, corporation, or business organization related to a Denied Person by affiliation, ownership, control, or position of responsibility in the conduct of trade or related services may also be made subject to the provisions of the Order.

    FOURTH, Respondents shall not take any action or make or permit to be made any public statement, directly or indirectly, denying the allegations in the Proposed Charging Letter or the Order. The foregoing does not affect Respondents' testimonial obligations in any proceeding, nor does it affect their right to take legal or factual positions in civil litigation or other civil proceedings in which the U.S. Department of Commerce is not a party.

    FIFTH, the Proposed Charging Letter, the Settlement Agreement, and this Order shall be made available to the public.

    SIXTH, this Order shall be served on Respondents, and shall be published in the Federal Register.

    This Order, which constitutes the final agency action in this matter, is effective immediately.3

    3 Review and consideration of this matter has been delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.

    Issued this 12th day of August, 2016. Richard R. Majauskas, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19819 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-533-869] Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires From India: Negative Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (“Department”) preliminarily determines that certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (“OTR tires”) from India are not being, or are not likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”). The period of investigation (“POI”) is January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2015. The estimated weighted-average dumping margins of sales at LTFV are shown in the “Preliminary Determination” section of this notice. Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination.

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lilit Astvatsatrian or Trisha Tran, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412, or (202) 482-4852, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    The Department published the notice of initiation of this investigation on February 10, 2016.1 For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this investigation, see the memorandum that is dated concurrently with this determination and hereby adopted by this notice.2 A list of topics included in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is included as Appendix II 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 https://access.trade.gov, and 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 found at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Preliminary Decision Memorandum and the electronic version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

    1See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 81 FR 7073 (February 10, 2016) (“Initiation Notice”).

    2See Memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Decision Memorandum for the Preliminary Determination in the Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigation of Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India,” dated concurrently with this notice (“Preliminary Decision Memorandum”).

    On June 6, 2016, the Department published a notice of postponement for the preliminary determination in this investigation in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).3 As a result of the 50-day postponement, the revised deadline for the preliminary determination in this investigation is now August 11, 2016.4

    3See Certain New Pneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from India: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation, 81 FR 36263 (June 6, 2016).

    4Id., 81 FR at 36264.

    Scope of the Investigation

    The product covered by this investigation is OTR tires. For a full description of the scope of this investigation, see the “Scope of the Investigation,” in Appendix I.

    Scope Comments

    In accordance with the preamble to the Department's regulations,5 the Initiation Notice set aside a period of time for parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (i.e., “scope”).6 Certain interested parties commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Initiation Notice. For a summary of the product coverage comments and rebuttal responses submitted to the record for this preliminary determination, and accompanying discussion and analysis of all comments timely received, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    5See Antidumping Duties; Countervailing Duties, 62 FR 27296, 27323 (May 19, 1997).

    6See Initiation Notice, 81 FR at 7074.

    Methodology

    The Department is conducting this investigation in accordance with section 731 of the Act. Export prices or constructed export prices have been calculated in accordance with section 772(a) of the Act. Normal value (“NV”) is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act. For a full description of the methodology underlying our preliminary conclusions, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

    Preliminary Determination

    For this preliminary determination, we have calculated a zero dumping margin for each individually investigated producer/exporter of the subject merchandise. Consistent with section 733(b)(3) of the Act, we are disregarding these rates and preliminarily determine that the individually reviewed mandatory respondents have not made sales of subject merchandise at LTFV.

    Exporter/Manufacturer Weighted-
  • average
  • dumping
  • margin
  • (percent)
  • ATC Tires Private Ltd 0.00 Balkrishna Industries Limited 0.00

    Consistent with section 733(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department has not calculated a weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters because it has not made an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV.

    Suspension of Liquidation

    Because the Department has not made an affirmative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV, we are not directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to suspend liquidation of any entries of OTR tires from India.

    Disclosure and Public Comment

    We will disclose the calculations performed to interested parties in this proceeding within five days of the date of announcement, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). Interested parties are invited to comment on this preliminary determination. Case briefs or other written comments may be submitted to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance no later than seven days after the date on which the final verification report is issued in this proceeding, and rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be submitted no later than five days after the deadline date for case briefs.7 Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding are encouraged to submit with each argument: (1) A statement of the issue; (2) a brief summary of the argument; and (3) a table of authorities.

    7See 19 CFR 351.309.

    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. All documents must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed request must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.8 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, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230, at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.

    8See 19 CFR 351.310(c).

    Verification

    As provided in section 782(i) of the Act, we intend to verify information relied upon in making our final determination.

    Postponement of Final Determination

    Section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act provides that a final determination may be postponed until not later than 135 days after the date of the publication of the preliminary determination if, in the event of a negative preliminary determination, a request for such postponement is made by Petitioners. On July 28, 2016, Petitioner requested that the Department postpone the final determination.9

    9See Letter to the Secretary of Commerce from Petitioners “Petitioners' Comment on the Extension of the Final Determination” (July 28, 2016).

    In accordance with section 735(a)(2)(B) of the Act, because our preliminary determination is negative, we are postponing the final determination. Accordingly, we will make our final determination by no later than 135 days after the date of publication of this preliminary determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(2) of the Act.

    International Trade Commission (“ITC”) Notification

    In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we are notifying the ITC of our negative preliminary determination of sales at LTFV. If our final determination is affirmative, the ITC will determine before the later of 120 days after the date of this preliminary determination, or 45 days after our final determination whether these imports are materially injuring, or threaten material injury to, the U.S. industry.

    This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 733(f) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(c).

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I—Scope of the Investigation

    The scope of the investigation is certain new pneumatic off-the-road tires (OTR tires). OTR tires are tires with an off road tire size designation. The tires included in the scope may be either tube-type 10 or tubeless, radial, or non-radial, regardless of whether for original equipment manufacturers or the replacement market.

    10 While tube-type tires are subject to the scope of these proceedings, tubes and flaps are not subject merchandise and therefore are not covered by the scope of these proceedings, regardless of the manner in which they are sold (e.g., sold with or separately from subject merchandise).

    Subject tires may have the following prefix or suffix designation, which appears on the sidewall of the tire:

    Prefix designations:

    DH—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a DH drop center rim.

    VA—Identifies a tire intended for agricultural and logging service which must be mounted on a VA multipiece rim.

    IF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 20 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.

    VF—Identifies an agricultural tire to operate at 40 percent higher rated load than standard metric tires at the same inflation pressure.

    Suffix designations:

    ML—Mining and logging tires used in intermittent highway service.

    DT—Tires primarily designed for sand and paver service.

    NHS—Not for Highway Service.

    TG—Tractor Grader, off-the-road tire for use on rims having bead seats with nominal +0.188” diameter (not for highway service).

    K—Compactor tire for use on 5° drop center or semi-drop center rims having bead seats with nominal minus 0.032 diameter.

    IND—Drive wheel tractor tire used in industrial service.

    SL—Service limited to agricultural usage.

    FI—Implement tire for agricultural towed highway service.

    CFO—Cyclic Field Operation.

    SS—Differentiates tires for off-highway vehicles such as mini and skid-steer loaders from other tires which use similar size designations such as 7.00-15TR and 7.00-15NHS, but may use different rim bead seat configurations.

    All tires marked with any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are covered by the scope regardless of their intended use.

    In addition, all tires that lack any of the prefixes or suffixes listed above in their sidewall markings are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that is among the numerical size designations listed in the following sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set forth below. The sections of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book listing numerical size designations of covered OTR tires include:

    The table of mining and logging tires included in the section on Truck-Bus tires;

    The entire section on Off-the-Road tires;

    The entire section on Agricultural tires; and

    The following tables in the section on Industrial/ATV/Special Trailer tires:

    • Industrial, Mining, Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);

    • Industrial and Mining (Other than Smooth Floors);

    • Construction Equipment;

    • Off-the-Road and Counterbalanced Lift Truck (Smooth Floors Only);

    • Aerial Lift and Mobile Crane; and

    • Utility Vehicle and Lawn and Garden Tractor.

    OTR tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes OTR tires produced in the subject countries whether mounted on wheels or rims in a subject country or in a third country. OTR tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts, e.g., a wheel, rim, axle parts, bolts, nuts, etc. OTR tires that enter attached to a vehicle are not covered by the scope.

    In addition, specifically excluded from the scope are passenger vehicle and light truck tires, racing tires, mobile home tires, motorcycle tires, all-terrain vehicle tires, bicycle tires, on-road or on-highway trailer tires, and truck and bus tires. Such tires generally have in common that the symbol “DOT” must appear on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Such excluded tires may also have the following prefixes and suffixes included as part of the size designation on their sidewalls:

    Prefix letter designations:

    AT—Identifies a tire intended for service on All-Terrain Vehicles;

    P—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on passenger cars;

    LT—Identifies a tire intended primarily for service on light trucks;

    T—Identifies a tire intended for one-position “temporary use” as a spare only; and

    ST—Identifies a special tire for trailers in highway service.

    Suffix letter designations:

    TR—Identifies a tire for service on trucks, buses, and other vehicles with rims having specified rim diameter of nominal plus 0.156” or plus 0.250”;

    MH—Identifies tires for Mobile Homes;

    HC—Identifies a heavy duty tire designated for use on “HC” 15” tapered rims used on trucks, buses, and other vehicles. This suffix is intended to differentiate among tires for light trucks, and other vehicles or other services, which use a similar designation.

    Example: 8R17.5 LT, 8R17.5 HC;

    LT—Identifies light truck tires for service on trucks, buses, trailers, and multipurpose passenger vehicles used in nominal highway service;

    ST—Special tires for trailers in highway service; and

    M/C—Identifies tires and rims for motorcycles.

    The following types of tires are also excluded from the scope: Pneumatic tires that are not new, including recycled or retreaded tires and used tires; non-pneumatic tires, including solid rubber tires; aircraft tires; and turf, lawn and garden, and golf tires. Also excluded from the scope are mining and construction tires that have a rim diameter equal to or exceeding 39 inches. Such tires may be distinguished from other tires of similar size by the number of plies that the construction and mining tires contain (minimum of 16) and the weight of such tires (minimum 1500 pounds).

    The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1025, 4011.20.1035, 4011.20.5030, 4011.20.5050, 4011.61.0000, 4011.62.0000, 4011.63.0000, 4011.69.0090, 4011.92.0000, 4011.93.4000, 4011.93.8000, 4011.94.4000, 4011.94.8000, 8431.49.9038, 8431.49.9090, 8709.90.0020, and 8716.90.1020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.99.4590, 4011.99.8590, 8424.90.9080, 8431.20.0000, 8431.39.0010, 8431.49.1090, 8431.49.9030, 8432.90.0005, 8432.90.0015, 8432.90.0030, 8432.90.0080, 8433.90.5010, 8503.00.9560, 8708.70.0500, 8708.70.2500, 8708.70.4530, 8716.90.5035 and 8716.90.5055. While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.

    Appendix II—List of Topics Discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum I. Summary II. Background III. Period of Investigation IV. Postponement of Final Determination V. Scope of the Investigation VI. Scope Comments VII. Discussion of Methodology A. Determination of the Comparison Method B. Results of the Differential Pricing Analysis VIII. Date of Sale IX. Product Comparisons X. Export Price and Constructed Export Price XI. Normal Value A. Home Market Viability B. Affiliated Party Transactions and Arm's-Length Test C. Level of Trade D. Cost of Production Analysis 1. Calculation of COP 2. Test of Home Market Sale Prices 3. Results of the COP Test E. Calculation of NV Based on Comparison-Market Prices XII. Currency Conversion XIII. U.S. ITC Notification XIV. Disclosure and Public Comment XV. Verification XVI. Conclusion
    [FR Doc. 2016-19867 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-929] Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes From the People's Republic of China: Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review in Part; 2015-2016 AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    The Department of Commerce (the Department) is rescinding its administrative review in part on small diameter graphite electrodes from the People's Republic of China (PRC) for the period of review (POR) February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016.

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dmitry Vladimirov or Michael Romani AD/CVD Operations Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665 and (202) 482-0198, respectively.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    On February 3, 2016, we published a notice of opportunity to request an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the PRC for the POR February 1, 2015 through January 31, 2016.1 On April 7, 2016, in response to a timely request from the petitioners 2 and in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we initiated an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on small diameter graphite electrodes from the PRC with respect to 196 companies.3 On July 6, 2016, the petitioners withdrew their request for an administrative review for 193 out of 196 companies.4 See Appendix for a full list of these companies. No other party requested a review.

    1See Antidumping or Countervailing Duty Order, Finding, or Suspended Investigation; Opportunity to Request Administrative Review, 81 FR 5712 (February 3, 2016).

    2 SGL Carbon LLC and Superior Graphite Co (collectively, the petitioners). See letter from the petitioners to the Department, “7th Administrative Review of Small Diameter Graphite Electrodes from the People's Republic of China—Petitioners' Withdrawal of Certain Requests for Administrative Review” (July 6, 2016) (Withdrawal Request).

    3See Initiation of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Administrative Reviews, 81 FR 20324 (April 7, 2016).

    4See the petitioners' Withdrawal Request at Attachment 1. No withdrawal was requested for the Fangda Group, Fushun Jinly Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Fushun Jinli Petrochemical Carbon Co., Ltd., and Jilin Carbon Import and Export Company.

    Rescission of Administrative Review in Part

    Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the Department will rescind an administrative review, “in whole or in part, if a party that requested a review withdraws the request within 90 days of the date of publication of notice of initiation of the requested review.” Because the petitioners timely withdrew their review request, and because no other party requested a review of the companies for which the petitioners requested a review, we are rescinding the administrative review, in part, with respect to 193 companies for which the petitioners originally sought a review.

    Assessment

    The Department will instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For the companies for which the review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). The Department intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP within 15 days after publication of this notice.

    Notifications to Importers

    This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

    Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

    This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

    This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations. Appendix

    The 193 companies for which the petitioners have withdrawn their request for a review are as follows:

    1. 5-Continent Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 2. Acclcarbon Co., Ltd. 3. Allied Carbon (China) Co., Limited 4. AMGL 5. Anssen Metallurgy Group Co., Ltd. 6. Apex Maritime (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 7. Asahi Fine Carbon (Dalian) Co., Ltd. 8. Assi Steel Co. Ltd. 9. Beijing International Trade Co., Ltd. 10. Beijing Kang Jie Kong Cargo Agent Expeditors (Tianjin Branch) 11. Beijing Shougang Huaxia International Trade Co. Ltd. 12. Beijing Xinchengze Inc. 13. Beijing Xincheng Sci-Tech. Development Inc. 14. Brilliant Charter Limited 15. Carbon International 16. Chang Cheng Chang Electrode Co., Ltd. 17. Chengde Longhe Carbon Factory 18. Chengdelh Carbonaceous Elements Factory 19. Chengdu Jia Tang Corp. 20. China Carbon Graphite Group Inc. 21. China Carbon Industry 22. China Industrial Mineral & Metals Group 23. China Shaanxi Richbond Imp. & Exp. Industrial Corp. Ltd. 24. China Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. 25. CIMM Group Co., Ltd. 26. Dalian Carbon & Graphite Corporation 27. Dalian Hongrui Carbon Co., Ltd. 28. Dalian Honest International Trade Co., Ltd. 29. Dalian Horton International Trading Co., Ltd. 30. Dalian LST Metallurgy Co., Ltd. 31. Dalian Oracle Carbon Co., Ltd. 32. Dalian Shuangji Co., Ltd. 33. Dalian Thrive Metallurgy Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 34. Dandong Xinxin Carbon Co. Ltd. 35. Datong Carbon; 36. Datong Carbon Plant 37. Datong Xincheng Carbon Co., Ltd. 38. Datong Xincheng New Material Co. 39. Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 40. De Well Container Shipping Corp. 41. Dewell Group 42. Dignity Success Investment Trading Co., Ltd. 43. Double Dragon Metals and Mineral Tools Co., Ltd. 44. Fangda Lanzhou Carbon Joint Stock Company Co. Ltd. 45. Foset Co., Ltd. 46. Fushun Carbon Plant 47. Fushun Oriental Carbon Co., Ltd. 48. GES (China) Co., Ltd. 49. Gold Success Group Ltd. 50. Grameter Shipping Co., Ltd. (Qingdao Branch) 51. Guangdong Highsun Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. 52. Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 53. Haimen Shuguang Carbon Industry Co., Ltd. 54. Handan Hanbo Material Co., Ltd. 55. Hanhong Precision Machinery Co., Ltd. 56. Hebei Long Great Wall Electrode Co., Ltd. 57. Heico Universal (Shanghai) Distribution Co., Ltd. 58. Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Co. Ltd. 59. Heilongjiang Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 60. Heilongjiang Xinyuan Metacarbon Company Ltd. 61. Henan Sanli Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 62. Henan Sihai Import and Export Co., Ltd. 63. Hopes (Beijing) International Co., Ltd. 64. Huanan Carbon Factory 65. Hunan Mec Machinery and Electronics Imp. & Exp. Corp. 66. Hunan Yinguang Carbon Factory Co., Ltd. 67. Inner Mongolia QingShan Special Graphite and Carbon Co., Ltd. 68. Inner Mongolia Xinghe County Hongyuan Electrical Carbon Factory 69. Jiangsu Yafei Carbon Co., Ltd. 70. Jiaozuo Zhongzhou Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 71. Jichun International Trade Co., Ltd. of Jilin Province 72. Jiexiu Juyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. 73. Jiexiu Ju-Yuan & Coaly Co., Ltd. 74. Jilin Carbon Graphite Material Co., Ltd. 75. Jilin Songjiang Carbon Co Ltd. 76. Jinneng Group 77. Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. 78. Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. 79. JL Group 80. Kaifeng Carbon Company Ltd. 81. KASY Logistics (Tianjin) Co., Ltd. 82. Kimwan New Carbon Technology and Development Co., Ltd. 83. Kingstone Industrial Group Ltd. 84. L & T Group Co., Ltd. 85. Laishui Long Great Wall Electrode Co. Ltd. 86. Lanzhou Carbon Co., Ltd. 87. Lanzhou Carbon Import & Export Corp. 88. Lanzhou Hailong New Material Co. 89. Lanzhou Hailong Technology 90. Lanzhou Ruixin Industrial Material Co., Ltd. 91. Lianxing Carbon Qinghai Co., Ltd. 92. Lianxing Carbon Science Institute 93. Lianxing Carbon (Shandong) Co., Ltd. 94. Lianyungang Jianglida Mineral Co., Ltd. 95. Lianyungang Jinli Carbon Co., Ltd. 96. Liaoning Fangda Group Industrial Co., Ltd. 97. Liaoyang Carbon Co. Ltd. 98. Linghai Hongfeng Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 99. Linyi County Lubei Carbon Co., Ltd. 100. Maoming Yongye (Group) Co., Ltd. 101. MBI Beijing International Trade Co., Ltd. 102. Nantong Dongjin New Energy Co., Ltd. 103. Nantong Falter New Energy Co., Ltd. 104. Nantong River-East Carbon Co., Ltd. 105. Nantong River-East Carbon Joint Stock Co., Ltd. 106. Nantong Yangtze Carbon Corp. Ltd. 107. Nantong Yanzi Carbon Co. Ltd. 108. Oracle Carbon Co., Ltd. 109. Orient (Dalian) Carbon Resources Developing Co., Ltd. 110. Orient Star Transport International, Ltd. 111. Peixian Longxiang Foreign Trade Co. Ltd. 112. Pingdingshan Coal Group 113. Pudong Trans USA, Inc. (Dalian Office) 114. Qingdao Grand Graphite Products Co., Ltd. 115. Qingdao Haosheng Metals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 116. Quingdao Haosheng Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 117. Qingdao Liyikun Carbon Development Co., Ltd. 118. Qingdao Likun Graphite Co., Ltd. 119. Qingdao Ruizhen Carbon Co., Ltd. 120. Qingdao Yijia E.T.I. I/E Co., Ltd. 121. Qingdao Youyuan Metallurgy Material Limited Company (China) 122. Ray Group Ltd. 123. Rex International Forwarding Co., Ltd. 124. Rt Carbon Co., Ltd. 125. Ruitong Carbon Co., Ltd. 126. Sea Trade International, Inc. 127. Seamaster Global Forwarding (China) 128. Shandong Basan Carbon Plant 129. Shandong Zibo Continent Carbon Factory 130. Shanghai Carbon International Trade Co., Ltd. 131. Shanghai GC Co., Ltd. 132. Shanghai Jinneng International Trade Co., Ltd. 133. Shanghai P.W. International Ltd. 134. Shanghai Shen-Tech Graphite Material Co., Ltd. 135. Shanghai Topstate International Trading Co., Ltd. 136. Shanxi Cimm Donghai Advanced Carbon Co., Ltd. 137. Shanxi Datong Energy Development Co., Ltd. 138. Shanxi Foset Carbon Co. Ltd. 139. Shanxi Jiexiu Import and Export Co., Ltd. 140. Shanxi Jinneng Group Co., Ltd. 141. Shanxi Yunheng Graphite Electrode Co., Ltd. 142. Shenyang Jinli Metals & Minerals Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 143. Shida Carbon Group 144. Shijaizhuang Carbon Co., Ltd. 145. Shijiazhuang Huanan Carbon Factory 146. Sichuan 5-Continent Imp & Exp Co., Ltd. 147. Sichuan Dechang Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 148. Sichuan GMT International Inc. 149. Sichuan Guanghan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd 150. Sichuan Shida Carbon Co., Ltd. 151. Sichuan Shida Trading Co., Ltd. 152. Sinicway International Logistics Ltd. 153. Sinosteel Anhui Co., Ltd. 154. Sinosteel Corp. 155. Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Co., Ltd. 156. Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Imp. & Exp. Co., Ltd. 157. Sinosteel Jilin Carbon Plant 158. Sinosteel Sichuan Co., Ltd. 159. SK Carbon 160. SMMC Group Co., Ltd. 161. Sure Mega (Hong Kong) Ltd. 162. Tangshan Kimwan Special Carbon & Graphite Co., Ltd. 163. Tengchong Carbon Co., Ltd. 164. T.H.I. Global Holdings Corp. 165. T.H.I. Group (Shanghai) Ltd. 166. Tianjin (Teda) Iron & Steel Trade Co., Ltd. 167. Tianjin Kimwan Carbon Technology and Development Co., Ltd. 168. Tianjin Yue Yang Industrial & Trading Co., Ltd. 169. Tianzhen Jintian Graphite Electrodes Co., Ltd. 170. Tielong (Chengdu) Carbon Co., Ltd. 171. UK Carbon & Graphite 172. United Carbon Ltd. 173. United Trade Resources, Inc. 174. Weifang Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. 175. World Trade Metals & Minerals Co., Ltd. 176. XC Carbon Group 177. Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Co., Ltd., a.k.a. Xinghe County Muzi Carbon Plant 178. Xinghe Xingyong Carbon Co., Ltd. 179. Xinghe Xinyuan Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 180. Xinyuan Carbon Co., Ltd. 181. Xuanhua Hongli Refractory and Mineral Company 182. Xuchang Minmetals & Industry Co., Ltd. 183. Xuzhou Carbon Co., Ltd. 184. Xuzhou Electrode Factory 185. Xuzhou Jianglong Carbon Products Co., Ltd. 186. Yangzhou Qionghua Carbon Trading Ltd. 187. Yixing Huaxin Imp & Exp Co. Ltd. 188. Youth Industry Co., Ltd 189. Zhengzhou Jinyu Thermo-Electric Material Co., Ltd. 190. Zibo Continent Carbon Factory 191. Zibo DuoCheng Trading Co., Ltd. 192. Zibo Lianxing Carbon Co., Ltd. 193. Zibo Wuzhou Tanshun Carbon Co., Ltd.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19859 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-580-886] Ferrovanadium From the Republic of Korea: Postponement of Preliminary Determination of Antidumping Duty Investigation AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Andrew Martinez at (202) 482-3627 or Karine Gziryan at (202) 482-4081; AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background

    On April 25, 2016, the Department of Commerce (Department) published a notice of initiation of an antidumping duty investigation on ferrovanadium from the Republic of Korea.1 Section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1) state the Department will make a preliminary determination no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation. The current deadline for the preliminary determination of this investigation is no later than September 5, 2016.

    1See Ferrovanadium from the Republic of Korea: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair Value Investigation, 81 FR 24059 (April 25, 2016).

    Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    Section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act allows the Department to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 190 days after the date on which the Department initiated the investigation if the petitioner makes a timely request for an extension of the period within which the determination must be made. On August 5, 2016, the Vanadium Producers and Reclaimers Association (VPRA) and VPRA members AMG Vanadium LLC (AMG V), Bear Metallurgical Company (Bear), Gulf Chemical & Metallurgical Corporation (Gulf), and Evraz Stratcor, Inc. (Stratcor) (collectively, Petitioners) made a timely request, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e), for postponement of the preliminary determination, in order to provide the Department with sufficient time to develop the record in this proceeding. Because there are no compelling reasons to deny Petitioners' request, in accordance with section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determination by 50 days.

    The new deadline for the preliminary determination is October 25, 2016. In accordance with section 735(a)(1) of the Act, the deadline for the final determination of this investigation will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless postponed at a later date.

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19857 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-570-028] Hydrofluorocarbon Blends From the People's Republic of China: Antidumping Duty Order AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    SUMMARY:

    Based on affirmative final determinations by the Department of Commerce (the Department) and the International Trade Commission (the ITC), the Department is issuing an antidumping duty order on hydrofluorocarbon blends from the People's Republic of China (PRC).

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Elizabeth Eastwood or Dennis McClure, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3874 or (202) 482-5973.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Background

    In accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.210(c), on June 29, 2016, the Department published its affirmative final determination in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) blends and components thereof from the PRC.1 On August 5, 2016, the ITC notified the Department of: Its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of HFC blends from the PRC; its negative determination that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of HFC components from the PRC; and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of HFC blends that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding.2

    1See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Final Affirmative Determination of Critical Circumstances; 81 FR 42314 (June 29, 2016) (Final Determination).

    2See Letter to Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Enforcement and Compliance, from Irving Williamson, Chairman of the U.S. International Trade Commission, regarding hydrofluorocarbon blends and components thereof from China (August 5, 2016) (ITC Letter). See also Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components from China (Investigation No. 731-TA-1279 (Final), USITC Publication 4629, August 2016).

    Scope of the Order

    The products subject to this order are HFC blends. HFC blends covered by the scope are R-404A, a zeotropic mixture consisting of 52 percent 1,1,1 Trifluoroethane, 44 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 4 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407A, a zeotropic mixture of 20 percent Difluoromethane, 40 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 40 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-407C, a zeotropic mixture of 23 percent Difluoromethane, 25 percent Pentafluoroethane, and 52 percent 1,1,1,2-Tetrafluoroethane; R-410A, a zeotropic mixture of 50 percent Difluoromethane and 50 percent Pentafluoroethane; and R-507A, an azeotropic mixture of 50 percent Pentafluoroethane and 50 percent 1,1,1-Trifluoroethane also known as R-507. The foregoing percentages are nominal percentages by weight. Actual percentages of single component refrigerants by weight may vary by plus or minus two percent points from the nominal percentage identified above.3

    3 R-404A is sold under various trade names, including Forane® 404A, Genetron® 404A, Solkane® 404A, Klea® 404A, and Suva®404A. R-407A is sold under various trade names, including Forane® 407A, Solkane® 407A, Klea®407A, and Suva®407A. R-407C is sold under various trade names, including Forane® 407C, Genetron® 407C, Solkane® 407C, Klea® 407C and Suva® 407C. R-410A is sold under various trade names, including EcoFluor R410, Forane® 410A, Genetron® R410A and AZ-20, Solkane® 410A, Klea® 410A, Suva® 410A, and Puron®. R-507A is sold under various trade names, including Forane® 507, Solkane® 507, Klea®507, Genetron®AZ-50, and Suva®507. R-32 is sold under various trade names, including Solkane®32, Forane®32, and Klea®32. R-125 is sold under various trade names, including Solkane®125, Klea®125, Genetron®125, and Forane®125. R-143a is sold under various trade names, including Solkane®143a, Genetron®143a, and Forane®125.

    Any blend that includes an HFC component other than R-32, R-125, R-143a, or R-134a is excluded from the scope of this order.

    Excluded from this order are blends of refrigerant chemicals that include products other than HFCs, such as blends including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), hydrocarbons (HCs), or hydrofluoroolefins (HFOs).

    Also excluded from this order are patented HFC blends, including, but not limited to, ISCEON® blends, including MO99TM (R-438A), MO79 (R-422A), MO59 (R-417A), MO49PlusTM (R-437A) and MO29TM (R-4 22D), Genetron® PerformaxTM LT (R-407F), Choice® R-421A, and Choice® R-421B.

    HFC blends covered by the scope of this order are currently classified in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) at subheadings 3824.78.0020 and 3824.78.0050. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope is dispositive.

    Antidumping Duty Order

    As stated above, on August 5, 2016, in accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, the ITC notified the Department of its final determination in this investigation. In its determination, the ITC found two domestic like products: (1) HFC blends, and (2) HFC components. The ITC notified the Department of: Its affirmative determination that an industry in the United States is materially injured within the meaning of section 735(b)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, by reason of the LTFV imports of HFC blends from the PRC; its negative determination that an industry in the United States is not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of HFC components from the PRC; and its determination that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of HFC blends that are subject to the Department's affirmative critical circumstances finding.4 Therefore, in accordance with section 735(c)(2) of the Act, we are issuing this antidumping duty order with respect to HFC blends as identified in the “Scope of the Order” section above. Because the ITC determined that imports of HFC blends from the PRC are materially injuring a U.S. industry, unliquidated entries of such merchandise from the PRC, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, are subject to the assessment of antidumping duties.

    4See ITC Letter.

    Therefore, in accordance with section 736(a)(1) of the Act, the Department will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to assess, upon further instruction by the Department, antidumping duties equal to the amount by which the normal value of the merchandise exceeds the export price (or constructed export price) of the merchandise, for all relevant entries of HFC blends from the PRC. Antidumping duties will be assessed on unliquidated entries of HFC blends from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after February 1, 2016, the date of publication of the preliminary determination,5 but will not include entries occurring after the expiration of the provisional measures period and before publication of the ITC's final injury determination as further described below.

    5See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components Thereof from the People's Republic of China: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, Affirmative Preliminary Determination of Critical Circumstances, in Part, and Postponement of Final Determination; 81 FR 5098 (February 1, 2016) (Preliminary Determination).

    Suspension of Liquidation

    In accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, we will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation on all relevant entries of HFC blends from the PRC. These instructions suspending liquidation will remain in effect until further notice.

    We will also instruct CBP to require cash deposits equal to the amounts as indicated below. Accordingly, effective on the date of publication of the ITC's final affirmative injury determination,6 CBP will require, at the same time as importers would normally deposit estimated duties on this subject merchandise, a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margins listed below.7 The “PRC-wide” rate applies to all producers or exporters not specifically listed, as appropriate.

    6See Hydrofluorocarbon Blends and Components From China; Determination, 81 FR 53157 (August 11, 2016).

    7See section 736(a)(3) of the Act.

    With respect to the ITC's negative determination with respect to imports of HFC components from the PRC, we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation for entries of HFC components from the PRC and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties.

    Provisional Measures

    Section 733(d) of the Act states that instructions issued pursuant to an affirmative preliminary determination may not remain in effect for more than four months, except where exporters representing a significant proportion of exports of the subject merchandise request the Department to extend that four-month period to no more than six months. At the request of exporters that account for a significant proportion of HFC blends from the PRC, the Department extended the four-month period to six months in each case.8 In the underlying investigation, the Department published the preliminary determination on February 1, 2016. Therefore, the extended period, beginning on the date of publication of the preliminary determination, ended on July 30, 2016.

    8See Preliminary Determination.

    Furthermore, section 737(b) of the Act states that definitive duties are to begin on the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination. Therefore, in accordance with section 733(d) of the Act and our practice,9 we will instruct CBP to terminate the suspension of liquidation and to liquidate, without regard to antidumping duties, unliquidated entries of HFC blends from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after July 30, 2016, the date on which the provisional measures expired, until and through the day preceding the date of publication of the ITC's final injury determination in the Federal Register. Suspension of liquidation will resume on the date of publication of the ITC's final determination in the Federal Register.

    9See Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From India, Italy, the People's Republic of China, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Amended Final Affirmative Antidumping Determination for India and Taiwan, and Antidumping Duty Orders, 81 FR 48390 (July 25, 2016).

    Critical Circumstances

    With regard to the ITC's negative critical circumstances determination on imports of HFC blends from the PRC, we will instruct CBP to lift suspension and to refund any cash deposits made to secure the payment of estimated antidumping duties with respect to entries of HFC blends from the PRC entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after November 3, 2015 (i.e., 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination), but before February 1, 2016 (i.e., the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination).

    Estimated Weighted-Average Dumping Margins

    The weighted-average antidumping duty margin percentages are as follows:

    Exporter Producer Weighted-
  • average
  • margin
  • (%)
  • T.T. International Co., Ltd 10 Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection Fluoro Material Co. Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co., Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Shandong Huaan New Material Co., Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Zhejiang Zhonglan Refrigeration Technology Co., Ltd 101.82 T.T. International Co., Ltd Dongyang Weihua Refrigerants Co., Ltd 101.82 Daikin Fluorochemicals (China) Co., Ltd Daikin Fluorochemicals (China) Co., Ltd 101.82 Daikin Fluorochemicals (China) Co., Ltd Arkema Daikin Advanced Fluorochemicals (Changsu) Co., Ltd. (Arkema Daikin) 101.82 Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co., Ltd Zhejiang Yonghe Refrigerant Co., Ltd 101.82 Shandong Huaan New Material Co., Ltd Shandong Huaan New Material Co., Ltd 101.82 Weitron International Refrigeration Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Zhejiang Lantian Environmental Protection Fluoro Material Co., Ltd 101.82 Weitron International Refrigeration Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Sinochem Environmental Protection Chemicals (Taicang) Co., Ltd 101.82 Weitron International Refrigeration Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Zhejiang Quzhou Lianzhou Refrigerants Co., Ltd 101.82 Weitron International Refrigeration Equipment (Kunshan) Co., Ltd Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd 101.82 Zhejiang Yonghe Refrigerant Co., Ltd Jinhua Yonghe Fluorochemical Co., Ltd 101.82 Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd.) Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Ind. Co., Ltd.) 101.82 Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. (Zhejiang Sanmei Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.) Jiangsu Sanmei Chemicals Co., Ltd 101.82 PRC-Wide Entity 216.37

    This notice constitutes the antidumping duty order with respect to HFC blends from the PRC pursuant to section 736(a) of the Act. Interested parties can find a list of antidumping duty orders currently in effect at http://enforcement.trade.gov/stats/iastats1.html.

    10 In this investigation, the Department determined to treat T.T. International, Ltd. (Dalian) and T.T. International Ltd. (Hong Kong) as a single entity (i.e., T.T. International Co., Ltd. or TTI) for purposes of this antidumping duty proceeding. See Memorandum to Melissa G. Skinner, Director, Office II, from Dennis McClure, International Trade Analyst, entitled, “Antidumping Duty Investigation of Hydrofluorocarbons from the People's Republic of China: Affiliation and Single Entity Status,” dated June 21, 2016.

    This order is published in accordance with section 736(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.211(b).

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19873 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration [A-351-849, A-580-890, A-201-848, A-455-805] Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber From Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective August 10, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Drew Jackson at (202) 482-4406 (Brazil); Frances Veith at (202) 482-4295 (Republic of Korea); Julia Hancock or Javier Barrientos at (202) 482-1394 or (202) 482-2243, respectively (Mexico); and Stephen Bailey or William Horn at (202) 482-0193 or (202) 482-2615, respectively (Poland), AD/CVD Operations, Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Petitions

    On July 21, 2016, the Department of Commerce (the Department) received antidumping duty (AD) petitions concerning imports of emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber) from Brazil, the Republic of Korea (Korea), Mexico, and Poland, filed in proper form on behalf of Lion Elastomers LLC and East West Copolymer, LLC (Petitioners).1 Petitioners are domestic producers of ESB rubber.2

    1See Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, dated July 21, 2016 (the Petitions).

    2See Petitions, at 2, and Exhibits I-1 and I-2.

    On July 25, 26, and August 2, 2016, the Department requested additional information and clarification of certain areas of the Petitions.3 Petitioners filed responses to these requests on August 1 and 3, 2016, respectively.4

    3See Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 25, 2016 (General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 26, 2016 (Brazil Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 26, 2016 (Korea Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 26, 2016 (Mexico Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Letter from the Department to Petitioners entitled “Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Questions,” dated July 26, 2016 (Poland Supplemental Questionnaire); see also Memorandum to the File from Drew Jackson, Senior International Trade Compliance Analyst, Office IV, Re: “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Subject: Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel,” dated August 2, 2016 (Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope); see also Memorandum to the File from Vicki Flynn, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of Policy, Re: “Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Subject: Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel,” dated August 2, 2016 (Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues).

    4See Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the Antidumping Petition—General Questions,” dated August 1, 2016 (General Issues Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the Antidumping Petition—General Questions,” dated August 1, 2016 (Brazil Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Republic of Korea: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the Antidumping Petition—General Questions,” dated August 1, 2016 (Korea Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico: Supplemental Questionnaire Response Regarding the Antidumping Petition—General Questions,” dated August 1, 2016 (Mexico Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Poland: Supplemental Questionnaire Response,” dated August 1, 2016 (Poland Supplement); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Amended Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland,” dated August 1, 2016 (Amended Petitions); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Re: Revised Amended Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland,” dated August 3, 2016 (Revised Amended Petitions); see also Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Amendment to Correct Erroneous Deletion of Exhibit from Re: Amended Petitions for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Imports of Emulsion Styrene -Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland,” dated August 3, 2016; Letter from Petitioners to the Department entitled “Amendment to Petition For The Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Emulsion Styrene Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland—Revised Scope,” dated August 3, 2016 (Scope Amendment).

    In accordance with section 732(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), Petitioners allege that imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value within the meaning of section 731 of the Act, and that such imports are materially injuring, or threatening material injury to, an industry in the United States. Also, consistent with section 732(b)(1) of the Act, Petitioners state that the Petitions are accompanied by information reasonably available to Petitioners supporting their allegations.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed these Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because Petitioners are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act. The Department also finds that Petitioners demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the initiation of the AD investigations that Petitioners are requesting.5

    5See the “Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions” section below.

    Period of Investigation

    Because the Petitions were filed on July 21, 2016, the period of investigation (POI) for each investigation is, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.204(b)(1), July 1, 2015, through June 30, 2016.

    Scope of the Investigations

    The product covered by these investigations is ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. For a full description of the scope of these investigations, see the “Scope of the Investigations,” at Appendix I of this notice.

    Comments on Scope of the Investigations

    During our review of the Petitions, the Department issued questions to, and received responses from, Petitioners pertaining to the proposed scope to ensure that the scope language in the Petitions would be an accurate reflection of the products for which the domestic industry is seeking relief.6 The Department also conducted two telephone calls with Petitioners to clarify Petitioners' intent with respect to the scope.7 In response, Petitioners provided a revised scope on August 3, 2016.8

    6See General Issues Supplemental Questionnaire and August 2, 2016, Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel; see also General Issues Supplement; and Scope Amendment.

    7See Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope; see also Memorandum on Telephone Conversation with Petitioners' Counsel re: Scope and Other Issues.

    8See Scope Amendment.

    As discussed in the preamble to the Department's regulations, we are setting aside a period for interested parties to raise issues regarding product coverage (scope). The Department will consider all comments received from parties and, if necessary, will consult with parties prior to the issuance of the preliminary determinations. If scope comments include factual information (see 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), all such factual information should be limited to public information. In order to facilitate preparation of its questionnaires, the Department requests all interested parties to submit such comments by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on August 30, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments, which may include factual information (also should be limited to public information), must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 9, 2016, which is 10 calendar days after the initial comments. All such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

    The Department requests that any factual information the parties consider relevant to the scope of the investigations be submitted during this time period. However, if a party subsequently finds that additional factual information pertaining to the scope of the investigations may be relevant, the party may contact the Department and request permission to submit the additional information. As stated above, all such comments must be filed on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

    Filing Requirements

    All submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS).9 An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the time and date when it is due. Documents excepted from the electronic submission requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with Enforcement and Compliance's APO/Dockets Unit, Room 18022, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, and stamped with the date and time of receipt by the applicable deadlines.

    9See Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Electronic Filing Procedures; Administrative Protective Order Procedures, 76 FR 39263 (July 6, 2011) for details of the Department's electronic filing requirements, which went into effect on August 5, 2011. Information on help using ACCESS can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help.aspx and a handbook can be found at https://access.trade.gov/help/Handbook%20on%20Electronic%20Filling%20Procedures.pdf.

    Comments on Product Characteristics for AD Questionnaires

    The Department will be giving interested parties an opportunity to provide comments on the appropriate physical characteristics of ESB rubber to be reported in response to the Department's AD questionnaires. This information will be used to identify the key physical characteristics of the merchandise under consideration in order to report the relevant costs of production accurately as well as to develop appropriate product-comparison criteria.

    Interested parties may provide any information or comments that they feel are relevant to the development of an accurate list of physical characteristics. Specifically, they may provide comments as to which characteristics are appropriate to use as: (1) General product characteristics and (2) product-comparison criteria. We note that it is not always appropriate to use all product characteristics as product-comparison criteria. We base product-comparison criteria on meaningful commercial differences among products. In other words, although there may be some physical product characteristics utilized by manufacturers to describe ESB rubber, it may be that only a select few product characteristics take into account commercially meaningful physical characteristics. In addition, interested parties may comment on the order in which the physical characteristics should be used in matching products. Generally, the Department attempts to list the most important physical characteristics first and the least important characteristics last.

    In order to consider the suggestions of interested parties in developing and issuing the AD questionnaires, all product characteristics comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on August 30, 2016, which is 20 calendar days from the signature date of this notice. Any rebuttal comments must be filed by 5:00 p.m. EDT on September 9, 2016. All comments and submissions to the Department must be filed electronically using ACCESS, as explained above, on the records of each of the concurrent AD investigations.

    Determination of Industry Support for the Petitions

    Section 732(b)(1) of the Act requires that a petition be filed on behalf of the domestic industry. Section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act provides that a petition meets this requirement if the domestic producers or workers who support the petition account for: (i) At least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product; and (ii) more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the petition. Moreover, section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act provides that, if the petition does not establish support of domestic producers or workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product, the Department shall: (i) poll the industry or rely on other information in order to determine if there is support for the petition, as required by subparagraph (A); or (ii) determine industry support using a statistically valid sampling method to poll the “industry.”

    Section 771(4)(A) of the Act defines the “industry” as the producers as a whole of a domestic like product. Thus, to determine whether a petition has the requisite industry support, the statute directs the Department to look to producers and workers who produce the domestic like product. The International Trade Commission (ITC), which is responsible for determining whether “the domestic industry” has been injured, must also determine what constitutes a domestic like product in order to define the industry. While both the Department and the ITC must apply the same statutory definition regarding the domestic like product,10 they do so for different purposes and pursuant to a separate and distinct authority. In addition, the Department's determination is subject to limitations of time and information. Although this may result in different definitions of the like product, such differences do not render the decision of either agency contrary to law.11

    10See section 771(10) of the Act.

    11See USEC, Inc. v. United States, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1, 8 (CIT 2001) (citing Algoma Steel Corp., Ltd. v. United States, 688 F. Supp. 639, 644 (CIT 1988), aff'd 865 F.2d 240 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).

    Section 771(10) of the Act defines the domestic like product as “a product which is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title.” Thus, the reference point from which the domestic like product analysis begins is “the article subject to an investigation” (i.e., the class or kind of merchandise to be investigated, which normally will be the scope as defined in the petition).

    With regard to the domestic like product, Petitioners do not offer a definition of the domestic like product distinct from the scope of the investigations as described in Appendix I of this notice. Based on our analysis of the information submitted on the record, we have determined that ESB rubber, as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations” in Appendix I of this notice, constitutes a single domestic like product and we have analyzed industry support in terms of that domestic like product.12

    12 For a discussion of the domestic like product analysis in this case, see Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil (Brazil AD Checklist), at Attachment II, Analysis of Industry Support for the Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland (Attachment II); Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from the Republic of Korea (Korea AD Checklist), at Attachment II; Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Mexico (Mexico AD Checklist), at Attachment II; and Antidumping Duty Investigation Initiation Checklist: Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Poland (Poland AD Checklist), at Attachment II. These checklists are dated concurrently with this notice and on file electronically via ACCESS. Access to documents filed via ACCESS is also available in the Central Records Unit, Room B8024 of the main Department of Commerce building.

    In determining whether Petitioners have standing under section 732(c)(4)(A) of the Act, we considered the industry support data contained in the Petitions with reference to the domestic like product as defined in the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I of this notice. To establish industry support, Petitioners provided their 2015 production of the domestic like product and estimated the 2015 production of Goodyear Chemical, the only other known ESB rubber producer in the United States.13 Petitioners also provided a letter from the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW), stating that the USW represents the workers at Petitioner Lion Elastomers LLC's Port Neches, TX ESB rubber plant and it supports the Petitions.14 In addition, Petitioners provided a letter of support for the Petitions from the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) stating that the IUOE represents the workers at Petitioner East West Copolymer, LLC's ESB rubber plant in Baton Rouge, LA and the workers at Goodyear Chemical's Houston, TX ESB rubber plant.15 Petitioners state that Lion Elastomers LLC, East West Copolymer, LLC, and Goodyear Chemical are the only known producers of ESB rubber in the United States; therefore, Petitioners assert that the Petitions are supported by 100 percent of the U.S. industry.16

    13See Petitions, at 3-4 and Exhibits I-3, I-5, and I-7; see also General Issues Supplement, at 2-3; and Revised Amended Petitions, at 3-4 and revised Exhibit I-7.

    14See Petitions, at Exhibit I-6.

    15See Letter from Petitioners entitled “Supplement 1 to Petition for the Imposition of Antidumping Duties on Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland,” July 21, 2016 (IUOE Letter), at Attachment.

    16See Petitions, at 3-4; see also Revised Amended Petitions, at 3-4. We note that management at Goodyear Chemical did not express a view with respect to the Petitions; therefore, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.203(e)(3), because the workers of Goodyear Chemical support the Petitions through their union, we are treating the production of Goodyear Chemical as in support of the Petitions.

    Our review of the data provided in the Petitions, IUOE Letter, General Issues Supplement, Amended Petitions, and other information readily available to the Department indicates that Petitioners have established industry support.17 First, the Petitions established support from domestic producers and workers accounting for more than 50 percent of the total production of the domestic like product and, as such, the Department is not required to take further action in order to evaluate industry support (e.g., polling).18 Second, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(i) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for at least 25 percent of the total production of the domestic like product.19 Finally, the domestic producers and workers have met the statutory criteria for industry support under section 732(c)(4)(A)(ii) of the Act because the domestic producers and workers who support the Petitions account for more than 50 percent of the production of the domestic like product produced by that portion of the industry expressing support for, or opposition to, the Petitions.20 Accordingly, the Department determines that the Petitions were filed on behalf of the domestic industry within the meaning of section 732(b)(1) of the Act.

    17 For a further discussion of the industry support analysis, see Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    18See section 732(c)(4)(D) of the Act; see also Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    19See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    20Id.

    The Department finds that Petitioners filed the Petitions on behalf of the domestic industry because they are interested parties as defined in section 771(9)(C) of the Act and they have demonstrated sufficient industry support with respect to the AD investigations that they are requesting the Department initiate.21

    21See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist, at Attachment II.

    Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation

    Petitioners allege that the U.S. industry producing the domestic like product is being materially injured, or is threatened with material injury, by reason of the individual and cumulated imports of the subject merchandise sold at less than normal value (NV).

    In addition, with regard to Brazil, Korea, and Mexico, Petitioners allege that subject imports exceed the negligibility threshold provided for under section 771(24)(A) of the Act.22

    22See General Issues Supplement, at 8-9; see also Revised Amended Petitions, at 14-15 and revised Exhibit I-12.

    With regard to Poland, while the allegedly dumped imports from Poland do not exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility, Petitioners allege and provide supporting evidence that there is the potential that imports from Poland will imminently exceed the negligibility threshold and, therefore, are not negligible for purposes of a threat determination, pursuant to section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act.23 Petitioners also contend that, although publicly available import data is limited, there is a reasonable indication that data obtained in the ITC's investigation will establish that imports exceed the negligibility threshold.24 Petitioners' arguments regarding the limitations of publicly available import data and the collection of import data in the ITC's investigation are consistent with the SAA, which states that the ITC may make reasonable estimates on the basis of available data to address limitations in data collected by the ITC or official import statistics.25 Furthermore, Petitioners' arguments regarding the potential for imports from Poland to imminently exceed the negligibility threshold are consistent with the statutory criteria for “negligibility in threat analysis” under section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act, which provides that imports shall not be treated as negligible if there is a potential that subject imports from a country will imminently exceed the statutory requirements for negligibility.

    23See section 771(24)(A)(iv) of the Act; see also General Issues Supplement, at 8-9.

    24See Statement of Administrative Action (SAA), H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, (1994) (SAA), at 857; see also General Issues Supplement, at 8-9; and Revised Amended Petitions, at 14-15.

    25See SAA, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316 at 833 (1994).

    Petitioners contend that the industry's injured condition is illustrated by reduced market share, underselling and price suppression or depression, lost sales and revenues, declines in production, capacity utilization, and U.S. shipments, negative impact on employment variables, and declines in financial performance, capital expenditures, and research and development expenditures.26 We have assessed the allegations and supporting evidence regarding material injury, threat of material injury, negligibility, causation, and cumulation, and we have determined that Petitioners' allegations are properly supported by adequate evidence, and meet the statutory requirements for initiation.27

    26See Petitions, at 12-16, 24-53 and Exhibits I-1, I-2, I-5, I-7, I-8, I-12, I-13 and I-16 through I-34; see also General Issues Supplement, at 7; and Revised Amended Petitions, at 12-16, 24-53 and revised Exhibits I-12, I-16, and I-17.

    27See Brazil AD Checklist, at Attachment III, Analysis of Allegations and Evidence of Material Injury and Causation for the Antidumping Duty Petitions Covering Emulsion Styrene-Butadiene Rubber from Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, and Poland (Attachment III); see also Korea AD Checklist, at Attachment III; Mexico AD Checklist, at Attachment III; and Poland AD Checklist, at Attachment III.

    Allegations of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value

    The following is a description of the allegations of sales at less-than-fair value upon which the Department based its decision to initiate investigations of imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland. The sources of data for the deductions and adjustments relating to U.S. price and NV are discussed in greater detail in the country-specific initiation checklists.

    Export Price

    For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Petitioners based export price (EP) on average unit values (AUVs) calculated using publicly available import statistics from the ITC's Dataweb for all imports from each subject country under the relevant Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading for imports of ESB rubber into all U.S. ports during the POI.28 For Brazil, Korea, and Poland, Petitioners also based EP on transaction-specific AUVs for shipments of ESB rubber identified from each of these countries entered under the relevant HTSUS subheading for one month during the POI into a specific port.29 Under this methodology,30 Petitioners obtained ship manifest data from Datamyne, Inc. U.S., and Petitioners then linked monthly U.S. port-specific import statistics (obtained from the ITC's Dataweb), for imports of ESB rubber entered under the relevant HTSUS subheading to shipments by producers in the subject countries identified in the ship manifest data.31

    28See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist.

    29Id.

    30Id.

    31Id.

    Under both methodologies, to calculate ex-factory prices and to be conservative, Petitioners made no adjustments to U.S. price for movement expenses, consistent with the manner in which the data is reported in Dataweb.32

    32Id.

    Normal Value Based on Constructed Value

    For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, Petitioners were unable to obtain information regarding home market prices, such as price quotes for ESB rubber, or third-country prices, and therefore calculated NV based on constructed value (CV).33 Pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, CV consists of the cost of manufacturing (COM), SG&A expenses, financial expenses, packing expenses, and profit. Petitioners calculated COM based on Petitioners' experience, adjusted for known differences between producing in the United States and producing in the respective country (i.e., Brazil, Korea, Mexico, or Poland), during the proposed POI.34 Using publicly-available data to account for price differences, Petitioners multiplied the surrogate usage quantities by the submitted value of the inputs used to manufacture ESB rubber in each country.35 For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, labor rates were derived from publicly available sources multiplied by the product-specific usage rates.36 For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, to determine factory overhead and packing, Petitioners relied on Petitioners' experience.37 For Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, to determine SG&A and financial expense rates, Petitioners relied on financial statements of companies that were producers of identical or comparable merchandise operating in the respective subject country.38 Petitioners also relied on the financial statements of the same producers that they used for calculating SG&A expenses and financial expenses to calculate the profit rate.39

    33See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist. In accordance with section 505(a) of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, amending section 773(b)(2) of the Act, for all of the investigations, the Department will request information necessary to calculate the cost of production (COP) and CV to determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that sales of the foreign like product have been made at prices that represent less than the COP of the product. The Department will no longer require a COP allegation to conduct this analysis.

    34See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist, Korea AD Initiation Checklist, Mexico AD Initiation Checklist, and Poland AD Initiation Checklist.

    35Id.

    36Id.

    37Id.

    38Id.

    39Id.

    Fair Value Comparisons

    Based on the data provided by Petitioners, there is reason to believe that imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. Based on comparisons of EP to NV in accordance with sections 773(a) and (e) of the Act, the estimated dumping margin(s) for ESB rubber are as follows: (1) Brazil, 57.14 percent and 67.99 percent; 40 (2) Korea, 22.48 percent and 44.30 percent; 41 (3) Mexico, 22.39 percent; 42 and (4) Poland, 40.57 percent and 44.54 percent.43

    40See Brazil AD Initiation Checklist.

    41See Korea AD Initiation Checklist.

    42See Mexico AD Initiation Checklist.

    43See Poland AD Initiation Checklist.

    Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations

    Based upon the examination of the AD Petitions on ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland, we find that the Petitions meet the requirements of section 732 of the Act. Therefore, we are initiating AD investigations to determine whether imports of ESB rubber for Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less-than-fair value. In accordance with section 733(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(b)(1), unless postponed, we will make our preliminary determinations no later than 140 days after the date of this initiation.

    On June 29, 2015, the President of the United States signed into law the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, which made numerous amendments to the AD and countervailing duty (CVD) law.44 The 2015 law does not specify dates of application for those amendments. On August 6, 2015, the Department published an interpretative rule, in which it announced the applicability dates for each amendment to the Act, except for amendments contained in section 771(7) of the Act, which relate to determinations of material injury by the ITC.45 The amendments to sections 771(15), 773, 776, and 782 of the Act are applicable to all determinations made on or after August 6, 2015, and, therefore, apply to these AD investigations.46

    44See Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, Public Law 114-27, 129 Stat. 362 (2015).

    45See Dates of Application of Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws Made by the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, 80 FR 46793 (August 6, 2015) (Applicability Notice).

    46Id., at 46794-95. The 2015 amendments may be found at https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1295/text/pl.

    Respondent Selection

    Based on shippers' manifest information from the Datamyne, Inc. U.S., Petitioners identified 11 companies in Korea as producers of ESB rubber.47 Following standard practice in AD investigations involving market economy countries, in the event the Department determines that the number of companies is large and it cannot individually examine each company based upon the Department's resources, where appropriate, the Department intends to select respondents for the Korea investigation based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports under the appropriate Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States numbers listed with the “Scope of the Investigations,” in Appendix I, below. We also intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (APO) to all parties with access to information protected by APO on the record within five business days of publication of this Federal Register notice. Comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection should be submitted seven calendar days after the placement of the CBP data on the record of the Korea investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    47See Petitions, at 11-12 and Exhibit I-11.

    With respect to Brazil, Mexico, and Poland, based on shippers' manifest information from the Datamyne, Inc. U.S., Petitioners identified: (1) One company as a producer/exporter of ESB in Brazil, Lanxess Elastomeros do Brasil S.A.; (2) one company as a producer/exporter of ESB in Mexico, Industrias Negromex S.A. de C.V.—Planta Altamira; and (3) one company as a producer/exporter of ESB in Poland, Synthos Dwory 7 Spolka Z Ograniczona Odpowiedzialnoscia Spolka Jawna (Sp. Z O.O.S.J.).48 With respect to Brazil, Mexico, and Poland, Petitioners provided additional information from independent third party sources as support.49 Furthermore, we currently know of no additional producers/exporters of merchandise under consideration from these countries. Therefore, consistent with section 777A(c) of the Act and the Department's practice in such circumstances,50 for Brazil, Mexico, and Poland the Department intends to examine the sole producer/exporter identified in the respective Petitions. Comments regarding respondent selection for each of these AD investigations (i.e., Brazil, Mexico, and Poland) should be submitted five calendar days after the publication of this notice in the Federal Register on the record of each respective investigation. Parties wishing to submit rebuttal comments should submit those comments five calendar days after the deadline for the initial comments.

    48See Petitions, at Exhibits I-5 and I-11; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Attachment 1.

    49See Petitions, at Exhibit I-11; see also General Issues Supplement, at 3-4 and Attachment 1. Id.

    50See, e.g., Melamine From the People's Republic of China and Trinidad and Tobago: Initiation of Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations, 79 FR 73037, 73041 (December 9, 2014).

    Comments for the above-referenced investigations must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically-filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by the Department's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. EDT by the dates noted above. We intend to finalize our decision regarding respondent selection within 20 days of publication of this notice.

    Distribution of Copies of the Petitions

    In accordance with section 732(b)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.202(f), copies of the public version of the Petitions have been provided to the governments of Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and Poland via ACCESS. To the extent practicable, we will attempt to provide a copy of the public version of the Petitions to each exporter named in the Petitions, as provided under 19 CFR 351.203(c)(2).

    ITC Notification

    We will notify the ITC of our initiation, as required by section 732(d) of the Act.

    Preliminary Determinations by the ITC

    The ITC will preliminarily determine, within 45 days after the date on which the Petitions were filed, whether there is a reasonable indication that imports of ESB rubber from Brazil, Korea, Mexico, and/or Poland are materially injuring or threatening material injury to a U.S. industry.51 A negative ITC determination for any country will result in the investigation being terminated with respect to that country;52 otherwise, these investigations will proceed according to statutory and regulatory time limits.

    51See section 733(a) of the Act.

    52Id.

    Submission of Factual Information

    Factual information is defined in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) as: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i) through (iv). Any party, when submitting factual information, must specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. Time limits for the submission of factual information are addressed in 19 CFR 351.301, which provides specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. Please review the regulations prior to submitting factual information in these investigations.

    Extensions of Time Limits

    Parties may request an extension of time limits before the expiration of a time limit established under Part 351, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the expiration of the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions that are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Under certain circumstances, we may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, we will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. An extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission; under limited circumstances we will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. Review Extension of Time Limits; Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013), available at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

    Certification Requirements

    Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.53 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials, as well as their representatives. Investigations initiated on the basis of Petitions filed on or after August 16, 2013, and other segments of any AD or CVD proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule. 54 The Department intends to reject factual submissions if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

    53See section 782(b) of the Act.

    54See Certification of Factual Information to Import Administration during Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (Final Rule); see also frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

    Notification to Interested Parties

    Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Parties wishing to participate in these investigations should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of letters of appearance as discussed in 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

    This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.203(c).

    Dated: August 10, 2016. Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix I Scope of the Investigations

    For purposes of these investigations, the product covered is cold-polymerized emulsion styrene-butadiene rubber (ESB rubber). The scope of the investigations includes, but is not limited to, ESB rubber in primary forms, bales, granules, crumbs, pellets, powders, plates, sheets, strip, etc. ESB rubber consists of non-pigmented rubbers and oil-extended non-pigmented rubbers, both of which contain at least one percent of organic acids from the emulsion polymerization process.

    ESB rubber is produced and sold in accordance with a generally accepted set of product specifications issued by the International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (IISRP). The scope of the investigations covers grades of ESB rubber included in the IISRP 1500 and 1700 series of synthetic rubbers. The 1500 grades are light in color and are often described as “Clear” or “White Rubber.” The 1700 grades are oil-extended and thus darker in color, and are often called “Brown Rubber.”

    Specifically excluded from the scope of these investigations are products which are manufactured by blending ESB rubber with other polymers, high styrene resin master batch, carbon black master batch (i.e., IISRP 1600 series and 1800 series) and latex (an intermediate product).

    The products subject to these investigations are currently classifiable under subheadings 4002.19.0015 and 4002.19.0019 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). ESB rubber is described by Chemical Abstract Services (CAS) Registry No. 9003-55-8. This CAS number also refers to other types of styrene butadiene rubber. Although the HTSUS subheadings and CAS registry number are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of these investigations is dispositive.

    [FR Doc. 2016-19769 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 a.m.] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration Quarterly Update to Annual Listing of Foreign Government Subsidies on Articles of Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty AGENCY:

    Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

    DATES:

    Effective August 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Stephanie Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3692.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Section 702 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (as amended) (the Act) requires the Department of Commerce (the Department) to determine, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, whether any foreign government is providing a subsidy with respect to any article of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, and to publish quarterly updates to the type and amount of those subsidies. We hereby provide the Department's quarterly update of subsidies on articles of cheese that were imported during the periods January 1, 2016, through March 31, 2016.

    The Department has developed, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, information on subsidies, as defined in section 702(h) of the Act, being provided either directly or indirectly by foreign governments on articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty. The appendix to this notice lists the country, the subsidy program or programs, and the gross and net amounts of each subsidy for which information is currently available. The Department will incorporate additional programs which are found to constitute subsidies, and additional information on the subsidy programs listed, as the information is developed.

    The Department encourages any person having information on foreign government subsidy programs which benefit articles of cheese subject to an in-quota rate of duty to submit such information in writing to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    This determination and notice are in accordance with section 702(a) of the Act.

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Ronald Lorentzen, Acting Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance. Appendix—Subsidy Programs on Cheese Subject to an In-Quota Rate of Duty Country Program(s) Gross 1
  • subsidy
  • ($/lb)
  • Net 2 subsidy
  • ($/lb)
  • 28 European Union Member States 3 European Union Restitution Payments $0.00 $0.00 Canada Export Assistance on Certain Types of Cheese 0.48 0.48 Norway Indirect (Milk) Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Consumer Subsidy 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 Switzerland Deficiency Payments 0.00 0.00 1 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(5). 2 Defined in 19 U.S.C. 1677(6). 3 The 28 member states of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19767 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE International Trade Administration United States Trade Finance Advisory Council AGENCY:

    International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    ACTION:

    Notice of an Opportunity To Apply for Membership on the U.S. Trade Finance Advisory Council.

    SUMMARY:

    The Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) has established the U.S. Trade Finance Advisory Council (TFAC) to solicit input regarding the challenges faced by U.S. exporters in accessing capital, innovative solutions that can address these challenges, and recommendations on strategies that can expand access to finance and educate U.S. exporters on available resources. This federal advisory committee is necessary to provide input to the Secretary on the development of strategies and programs that would help expand access to trade finance for U.S. exporters. The Department of Commerce is seeking applications for membership on the TFAC. In order to accommodate requests for extensions, we are now extending the deadline to receive applications until 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, August 29, 2016.

    DATES:

    All applications for immediate consideration must be received by the Office of Finance and Insurance Industries by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Monday, August 29 2016. After that date, ITA will continue to accept applications under this notice for a period of up to two years from the deadline to fill any vacancies that may arise.

    ADDRESSES:

    Please submit applications by email to [email protected], attention: Ericka Ukrow, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council Executive Secretariat, or by mail to Ericka Ukrow, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council, Room 18002, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council Executive Secretariat, Ericka Ukrow, Room 18002, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0405, email: [email protected]. Please visit http://trade.gov/TFAC for additional information.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background and Authority

    On July 25, 2016 (81 FR 48386), the Secretary of Commerce announced the establishment of the United States Trade Finance Advisory Council (the Council) in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., to advise the Secretary on matters relating to private sector trade financing for U.S. exporters. As indicated in that notice, the Department of Commerce, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries, is accepting applications for membership on the TFAC. The TFAC functions solely as an advisory committee. The TFAC shall advise the Secretary in identifying effective ways to help expand access to finance for U.S. exporters, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and their foreign buyers.

    The TFAC shall provide a necessary forum to facilitate the discussion between a diverse group of stakeholders such as banks, non-bank financial institutions, other trade finance related organizations, and exporters to gain a better understanding regarding current challenges facing U.S. exporters in accessing finance.

    The TFAC shall draw upon the experience of its members in order to obtain ideas and suggestions for innovative solutions to these challenges.

    The TFAC shall develop recommendations on programs or activities that the Department of Commerce could incorporate as part of its export promotion and trade finance education efforts.

    The TFAC shall report to the Secretary on its activities and recommendations. In creating its reports, the TFAC should: (1) Evaluate current credit conditions and specific financing challenges faced by U.S. exporters, especially SMEs, and their foreign buyers, (2) examine other noteworthy issues raised by stakeholders represented by the membership, (3) identify emerging financing sources that would address these gaps, and (4) recommend specific activities by which these recommendations could be incorporated and implemented.

    II. Structure, Membership, and Operation

    The TFAC shall consist of no more than twenty members appointed by the Secretary. Members may be drawn from:

    • U.S. companies that are exporters of goods and services;

    • U.S. commercial banks that provide trade finance products, cross-border payment services, or foreign exchange solutions;

    • Non-bank U.S. financial institutions that provide trade finance products, cross-border payment services, or foreign exchange solutions;

    • Associations that represent: (a) U.S. exporters and SMEs; and (b) U.S. commercial banks or non-bank financial institutions or other professionals that facilitate international trade transactions;

    • U.S. companies or entities whose business includes trade-finance-related activities or services;

    • U.S. scholars, academic institutions, or public policy organizations with expertise in global business, trade finance, and international banking related subjects; and

    • Economic development organizations and other U.S. regional, state and local governmental and non-governmental organizations whose missions or activities include the analysis, provision, or facilitation of trade finance products/services.

    Membership shall include a broad range of companies and organizations in terms of products and services, company size, and geographic location of both the source and destination of trade finance. Members will be selected based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the TFAC, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, in a manner that ensures that the TFAC is balanced in terms of points of view and demographics. Priority may be given to candidates who have executive-level (Chief Executive Officer, Executive Chairman, President, or comparable level of responsibility) experience.

    Members, with the exception of those from academia and public policy organizations, serve in a representative capacity, representing their own views and interests or those of their sponsoring entities, not as Special Government Employees. The members from academia and public policy organizations serve as experts and therefore are Special Government Employees (SGEs), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 202, and will be required to comply with certain ethics laws and rules, including filing a Confidential Financial Disclosure form. Additionally, a member serving as an expert must not be a Federally Registered Lobbyist.

    Prospective nominees should designate the capacity in which they are applying to serve and identify either their area of expertise or the U.S. industry sector they wish to represent.

    Members of the TFAC will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses. Appointments to the TFAC shall be made without regard to political affiliation.

    Each member shall be appointed for a term of two years and will serve at the pleasure of the Secretary. The Secretary may at his/her discretion reappoint any member to an additional term or terms, provided that the member proves to work effectively on the TFAC and his/her knowledge and advice are still needed.

    The TFAC chair and vice chair or vice chairs shall be selected from the members of the TFAC by the Assistant Secretary for Industry & Analysis after consulting with the members. Their term of service will not exceed the duration of the current charter term and they may be reselected for additional periods should the charter be renewed and should they remain on the TFAC.

    III. Meetings

    The TFAC shall, to the extent practical, meet a minimum of two times a year. Additional meetings may be called at the discretion of the Secretary or his/her designee. The meetings will take place in Washington, DC, or elsewhere in the United States, or be held via teleconference. Members are required to attend a majority of the TFAC's meetings.

    IV. Application

    To be considered for membership, submit the following information to the email address listed in the ADDRESSES section above. In order to accommodate requests for extensions, we are now extending the deadline to receive applications until 5:00 p.m. EDT on Monday, August 29, 2016.

    Applications for immediate consideration must be received by this deadline.

    For all applicants, submit:

    1. Name and title of the individual requesting consideration.

    2. The applicant's personal resume and short biography (less than 300 words).

    3. A brief statement describing how the applicant will contribute to the work of the TFAC based on his/her unique experience and perspective (not to exceed 100 words).

    4. All relevant contact information, including mailing address, fax, email, phone number, and support staff information where relevant.

    5. An affirmative statement that the applicant meets all eligibility criteria, including an affirmative statement that the applicant is not required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

    6. For applicants to serve in a representative capacity, also submit:

    a. A sponsor letter on the sponsoring entity's letterhead containing a brief statement of why the applicant should be considered for membership on the TFAC. This sponsor letter should also address the applicant's experience and leadership related to trade finance;

    b. A brief description of the company, institution, trade association, or organization to be represented and its business activities and export market(s) served, if applicable;

    c. Information regarding the ownership and control of the sponsoring entity, including the stock holdings as appropriate; and

    d. The sponsoring entity's size (number of employees and annual sales), place of incorporation, product or service line, major markets in which the entity operates, and the entity's export or import experience.

    7. For applicants to serve as experts (i.e., not in a representative capacity), also submit:

    a. A statement that the applicant is not a Federally registered lobbyist and that the applicant understands that, if appointed, the applicant will not be allowed to continue to serve as a Committee member if the applicant becomes a Federally registered lobbyist.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Paul Thanos, Director, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19981 Filed 8-17-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE818 Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice; public meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Highly Migratory Species Management Team (HMSMT) will hold a webinar, which is open to the public.

    DATES:

    The webinar will be held on Thursday, September 8, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

    ADDRESSES:

    Webinar information: To join the meeting, visit this link: http://www.joinwebinar.com; enter the Webinar ID: 157-057-235 and your name and email address (required). After logging in to the webinar, please select “Use Telephone” and dial this TOLL number +1 (213) 929-4232; enter the attendee phone audio access code 832-921-033 and enter your audio phone PIN (shown after joining the webinar). (Participants are required to use their telephone, as this is the best practice to avoid technical issues and excessive feedback, see the PFMC GoToMeeting Audio Diagram for best practices.)

    Council address: Pacific Council, 7700 NE Ambassador Place, Suite 101, Portland, OR 97220-1384.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Kit Dahl, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The HMSMT will discuss preparation of reports for the September 12-20, 2016, Council meeting. HMS items on the Council agenda are: (1) Update on International Issues, (2) Exempted Fishing Permits, (3) Biennial Harvest Specifications and Management Measures, (4) Deep-Set Buoy Gear Exempted Fishing Permit Criteria to Advance Gear Authorization, and (5) Federal Drift Gillnet Permit Amendment.

    There will be a public listening station at the Council office (see ADDRESSES).

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt at (503) 820-2425 at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19813 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648-XE801 Fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico; Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR); Public Meeting AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice of SEDAR 49 Assessment webinar III for Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species.

    SUMMARY:

    The SEDAR 49 assessment of the Gulf of Mexico Data-limited Species will consist of a data workshop, a review workshop, and a series of assessment webinars. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

    DATES:

    The SEDAR 49 Assessment webinar III will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. on September 14, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting address: The meeting will be held via webinar. The webinar is open to members of the public. Those interested in participating should contact Julie A. Neer at SEDAR (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) to request an invitation providing webinar access information. Please request webinar invitations at least 24 hours in advance of each webinar.

    SEDAR address: 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.

    The items of discussion in the Assessment Process webinars are as follows:

    1. Using datasets and initial assessment analysis recommended from the Data Workshop, panelists will employ assessment models to evaluate stock status, estimate population benchmarks and management criteria, and project future conditions.

    2. Participants will recommend the most appropriate methods and configurations for determining stock status and estimating population parameters.

    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.

    Special Accommodations

    The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see ADDRESSES) at least 10 business days prior to each workshop.

    Note:

    The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.

    Authority:

    16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. Tracey L. Thompson, Acting Deputy Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Service.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19812 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Proposed Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Proposed addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    The Committee is proposing to add a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete services previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2016..

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

    Addition

    If the Committee approves the proposed addition, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product listed below from the nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

    The following product is proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agency listed:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8465-00-NIB-0263—Airborne Rucksack, Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE), OCP2015 Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Winston Salem Industries for the Blind, Inc.,Winston-Salem, NC Mandatory Purchase for: 100% of the requirement of the U.S. Army Contracting Activity: Army Contracting Command—Aberdeen Proving Ground, Natick Contracting Division Distribution: C-List Deletions

    The following services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

    Services Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 515 West First Street, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Public Buildings Service, Property Management Service Center Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: Superior National Forest Supervisors Office, 8901 Grand Avenue Place, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Forest Service, Superior National Forest Service Type: Food Service Attendant Service Mandatory for: 148th Fighter Wing: 4680 Viper St. (Dining Hall), Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W7NG USPFO ACTIVITY MN ARNG Service Type: Janitorial/Custodial Service Mandatory for: U.S. Army Reserve Center: 1500 St. Louis Avenue, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of the Army, W6QM MICC FT MCCOY (RC) Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: March Air Reserve Base, March Air Force Reserve Base, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Valley Resource Center for the Retarded, Inc., Hemet, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Air Force, FA7014 AFDW PK Service Type: Mailing Service Mandatory for: USDA, Farm Service Agency, Phoenix, AZ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Community Services, Inc., Phoenix, AZ Contracting Activity: Department of Agriculture, Procurement Operations Division Service Type: Car Wash Service Mandatory for: Customs and Border Protection, Indio Border Station, 83-801 Vin Deo Circle, Indio, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Sheltering Wings Corp., Blythe, CA Contracting Activity: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Procurement Directorate Service Type: Custodial Service Mandatory for: FAA, Air Traffic Control Tower, Duluth International Airport, 4525 Airport Approach Road, Duluth, MN Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Goodwill Industries Vocational Enterprises, Inc., Duluth, MN Contracting Activity: Dept of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Service Type: Recycling Service Mandatory for: Naval Weapons Station: NAWS Recycling Center, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station: Tot Lot Parks- Housing Area, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces Command Service Type: Grounds Maintenance Service Mandatory for: Defense Commissary Agency, China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station Commissary, 1 Administration Circle, China Lake, CA Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Desert Area Resources and Training, Ridgecrest, CA Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, NAVFAC SOUTHWEST
    Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19841 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED Procurement List: Addition and Deletions AGENCY:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

    ACTION:

    Addition to and deletions from the Procurement List.

    SUMMARY:

    This action adds a product to the Procurement List that will be furnished by a nonprofit agency employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes products from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.

    DATES:

    Effective on September 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Addition

    On 7/15/2016 (81 FR 46061-46062), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed addition to the Procurement List. After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agency to provide the product and impact of the addition on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product listed below is suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organization that will furnish the product to the Government.

    2. The action will result in authorizing a small entity to furnish the product to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following product is added to the Procurement List:

    Product NSN(s)—Product Name(s): MR 343—Handheld Spiralizer Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH Mandatory Purchase for: The requirements of military commissaries and exchanges in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 51, 51-6.4. Contracting Activity: Defense Commissary Agency Distribution: C-List Deletions

    On 7/15/2016 (81 FR 46061-46062), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from the Procurement List. After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the products listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.

    Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

    1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

    2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products to the Government.

    3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the products deleted from the Procurement List.

    End of Certification

    Accordingly, the following products are deleted from the Procurement List:

    Products NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 8410-01-279-7730—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6 Short 8410-01-279-7731—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6R 8410-01-279-7732—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 6L 8410-01-279-7733—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8S 8410-01-279-7734—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8R 8410-01-279-7735—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 8L 8410-01-279-7736—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10S 8410-01-279-7737—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10R 8410-01-279-7738—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 10L 8410-01-279-7739—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12S 8410-01-279-7740—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12R 8410-01-279-7741—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 12L 8410-01-279-7742—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14S 8410-01-279-7743—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14R 8410-01-279-7744—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 14L 8410-01-279-7745—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16S 8410-01-279-7746—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16R 8410-01-279-7747—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 16L 8410-01-279-7748—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18S 8410-01-279-7749—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18R 8410-01-279-7750—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 18L 8410-01-279-7751—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20S 8410-01-279-7752—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20R 8410-01-279-7753—Skirt, Gabardine, Lined, Marine Corps, Women's, Blue, 20L Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7520-01-385-7362—Pencil, Mechanical, Side Action, Green Barrel, 0.7 mm 7520-01-354-2305—Pencil, Mechanical, Push Action, Red Barrel and Lead, Extra Bold Point (1.1 mm) Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: San Antonio Lighthouse for the Blind, San Antonio, TX Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7510-01-443-2121—Toner, Cartridges, New 7510-00-NIB-0633—Skilcraft Toner Cartridge 7510-00-NIB-0642—Skilcraft Toner Cartridge Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Alabama Industries for the Blind, Talladega, AL Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7045-01-599-5322—Glare Shield for iPhone 7045-01-599-5271—Glare Shield for Blackberry Bold 7045-01-599-5273—Glare Shield for Blackberry Storm2 7045-01-599-5290—Glare Shield for Blackberry Curve2 7045-01-599-5275—Universal PDA Glare Shield 7045-01-599-5287—Privacy Shield for iPhone 7045-01-599-5276—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Bold 7045-01-599-5278—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Storm2 7045-01-599-5285—Privacy Shield for Blackberry Curve2 7045-01-599-5282—Privacy Shield for PDA, Universal Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Wiscraft, Inc., Milwaukee, WI Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, New York, NY NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7110-00-194-1611—Rotary Drafting Stool—Faux Leather 7110-00-281-4469—Rotary Drafting Stool—Upholstered Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Philadelphia, PA NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 7210-00-NIB-0160—Pillow, Medical, White, 26″ x 20″ 7210-00-NIB-0161—Pillow, Medical, Blue, 26″ x 20″ 7210-00-NIB-0162—Pillow, Bed, Flame Resistant, Pink, 26″ x 20″ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Department of Veterans Affairs NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5970-01-245-7042—Tape, Electrical Insulation, Black, 1″ W x 108 ft Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Cincinnati Association for the Blind, Cincinnati, OH Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD NSN(s)—Product Name(s): 5970-01-560-5355—Tape, Insulation, Electrical, High Voltage, Black, 2″ x 108′ Mandatory Source(s) of Supply: Blind Industries & Services of Maryland, Baltimore, MD Contracting Activity: Defense Logistics Agency Aviation Barry S. Lineback, Director, Business Operations.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19842 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
    CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION [Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041] Collection of Information; Proposed Extension of Approval; Comment Request—Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database AGENCY:

    Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) requests comments on a proposed extension of approval of a collection of information for the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database. The Commission will consider all comments received in response to this notice before requesting an extension of approval of this collection of information from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

    DATES:

    Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041, by any of the following methods:

    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CPSC-2010-0041, by any of the following methods:

    Electronic Submissions: Submit electronic comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. The Commission does not accept comments submitted by electronic mail (email), except through www.regulations.gov. The Commission encourages you to submit electronic comments by using the Federal eRulemaking Portal, as described above.

    Written Submissions: Submit written submissions by mail/hand delivery/courier to: Office of the Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Room 820, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone (301) 504-7923.

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this notice. All comments received may be posted without change, including any personal identifiers, contact information, or other personal information provided, to: http://www.regulations.gov. Do not submit confidential business information, trade secret information, or other sensitive or protected information that you do not want to be available to the public. If furnished at all, such information should be submitted in writing.

    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to: http://www.regulations.gov, and insert the docket number CPSC-2010-0041, into the “Search” box, and follow the prompts.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For further information contact: Robert H. Squibb, Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 504-7815, or by email to: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A. Background

    Section 212 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA) added section 6A to the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), which requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC or Commission) to establish and maintain a publicly available, searchable database on the safety of consumer products and other products or substances regulated by the Commission (Database). Among other things, section 6A of the CPSA requires the Commission to collect reports of harm from the public for potential publication in the publicly available Database, and to collect and publish comments about reports of harm from manufacturers.

    The Commission announced that a proposed collection of information in conjunction with the Database, called the Publicly Available Consumer Product Safety Information Database, had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520 in a proposed rule published on May 24, 2010 (75 FR 29156). The Commission issued a final rule on the Database on December 9, 2010 (75 FR 76832). The final rule interprets various statutory requirements in section 6A of the CPSA pertaining to the information to be included in the Database and also establishes provisions regarding submitting reports of harm; providing notice of reports of harm to manufacturers; publishing reports of harm and manufacturer comments in the Database; and dealing with confidential and materially inaccurate information.

    OMB approved the collection of information for the Database under control number 3041-0146. OMB's most recent extension of approval on December 2, 2013 will expire on December 31, 2016. Accordingly, the Commission now proposes to request an extension of approval of this collection of information.

    B. Information Collected Through the Database

    The primary purpose of this information collection is to populate the publicly searchable Database of consumer product safety information mandated by section 6A of the CPSA. The Database information collection has four components: Reports of harm, manufacturer comments, branding information, and the Small Batch Manufacturer Registry (SBMR).

    Reports of Harm: Reports of harm communicate information regarding an injury, illness, or death, or any risk (as determined by CPSC) of injury, illness, or death, relating to the use of a consumer product. Reports can be submitted to the CPSC by consumers; local, state, or federal government agencies; health care professionals; child service providers; public safety entities; and others. Reports may be submitted in one of three ways: Via the CPSC Web site (www.SaferProducts.gov), by telephone via a CPSC call center, or by email, fax, or mail using the incident report form (available for download or printing via the CPSC Web site). Reports may also originate as a free-form letter or email. Submitters must consent to inclusion of their report of harm in the publicly searchable Database.

    Manufacturer Comments: A manufacturer or private labeler may submit a comment related to a report of harm after the CPSC transmits the report to the manufacturer or private labeler identified in the report. Manufacturer comments may be submitted through the business portal, by email, mail, or fax. The business portal is a feature of the Database that allows manufacturers who register on the business portal to receive reports of harm and comment on such reports through the business portal. Use of the business portal expedites the receipt of reports of harm and business response times.

    A manufacturer may request that the Commission designate information in a report of harm as confidential. Such a request may be made using the business portal, by email, by mail, or by fax. Additionally, any person or entity reviewing a report of harm or manufacturer comment, either before or after publication in the Database, may request that the report or comment, or portions of the report or comment, be excluded from the Database because it contains materially inaccurate information. Such a request may be made by manufacturers using the business portal, by email, mail or fax, and may be submitted by anyone else by email, mail, or fax.

    Branding Information: Using the business portal, registered businesses may voluntarily submit branding information to assist CPSC in correctly and timely routing reports of harm involving their products to them. Brand names may be licensed to another entity for use in labeling consumer products manufactured by that entity. CPSC's understanding of licensing arrangements for consumer products ensures that the correct manufacturer is timely notified regarding a report of harm.

    Small Batch Manufacturers Registry: The business portal also contains the SBMR, which is the online mechanism by which “small batch manufacturers” (as defined in the CPSA) can identify themselves to obtain relief from certain third party testing requirements for children's products. To register as a small batch manufacturer, a business must attest that the company's income level and the number of units of the covered product manufactured for which relief is sought both fall within the statutory limits to receive relief from third party testing.

    C. Estimated Burden 1. Estimated Annual Burden for Respondents

    We estimate the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Reports of Harm Collection type Number of
  • respondents
  • Response
  • frequency 1
  • Total annual responses Minutes per response Total burden, in hours 2
    Reports of Harm—submitted through website 6,582 1.03 6,790 12 1,358 Reports of Harm—submitted by phone 2,632 1.01 2,643 10 441 Reports of Harm—submitted by mail, email, fax 780 6.67 5,206 20 1,735 Total 9,994 14,639 3,534 1 Frequency of responses is calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of respondents. 2 Numbers have been rounded.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden for Manufacturer Submissions Collection type Number of
  • respondents
  • Response
  • frequency 1
  • Total annual responses Minutes per response Total burden, in hours 2
    Manufacturer Comments—submitted through Web site 532 6.23 3,317 117 6,468 Manufacturer Comments—submitted by mail, email, fax 283 1.22 346 147 848 Requests to Treat Information as Confidential—submitted through Web site 12 1.08 13 42 9 Requests to Treat Information as Confidential—submitted by mail, email, fax 0 n/a 0 72 0 Requests to Treat Information as Materially Inaccurate—submitted through Web site 131 1.82 238 165 655 Requests to Treat Information as Materially Inaccurate—submitted by mail, email, fax 79 1.06 84 195 273 Voluntary Brand Identification 829 1.48 1,228 10 205 Small Batch Manufacturer Identification 2,208 1 2,208 10 368 Total 4,074 7,434 8,826

    Based on the data set forth in Tables 1 and 2 above, the annual reporting cost is estimated to be $719,381. This estimate is based on the sum of two estimated total figures for reports of harm and manufacturer submissions. The estimated number of respondents and responses are based on the actual responses received in FY 2015. We assume that the number of responses and respondents will be similar in future years.

    1 Frequency of response is calculated by dividing the number of responses by the number of respondents.

    2 Numbers have been rounded.

    Reports of Harm: Table 1 sets forth the data used to estimate the burden associated with submitting reports of harm. We had previously estimated the time associated with the electronic and telephone submission of reports of harm at 12 and 10 minutes, respectively, and because we have had no indication that these estimates are not appropriate or accurate, we used those figures for present purposes as well. We estimate that the time associated with a paper or PDF form would be 20 minutes, on average.

    To estimate the costs for submitting reports of harm, we multiplied the estimated total burden hours associated with reports of harm (1,358 hours + 441 hours + 1,735 hours = 3,534 hours) by an estimated total compensation for all workers in private industry of $32.06 per hour,3 which results in an estimated cost of $113,300 (3,534 hours × $32.06 per hour = $113,300).

    3 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on 06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t09.htm.

    Manufacturer Submissions: Table 2 sets forth the data used to estimate the burden associated with manufacturers' submissions to the Database. We observed that a large percentage of the general comments come from a few businesses and assumed that the experience of a business that submits many comments each year would be different from one that submits only a few. Accordingly, we divided all responding businesses into three groups, based on the number of general comments submitted in FY 2015; and then we selected several businesses from each group to contact. The first group we contacted consisted of businesses that submitted 50 or more comments in FY 2015, accounting for 31 percent of all general comments received. The second group we contacted included businesses that submitted six to 49 comments, accounting for 39 percent of all general comments received. The last group contacted included businesses that submitted no more than five comments, accounting for 30 percent of all general comments received.4 We asked each company contacted how long it typically takes to research, compose, and enter a comment, a claim of materially inaccurate information, or a confidential information claim.

    4 In the last group one company was excluded as an outlier.

    To estimate the burden associated with submitting a general comment through the business portal regarding a report of harm, we averaged the burden provided by each company within each group and then calculated a weighted average from the three groups, weighting each group by the proportion of comments received from that group. We found that the average time to submit a general comment regarding a report of harm is 117 minutes based on the data in Table 3 (((15 minutes + 45 minutes + 30 minutes + 15 minutes)/4 companies) * .31 + ((105 minutes + 45 minutes + 150 minutes + 15 minutes)/4 companies) * .39 + ((240 minutes + 60 minutes + 480 minutes)/3 companies) * .30 = 117 minutes).

    Table 3—Estimated Burden To Enter a General Comment in the Database Group Company General
  • comments
  • (minutes)
  • Group 1 A 15 (>=50 comments) B 45 C 30 D 15 Group 2 A 105 (6-49 comments) B 45 C 150 D 15 Group 3 A 240 (>=5 comments) B 60 C 480

    Registered businesses generally submit comments through our Web site. Unregistered businesses submit comments by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that for unregistered businesses, submitting comments takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submissions to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, comments submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (117 minutes + 30 minutes = 147 minutes).

    The submission of a claim of materially inaccurate information is a relatively rare event for all respondents. Accordingly, we averaged all responses together. Eight of the businesses contacted had submitted claims of materially inaccurate information. We found that the average time to submit a claim that a report of harm contains a material inaccuracy is 165 minutes ((30 minutes + 90 minutes + 45 minutes + 90 minutes + 60 minutes + 660 minutes + 45 minutes + 300 minutes)/8 companies = 165 minutes).

    Registered businesses generally submit claims through the business portal. Unregistered businesses submit claims by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting claims by mail, email, or fax takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimated that on average, claims submitted by mail, email, or fax take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (165 minutes + 30 minutes = 195 minutes).

    The submission of a claim of confidential information is a relatively rare event for all respondents; accordingly, we averaged all responses together. Five of the businesses contacted had submitted claims of confidential information. We found that the average time to submit a claim that a report of harm contains confidential information is 42 minutes ((45 minutes + 15 minutes + 60 minutes + 30 minutes + 60 minutes)/5 companies = 42 minutes).

    Registered businesses generally submit confidential information claims through the business portal. Unregistered businesses submit confidential information claims by mail, email, or fax. We estimate that submitting claims in this way takes a little longer because we often must ask the businesses to amend their submission to include the required certifications. Thus, we estimate that a confidential information claim submitted by mail, email, or fax would take 30 minutes longer than those submitted through our Web site (42 minutes + 30 minutes = 72 minutes).

    For voluntary brand identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. Most responses consist only of the brand name and a product description. In many cases a business will submit multiple entries in a brief period of time and we can see from the date and time stamps on these records that an entry often takes less than two minutes. CPSC staff enters the same data in a similar form based on our own research, and that experience was also factored into our estimate.

    For small batch manufacturer identification, we estimate that a response would take 10 minutes on average. The form consists of three check boxes and the information should be readily accessible to the respondent.

    The responses summarized in Table 2 are generally submitted by manufacturers. To avoid underestimating the cost associated with the collection of this data, we assigned the higher hourly wage associated with a manager or professional in goods-producing industries to these tasks. To estimate the cost of manufacturer submissions we multiplied the estimated total burden hours in Table 2 (8,826 hours) by an estimated total compensation for a manager or professional in goods-producing industries of $68.67 per hour,5 which results in an estimated cost of $606,081 (8,826 hours × $68.67 per hour = $606,081).

    5 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table 9 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), Private Industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by occupational group, June 2016 (data extracted on 06/23/2016 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t09.htm.

    Therefore, the total estimated annual cost to respondents is $719,381 ($113,300 burden for reports of harm + $606,081 burden for manufacturer submissions = $719,381).

    2. Estimated Annual Burden on Government

    We estimate the annualized cost to the CPSC to be $954,531. This figure is based on the costs for four categories of work for the Database: Reports of Harm, Materially Inaccurate Information Claims, Manufacturer Comments, and Small Batch Identification. Each category is described below. No government cost is associated with Voluntary Brand Identification because this information is entered directly into the Database by the manufacturer with no processing required by the government. The information assists the government in directing reports of harm to the correct manufacturer. We did not attempt to calculate separately the government cost for claims of confidential information because the number of claims is so small. The time to process these claims is included with claims of materially inaccurate information.

    Reports of Harm: The Reports of Harm category includes many different tasks. Some costs related to this category are from two data entry contracts. Tasks related to these contracts include clerical coding of the report, such as identifying the type of consumer product reported and the appropriate associated hazard, as well as performing quality control on the data in the report. Contractor A spends an estimated 5,267 hours per year performing these tasks. With an hourly rate of $33.31 for contractor services, the annual cost to the government of contract A is $175,444. Contractor B spends an estimated 2,539 hours per year performing these tasks. With an hourly rate of $58.09 for contractor services, the annual cost to the government of contract B is $147,491.

    The Reports of Harm category also includes sending consent requests for reports when necessary, processing that consent when received, determining whether a product is out of CPSC's jurisdiction, and confirming that pictures and attachments do not have any personally identifiable information. The Reports category also entails notifying manufacturers when one of their products is reported, completing a risk of harm determination form for every report eligible for publication, referring some reports to a Subject Matter Expert (SME) within the CPSC for a determination on whether the reports meet the requirement of having a risk of harm, and determining whether a report meets all the statutory and regulatory requirements for publication. Detailed costs are:

    Table 4—Estimated Costs for Reports of Harm Task Grade level Number of
  • hours
  • (annual)
  • Total
  • compensation
  • per hour
  • Total annual cost
    Contract A 5,267 $33.31 $175,444 Contract B 2,539 58.09 147,491 7 200 34.78 6,956 9 300 42.69 12,807 12 5,528 61.91 342,238 13 428 73.37 31,402 14 1,068 86.99 92,905 Total 15,330 809,243

    Materially Inaccurate Information (MII) Claims: The MII claims category includes reviewing and responding to claims, participating in meetings where the claims are discussed, and completing a risk of harm determination on reports when a company alleges that a report does not describe a risk of harm.

    Table 5—Estimated Costs for MII Claims Task Grade level Number of
  • hours
  • (annual)
  • Total
  • compensation
  • per hour
  • Total annual cost
    12 275 $61.91 $17,025 13 167 73.37 12,253 14 323 86.99 28,098 15 50 101.99 5,100 SES 50 109.97 5,499 Total 865 67,975.00

    Manufacturer Comments: The Comments category includes reviewing and accepting or rejecting comments.

    Table 6—Estimated Costs for Manufacturer Comments Task Grade level Number of
  • hours
  • (annual)
  • Total
  • compensation
  • per hour
  • Total annual cost
    12 62 $61.91 $3,838 13 109 73.37 7,997 Total 171 11,835

    Small Batch Manufacturer Identification: The Small Batch Manufacturer Identification category includes time spent posting the list of small batch registrations, as well as answering manufacturers' questions on registering as a Small Batch company and what the implications to that company of small batch registration.

    Table 7—Estimated Costs for Small Batch Task Grade level Number of
  • hours
  • (annual)
  • Total
  • compensation
  • per hour
  • Total annual cost
    15 642 $101.99 $65,478 Total 642 $65,478

    We estimate the annualized cost to the CPSC of $954,531 by adding the four categories of work related to the Database summarized in Tables 4 through 7 (Reports of Harm ($809,243) + MII Claims ($67,975) + Manufacturer Comments ($11,835) + Small Batch Identification ($65,478) = $954,531).

    This information collection renewal request based on an estimated 12,360 burden hours per year for the Database is a decrease of 7,485 hours since this collection of information was last approved by OMB in 2013. The decrease in burden is due primarily to the fact that the number of incoming reports of harm has decreased, and the number of claims based on those reports has decreased as well. While comments did not decline significantly, they did shift to the more efficient online submissions. We note a large increase in small batch manufacturer activity, which has been rising steadily for years. However, this increase was not large enough to offset the decreases in other areas.

    D. Request for Comments

    The Commission solicits written comments from all interested persons about the proposed collection of information. The Commission specifically solicits information relevant to the following topics:

    • Whether the collection of information described above is necessary for the proper performance of the Commission's functions, including whether the information would have practical utility;

    • Whether the estimated burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate;

    • Whether the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected could be enhanced; and

    • Whether the burden imposed by the collection of information could be minimized by use of automated, electronic or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology.

    Dated: February 16, 2016. Todd A. Stevenson, Secretary, Consumer Product Safety Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19811 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Air Force Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force Academy; Notice of Meeting AGENCY:

    U.S. Air Force Academy Board of Visitors, Department of Defense.

    ACTION:

    Meeting notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with 10 U.S.C. Section 9355, the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) Board of Visitors (BoV) will hold a meeting at the Center for Character and Leadership Development Building, U.S. Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO on Sept 7 & 8, 2016. On Wednesday, Sept 7, the meeting will begin at 1300 and conclude at 1600. On Thursday, Sept 8, the meeting will begin at 8:00 a.m. and conclude at 1515. The purpose of this meeting is to review morale and discipline, social climate, curriculum, instruction, infrastructure, fiscal affairs, academic methods, and other matters relating to the Academy. Specific topics for this meeting include a Superintendent's Update; USAFA Non-Profits Update; Religious Respect Update; USAFA Academics Update; USAFA's Climate Assessment Survey Results. Public attendance at this USAFA BoV meeting shall be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis up to the reasonable and safe capacity of the meeting room. In addition, any member of the public wishing to provide input to the USAFA BoV should submit a written statement in accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(c) and section 10(a)(3) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the procedures described in this paragraph. Written statements must address the following details: The issue, discussion, and a recommended course of action. Supporting documentation may also be included as needed to establish the appropriate historical context and provide any necessary background information. Written statements can be submitted to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at the Air Force address detailed below at any time. However, if a written statement is not received at least 10 calendar days before the first day of the meeting which is the subject of this notice, then it may not be provided to or considered by the BoV until its next open meeting. The DFO will review all timely submissions with the BoV Chairman and ensure they are provided to members of the BoV before the meeting that is the subject of this notice. If after review of timely submitted written comments and the BoV Chairman and DFO deem appropriate, they may choose to invite the submitter of the written comments to orally present the issue during an open portion of the BoV meeting that is the subject of this notice. Members of the BoV may also petition the Chairman to allow specific personnel to make oral presentations before the BoV. In accordance with 41 CFR Section 102-3.140(d), any oral presentations before the BoV shall be in accordance with agency guidelines provided pursuant to a written invitation and this paragraph. Direct questioning of BoV members or meeting participants by the public is not permitted except with the approval of the DFO and Chairman. For the benefit of the public, rosters that list the names of BoV members and any releasable materials presented during the open portions of this BoV meeting shall be made available upon request.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For additional information or to attend this BoV meeting, contact Major James Kuchta, Accessions and Training Division, AF/A1PT, 1040 Air Force Pentagon, Washington, DC 20330, (703) 695-4066, [email protected]

    Henry Williams, Acting Air Force Federal Register Officer.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19783 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-10-P
    DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD Senior Executive Service Performance Review Board Memberships AGENCY:

    Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the membership of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB).

    DATES:

    August 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Send comments concerning this notice to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004-2001.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Deborah Biscieglia by telephone at (202) 694-7041.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(1) through (5) requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more performance review boards. The PRB shall review and evaluate the initial summary rating of a senior executive's performance, the executive's response, and the higher level official's comments on the initial summary rating. In addition, the PRB will review and recommend executive performance bonuses and pay increases.

    The DNFSB is a small, independent Federal agency; therefore, the members of the DNFSB SES Performance Review Board listed in this notice are drawn from the SES ranks of other agencies. The following persons comprise a standing roster to serve as members of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board SES Performance Review Board:

    Christopher E. Aiello, Special Advisor to the Deputy to the Chairman and Chief Financial Officer, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

    David M. Capozzi, Executive Director, United States Access Board;

    Cedric R. Hendricks, Associate Director for the Office of Legislative, Intergovernmental and Public Affairs, Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency;

    Barry S. Socks, Chief Operating Officer, National Capital Planning Commission;

    Dr. Michael L. Van Woert, Director, National Science Board Office, National Science Foundation.

    Dated: July 28, 2016. Joyce L. Connery, Chairman.
    [FR Doc. 2016-18963 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3670-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [Docket No.: ED-2016-ICCD-0067] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Annual Performance Report AGENCY:

    Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 3501 et seq.), ED is proposing a revision of an existing information collection.

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 19, 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-0067. Comments submitted in response to this notice should be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov by selecting the Docket ID number or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please note that comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the comment period will not be accepted. Written requests for information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., LBJ, Room 2E-347, Washington, DC 20202-4537.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Stacey Slijepcevic, 202-453-6150.

    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: Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Annual Performance Report.

    OMB Control Number: 1840-0793.

    Type of Review: A revision of an existing information collection.

    Respondents/Affected Public: State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 100.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 4,000.

    Abstract: The Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) works to improve postsecondary education through grants to postsecondary educational institutions and agencies. Such grants are awarded to non-profit organizations on the basis of competitively reviewed applications submitted to FIPSE under the First in the World (FITW) Program. This collection includes a performance report for use with FITW programs 84.116F and 84.116X. We request clearance of one annual performance report for FITW programs 84.116F and 84.116X that will serve the dual purpose of an annual and final performance report. In this collection there is one (1) form, the annual performance report for FITW programs that includes a FITW program burden statement. The collection of the requested data in the performance report is necessary for the evaluation and assessment of FITW-funded programs and for assessment of continuation funding for each grantee.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Kate Mullan, Acting Director, Information Collection Clearance Division, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19772 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Federal Energy Regulatory Commission [Docket No. IC16-16-000] Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-577); Comment Request; Extension AGENCY:

    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

    ACTION:

    Notice of information collection and request for comments.

    SUMMARY:

    In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC-577 (Natural Gas Facilities: Environmental Review and Compliance).

    DATES:

    Comments on the collection of information are due October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC16-16-000) by either of the following methods:

    eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.

    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support by email at [email protected], or by phone at: (866) 208-3676 (toll-free), or (202) 502-8659 for TTY.

    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Ellen Brown may be reached by email at [email protected], telephone at (202) 502-8663, and fax at (202) 273-0873.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: FERC-577, Gas Pipeline Certificates: Environmental Impact Statement.

    OMB Control No.: 1902-0128.

    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-577 information collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting requirements.

    Abstract: The FERC-577 information collection contains the Commission's information collections pertaining to 18 CFR Parts: 2, 157, 284, and 380. These regulations implement National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and include the environmental compliance conditions portions of the same regulations. The FERC-577 also includes the reporting requirements for landowner notifications. These requirements are contained within 18 CFR Parts: 2.55(b), 157.203(d), 380.15, and 2.55(a).

    Type of Respondents: Gas pipelines.

    Estimate of Annual Burden:1 The Commission estimates the annual public reporting burden and cost (rounded) for the information collection as:

    1 The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. For further explanation of what is included in the information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal Regulations 1320.3.

    FERC-577 [Natural gas facilities: environmental review and compliance] Number of respondents Annual number of responses per
  • respondent
  • Total number of responses Average burden & cost per
  • response 2
  • Total annual burden hours & total annual cost Cost per
  • respondent
  • ($)
  • (1) (2) (1) * (2) = (3) (4) (3) * (4) = (5) (5) ÷ (1) Gas Pipeline Certificates 3 92 16 1,472 193.518 hrs.; $14,417 284,858 hrs.; $21,221,824 $230,672 Landowner Notification 4 165 144 23,760 2 hrs.; $149 47,520 hrs.; $3,540,240 21,456 Total 25,232 332,378 hrs.; 24,762,064

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

    2 The estimates for cost per response are derived using the following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $74.50 per Hour = Average Cost per Response. The Commission staff believes that the industry's level and skill set are comparable to FERC, so the FERC 2016 average hourly cost (for salary plus benefits) of $74.50 per hour is used.

    3 Requirements are found in 18 CFR Parts: 157, 284, 2, and 380.

    4 Requirements are found in 18 CFR Parts: 2.55(b), 157.203(d), 380.15, and 2.55(a).

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19777 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-9028-6] Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www.epa.gov/nepa.

    Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) Filed 08/08/2016 Through 08/12/2016 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

    EIS No. 20160186, Final, USFWS, NAT, National Wildlife Refuge System Revision of Regulations Governing Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights, Review Period Ends: 09/19/2016, Contact: Scott Covington 703-358-2427 EIS No. 20160187, Draft, Caltrans, CA, Northwest SR-138 Corridor, Comment Period Ends: 10/03/2016, Contact: Natalie Hill 213-897-0841 Amended Notices EIS No. 20160168, Draft, NSA, MD, East Campus Integration Program, Comment Period Ends: 09/06/2016, Contact: Jeffrey Williams 301-688-2970.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 07/22/2016; Correct Comment Period from 9/05/2016 to 09/06/2016.

    Dated: August 16, 2016. Dawn Roberts, Management Analyst, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19851 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Radio Broadcasting Services; AM or FM Proposals To Change the Community of License AGENCY:

    Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The following applicants filed AM or FM proposals to change the community of License: Campo Elias Munera, Station NEW, Facility ID 198790, BNPH-20151013AIU, From Roaring Springs, TX, To Girard, TX; LLC Marble City Media, LLC, Station WFXO, Facility ID 704, BPH-20160802ACA, From Ashland, AL, To Stewartville, AL; Noalmark Broadcasting Corporation, Station KMLK, Facility ID 85169, BPH-20160809AAJ, From El Dorado, AR, To Junction City, AR; United Broadcasting Company, Inc., Station KTKK, Facility ID14890, BP-20140623AAZ, From Sandy, UT, To Kearns, UT.

    DATES:

    Comments may be filed through October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Tung Bui, 202-418-2700.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The full text of these applications is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's Reference Center, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or electronically via the Media Bureau's Consolidated Data Base System, http://svartifoss2.fcc.gov/prod/cdbs/pubacc/prod/cdbs_pa.htm. A copy of this application may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, INC., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160 or www.BCPIWEB.com.

    Federal Communications Commission. James D. Bradshaw, Deputy Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19825 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
    FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meetings AGENCY:

    Federal Election Commission.

    DATE AND TIME:

    Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.

    PLACE:

    999 E Street NW., Washington, DC (Ninth Floor).

    STATUS:

    This meeting will be open to the public.

    Federal Register Notice of Previous Announcement—81 FR 53483 The Following Item Was Also Discussed:

    Motion to Set Priorities and Scheduling on Pending Enforcement Matters Awaiting Reason-to-Believe Consideration.

    PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION:

    Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

    Shawn Woodhead Werth, Secretary and Clerk of the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19970 Filed 8-17-16; 4:15 pm] BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
    FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 15, 2016.

    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Ivan Hurwitz, Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045-0001. Comments can also be sent electronically to [email protected]:

    1. People's United Financial, Inc., Bridgeport, Connecticut; to acquire 100 percent of the voting shares of, and thereby merge with, Suffolk Bancorp, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of The Suffolk County National Bank, both in Riverhead, New York.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 16, 2016. Margaret McCloskey Shanks, Deputy Secretary of the Board.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19854 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff: Meeting

    Name: ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee meeting.

    Time and Date: 9 a.m.-5 p.m., EDT, September 13-14, 2016.

    Place: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Auditorium, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244.

    Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 240 people. We will be broadcasting the meeting live via Webcast at http://www.cms.gov/live/.

    Security Considerations: Due to increased security requirements CMS has instituted stringent procedures for entrance into the building by non-government employees. Attendees will need to present valid government-issued picture identification, and sign-in at the security desk upon entering the building.

    Attendees who wish to attend the September 13-14, 2016 ICD-10-CM C&M meeting must submit their name and organization by September 2, 2016 for inclusion on the visitor list. This visitor list will be maintained at the front desk of the CMS building and used by the guards to admit visitors to the meeting.

    Participants who attended previous Coordination and Maintenance meetings will no longer be automatically added to the visitor list. You must request inclusion of your name prior to each meeting you wish to attend.

    Please register to attend the meeting on-line at: http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/events/. Please contact Mady Hue (410-786-4510 or [email protected]), for questions about the registration process.

    Purpose: The ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance (C&M) Committee is a public forum for the presentation of proposed modifications to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification and ICD-10 Procedure Coding System.

    Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items include:

    September 13-14, 2016.

    ICD-10-PCS Topics Administration of Influenza Vaccine Administration of Peptide Enhanced Bone Graft Balloon Atrial Septostomy Extracorporeal Carbon Dioxide Removal Extracorporeal Treatment of Vascular Grafts Intramuscular Autologous Bone Marrow Cell Therapy Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta Addenda and Key Updates ICD-10-CM Diagnosis Topics Abnormality in Fetal Heart Rate or Rhythm Acute Appendicitis Acute Cholecystitis Acute Respiratory Distress Amyloidosis Antenatal Screening Atrial Fibrillation (AF) ATV and Motor-cross Vehicle Injuries Body Integrity Dysphoria Disease of Intestine E-cigarette Use Hepatic Diverticular Encephalopathy Injury to Optic Tract and Visual Cortex Intestinal Obstruction Neonatal Encephalopathy Obstetrical Issues Parrots/Macaws Modifications Personal History of Mesothelioma and Secondary Mesothelioma Primary and Central Hypothyroidism Post Endometrial Ablation Syndrome Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (re-presentation) Sickle Cell w/o Acute Chest Syndrome or Splenic Sequestration Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication Surgical Site Infection Types of MI Umbilical Granuloma in the Perinatal Period Zika Related Newborn Conditions

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Note:

    CMS and National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) no longer provide paper copies of handouts for the meeting. Electronic copies of all meeting materials will be posted on the CMS and NCHS Web sites prior to the meeting at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/ICD9ProviderDiagnosticCodes/03_meetings.asp#TopOfPage and http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/icd/icd9cm_maintenance.htm.

    Contact Persons for Additional Information: Donna Pickett, Medical Systems Administrator, Classifications and Public Health Data Standards Staff, NCHS, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, email [email protected], telephone 301-458-4434 (diagnosis); Mady Hue, Health Insurance Specialist, Division of Acute Care, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244, email [email protected], telephone 410-786-4510 (procedures).

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19790 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (BSC, NCEH/ATSDR), Lead Poisoning Prevention (LPP) Subcommittee

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the CDC, National Center for Environmental Health/Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (NCEH/ATSDR) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee:

    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m.—3:15 p.m. EDT, September 19, 2016.

    Place: CDC, 4770 Buford Highway, Building 106, Conference Room 1/A, Atlanta, Georgia 30341. The meeting will also be held by teleconference. To participate in the teleconference, please dial 1-866-687-6445, passcode 5598486.

    Status: The meeting is open to the public, the conference room accommodates approximately 60 people and will be limited only by the space available. The public is welcome to participate during the public comment period which is scheduled from 10:15 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. EST (15 minutes).

    Individuals wishing to make a comment during the public comment period or to attend the meeting in person, please email your name, organization, and phone number by Thursday, September 15, 2016 to Amanda Malasky at [email protected]

    Purpose: The subcommittee will discuss strategies and options on ways to prioritize NCEH/ATSDR's activities, improve health outcomes, and address health disparities as it relates to lead exposures. The subcommittee will deliberate on ways to evaluate lead exposure and how to best conduct health evaluations through exposure and epidemiologic studies. Subcommittee proposals on lead prevention practices and national lead poisoning prevention efforts will be provided to the Board of Scientific Counselors for deliberation and possible adoption as formal recommendations to NCEH/ATSDR.

    Matters for Discussion: Agenda items will include the following: NCEH/ATSDR support for the public health emergency in Flint; rethinking the strategy for the NCEH Lead Surveillance Program; CDC's Blood Reference Value for Lead; other emerging lead topics; advice, guidance, recommendations, and summary and next steps.

    Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Amanda Malasky, Coordinator, Lead Poisoning Prevention Subcommittee, BSC, NCEH/ATSDR, 4770 Buford Highway, Mail Stop F-45, Chamblee, Georgia 30345; telephone 770/488-7699, Fax: 770/488-3377; Email: [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19788 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Board of Scientific Counselors, National Center for Health Statistics: Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) announces the following meeting of the aforementioned committee.

    Times and Dates: 11 a.m.-5:30 p.m., EDT, September 15, 2016. 8:30 a.m.-1 p.m., EDT, September 16, 2016.

    Place: NCHS Headquarters, 3311 Toledo Road, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782.

    Status: This meeting is open to the public; however, visitors must be processed in accordance with established federal policies and procedures. For foreign nationals or non-U.S. citizens, pre-approval is required (please contact Gwen Mustaf, 301-458-4500, [email protected], or Virginia Cain, [email protected] at least 10 days in advance for requirements). All visitors are required to present a valid form of picture identification issued by a state, federal or international government. As required by the Federal Property Management Regulations, title 41, Code of Federal Regulation, subpart 101-20.301, all persons entering in or on Federal controlled property and their packages, briefcases, and other containers in their immediate possession are subject to being x-rayed and inspected. Federal law prohibits the knowing possession or the causing to be present of firearms, explosives and other dangerous weapons and illegal substances. The meeting room accommodates approximately 100 people.

    Purpose: This committee is charged with providing advice and making recommendations to the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services; the Director, CDC; and the Director, NCHS, regarding the scientific and technical program goals and objectives, strategies, and priorities of NCHS.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda will include:

    1. Welcome remarks by the Director, NCHS 2. Presentation on Race and Ethnicity in Vital Statistics 3. Presentation on Improving the Quality of Cause of Death Reporting 4. Presentation on New Data on Births 5. Presentation on Research Data Centers Expansion

    Requests to make oral presentations should be submitted in writing to the contact person listed below. All requests must contain the name, address, telephone number, and organizational affiliation of the presenter.

    Written comments should not exceed five single-spaced typed pages in length and must be received by September 6, 2016.

    The agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Virginia S. Cain, Ph.D., Director of Extramural Research, NCHS/CDC, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 7208, Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4500, fax (301) 458-4024.

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19789 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), announces the following meeting for the aforementioned subcommittee:

    Time and Date: 10:30 a.m.-5 p.m., EDT, September 13, 2016.

    Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS Conferencing.

    Status: Open to the public, but without a public comment period. The public is welcome to submit written comments in advance of the meeting, to the contact person below. Written comments received in advance of the meeting will be included in the official record of the meeting. The public is also welcome to listen to the meeting by joining the teleconference at the USA toll-free, dial-in number at 1-866-659-0537 and the pass code is 9933701.

    Background: The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Advisory Board) was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Advisory Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines that have been promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule; advice on methods of dose reconstruction, which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program; and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort.

    In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to CDC. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, rechartered on March 22, 2016 pursuant to Executive Order 13708, and will expire on September 30, 2017.

    Purpose: The Advisory Board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Reviews (SDRR) was established to aid the Advisory Board in carrying out its duty to advise the Secretary, HHS, on dose reconstruction.

    Matters for Discussion: The agenda for the Subcommittee meeting includes the following dose reconstruction program quality management and assurance activities: dose reconstruction cases under review from Sets 14-18, including the Oak Ridge sites (Y-12, K-25, Oak Ridge National Laboratory), Hanford, Feed Materials Production Center (“Fernald”), Mound Plant, Rocky Flats Plant, Nevada Test Site, Idaho National Laboratory, and Savannah River Site; consideration of new dose reconstruction review methods and/or case selection criteria.

    The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate.

    Contact Person for More Information: Theodore Katz, Designated Federal Officer, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road, Mailstop E-20, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone (513) 533-6800, Toll Free 1(800)CDC-INFO, Email [email protected]

    The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities, for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

    Elaine L. Baker, Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19787 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Fees for Sanitation Inspections of Cruise Ships AGENCY:

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

    ACTION:

    General notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), located within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announces fees for vessel sanitation inspections for Fiscal Year (FY) 2017. These inspections are conducted by HHS/CDC's Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP). VSP helps the cruise line industry fulfill its responsibility for developing and implementing comprehensive sanitation programs to minimize the risk for acute gastroenteritis. Every vessel that has a foreign itinerary and carries 13 or more passengers is subject to twice-yearly unannounced inspections and, when necessary, reinspection.

    DATES:

    These fees are effective October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    CAPT Jaret T. Ames, Chief, Vessel Sanitation Program, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway NE., MS F-59, Atlanta, Georgia 30341-3717; phone: 800-323-2132, 770-488-3141, or 954-356-6650; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose and Background

    HHS/CDC established the Vessel Sanitation Program (VSP) in the 1970s as a cooperative activity with the cruise ship industry. VSP helps the cruise ship industry prevent and control the introduction, transmission, and spread of gastrointestinal illnesses on cruise ships. VSP operates under the authority of the Public Health Service Act (Section 361 of the Public Health Service Act; 42 U.S.C. 264, “Control of Communicable Diseases”). Regulations found at 42 CFR 71.41 (Foreign Quarantine—Requirements Upon Arrival at U.S. Ports: Sanitary Inspection; General Provisions) state that carriers arriving at U.S. ports from foreign areas are subject to sanitary inspections to determine whether rodent, insect, or other vermin infestations exist, contaminated food or water, or other sanitary conditions requiring measures for the prevention of the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases are present.

    The fee schedule for sanitation inspections of passenger cruise ships by VSP was first published in the Federal Register on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45019). HHS/CDC began collecting fees on March 1, 1988. This notice announces fees that are effective for FY 2017, beginning on October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.

    The following formula will be used to determine the fees:

    EN19AU16.003

    Total cost of VSP = Total cost of operating the program, such as administration, travel, staffing, sanitation inspections, and outbreak response. Weighted number of annual inspections = Total number of ships and inspections per year accounting for vessel size, number of inspectors needed for vessel size, travel logistics to conduct inspections, and vessel location and arrivals in U.S. jurisdiction per year.

    The fee schedule was originally established and published in the Federal Register on July 17, 1987 (52 FR 27060). It was most recently published in the Federal Register on August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51819). The fee schedule for FY 2017 is presented in Appendix A.

    Fee

    The fee schedule (Appendix A) will be effective October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.

    Applicability

    The fees will apply to all passenger cruise vessels for which inspections are conducted as part of HHS/CDC's VSP. Inspections and reinspections involve the same procedures, require the same amount of time, and are therefore charged at the same rates.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. Sandra Cashman, Executive Secretary, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Appendix A Fee Schedule for Each Vessel Size Vessel size (GRT 1) Inspection fee Extra Small (<3,000 GRT) US$1,495 Small (3,001-15,000 GRT) 2,990 Medium (15,001-30,000 GRT) 5,980 Large (30,001-60,000 GRT) 8,970 Extra Large (60,001-120,000 GRT) 11,960 Mega (>120,001 GRT) 17,940 1 Gross register tonnage in cubic feet, as shown in Lloyd's Register of Shipping.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19785 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [CMS-1680-N] Medicare Program; Announcement of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Meeting on September 12, 2016 AGENCY:

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

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice announces the next meeting date of the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (the Panel) on Monday, September 12, 2016. The purpose of the Panel is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (the Secretary) and the Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) (the Acting Administrator) on issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. The Panel will address Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule issues relevant to the June 23, 2016 final rule entitled “Medicare Program; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System” (81 FR 41035 through 41101), which are designated in the Panel's charter and outlined in the agenda.

    DATES:

    Meeting Date: The meeting of the Panel is scheduled to take place at CMS's headquarters in Baltimore, Maryland on Monday, September 12, 2016 beginning at 9:00 a.m. and ending at 4:30 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time (e.d.t.). The times listed in this notice are Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and are approximate times except that the meeting will not begin before the posted time.

    Meeting Registration: The public may attend the meeting in-person, view via webcast, or listen via teleconference. Beginning Friday, August 19, 2016 and ending Friday, September 2, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. e.d.t., registration to attend the meeting in-person may be completed on-line at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html. On this Web page, under “Related Links,” double-click the “Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests FACA Panel Meeting Registration” link and enter the required information. All the following information must be submitted when registering:

    • Name.

    • Company name.

    • Address.

    • Email addresses.

    Note: Participants who do not plan to attend the meeting in-person on September 12, 2016 should not register. No registration is required for participants who plan to view the meeting via webcast or listen via teleconference.

    Presenter Registration and Submission of Presentations and Comments: We are interested in submitted comments or in-person presentations at the meeting concerning the issues described in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice and clarified in the agenda to be published approximately 2 weeks before the meeting. The comments and presentations should not address issues not before the Panel. The deadline to register to be a presenter and to submit written presentations for the meeting is 5:00 p.m. e.d.t., Friday, September 2, 2016. Presenters may register by email by contacting the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice. Presentations should be sent via email to the same person's email address.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location and Webcast: The meeting will be held in the Auditorium, CMS Central Office, 7500 Security Boulevard, Woodlawn, Maryland 21244-1850. Alternately, the public may either view the meeting via a webcast at http://cms.gov/live.

    Web site and Teleconference: For teleconference dial-in information, the final meeting agenda, and additional information on the Panel, please refer to our Web site at http://cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Guidance/FACA/AdvisoryPanelonClinicalDiagnosticLaboratoryTests.html.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Glenn C. McGuirk, Designated Federal Official (DFO), Center for Medicare, Division of Ambulatory Services, CMS, 7500 Security Boulevard, Mail Stop C4-01-26, Baltimore, MD 21244, 410-786-5723, email [email protected] or [email protected] Press inquiries are handled through the CMS Press Office at (202) 690-6145.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    I. Background

    The Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is authorized by section 1834A(f)(1) of the Social Security Act (the Act) (42 U.S.C. 1395m-1), as established by section 216 of the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014 (PAMA) (Pub. L. 113-93, enacted April 1, 2014). The Panel is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of advisory panels.

    Section 1834A(f)(1) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) to consult with an expert outside advisory panel, established by the Secretary, composed of an appropriate selection of individuals with expertise in issues related to clinical diagnostic laboratory tests. Such individuals may include molecular pathologists, clinical laboratory researchers, and individuals with expertise in laboratory science or health economics.

    The Panel will provide input and recommendations to the Secretary and the Acting Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), on the following:

    • The establishment of payment rates under section 1834A of the Act for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests, including whether to use crosswalking or gapfilling processes to determine payment for a specific new test;

    • The factors used in determining coverage and payment processes for new clinical diagnostic laboratory tests; and

    • Other aspects of the new payment system, to be based on private payor rates, under section 1834A of the Act.

    A notice announcing the establishment of the Panel and soliciting nominations for members was published in the October 27, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR 63919 through 63920). In the August 7, 2015 Federal Register (80 FR 47491), we announced membership appointments to the Panel along with the first public meeting date for the Panel, which was held on August 26, 2015. Subsequent public meetings for the Panel were held on October 19, 2015 (80 FR 59782) and July 18, 2016 (81 FR 35772). Recommendations from Panel meetings are posted on the CMS Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    The Panel charter provides that panel meetings will be held up to four times annually. The Panel consists of 15 individuals and a Chair. The Panel Chair facilitates the meeting and the Designated Federal Official (DFO) or DFO's designee must be present at all meetings.

    II. Meeting Format and Agenda

    This meeting is open to the public. The on-site check-in for visitors will be held from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Monday, September 12, 2016. Following the opening remarks, the Panel will hear oral presentations from the public for no more than 1 hour during each of two sessions, one session in the morning and one session in the afternoon. During session one, registered persons from the public may present recommendations on payment options for routine chemistry tests that are currently paid as Automated Test Panels (ATPs) following implementation of the new payment system for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests on January 1, 2018. During session two, registered persons from the public may present recommendations on the application process for Advanced Diagnostic Laboratory Tests (ADLTs).

    The agenda for the September 12, 2016, meeting will provide for discussion and comment on specified CLFS issues relevant to the final rule, CMS-1621-F entitled, “Medicare Program; Medicare Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests Payment System,” which are designated in the Panel's charter. Specifically, the Panel will discuss the following issues:

    • Payment for routine chemistry tests that are currently paid as ATPs following implementation of the new payment system for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests on January 1, 2018.

    • The application process for ADLTs.

    A detailed agenda will be posted approximately 2 weeks before the meeting, on the CMS Web site listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    III. Meeting Attendance

    The Panel's meeting on September 12, 2016, is open to the public. Priority will be given to those who pre-register and attendance may be limited based on the number of registrants and the space available.

    Persons wishing to attend this meeting, which is located on federal property, must register by following the instructions in the DATES section of this notice under “Meeting Registration.” A confirmation email will be sent to the registrants shortly after completing the registration process.

    IV. Security, Building, and Parking Guidelines

    The following are the security, building, and parking guidelines:

    • Persons attending the meeting, including presenters, must be pre-registered and on the attendance list by the prescribed date.

    • Individuals who are not pre-registered in advance may not be permitted to enter the building and may be unable to attend the meeting.

    • Attendees must present a government-issued photo identification to the Federal Protective Service or Guard Service personnel before entering the building. Without a current, valid photo ID, persons may not be permitted entry to the building.

    • Security measures include inspection of vehicles, inside and out, at the entrance to the grounds.

    • All persons entering the building must pass through a metal detector.

    • All items brought into CMS including personal items, for example, laptops and cell phones are subject to physical inspection.

    • The public may enter the building 30 to 45 minutes before the meeting convenes each day.

    • All visitors must be escorted in areas other than the lower and first-floor levels in the Central Building.

    • The main-entrance guards will issue parking permits and instructions upon arrival at the building.

    V. Special Accommodations

    Individuals requiring special accommodations must include the request for these services during registration.

    VI. Panel Recommendations and Discussions

    The Panel's recommendations will be posted after the meeting on our Web site as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    VIII. Copies of the Charter

    The Secretary's Charter for the Advisory Panel on Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Tests is available on the CMS Web site as specified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or you may obtain a copy of the charter by submitting a request to the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.

    IX. Collection of Information Requirements

    This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Andrew M. Slavitt, Acting Administrator, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19848 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4120-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0370] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Export of Medical Devices; Foreign Letters of Approval AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0264. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Export of Medical Devices; Foreign Letters of Approval—OMB Control Number 0910-0264—Extension

    Section 801(e)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 381(e)(2)) provides for the exportation of an unapproved device under certain circumstances if the exportation is not contrary to the public health and safety and it has the approval of the foreign country to which it is intended for export. Requesters communicate (either directly or through a business associate in the foreign country) with a representative of the foreign government to which they seek exportation, and written authorization must be obtained from the appropriate office within the foreign government approving the importation of the medical device. An alternative to obtaining written authorization from the foreign government is to accept a notarized certification from a responsible company official in the United States that the product is not in conflict with the foreign country's laws. This certification must include a statement acknowledging that the responsible company official making the certification is subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001. This statutory provision makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willingly make a false or fraudulent statement, or make or use a false document, in any manner within the jurisdiction of a department or Agency of the United States. The respondents to this collection of information are companies that seek to export medical devices. FDA's estimate of the reporting burden is based on the experience of FDA's medical device program personnel.

    In the Federal Register of April 22, 2016 (81 FR 23720), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1 Activity/Section of FD&C Act Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours Total operating and maintenance costs
    Foreign letter of approval—section 801(e)(2) 38 1 38 3 114 $9,500 1 There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information.
    Dated: August 15, 2016. Peter Lurie, Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19807 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration [Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0134] Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Mammography Quality Standards Act Requirements AGENCY:

    Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

    DATES:

    Fax written comments on the collection of information by September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to [email protected] All comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0309. Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North,10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

    Mammography Quality Standards Act Requirements—21 CFR Part 900, OMB Control Number 0910-0309—Extension

    The Mammography Quality Standards Act (Pub. L. 102-539) requires the establishment of a Federal certification and inspection program for mammography facilities; regulations and standards for accreditation and certification bodies for mammography facilities; and standards for mammography equipment, personnel, and practices, including quality assurance. The intent of these regulations is to assure safe, reliable, and accurate mammography on a nationwide level. Under the regulations, as a first step in becoming certified, mammography facilities must become accredited by an FDA-approved accreditation body (AB). This requires undergoing a review of their clinical images and providing the AB with information showing that they meet the equipment, personnel, quality assurance, and quality control standards, and have a medical reporting and recordkeeping program, a medical outcomes audit program, and a consumer complaint mechanism. On the basis of this accreditation, facilities are then certified by FDA or an FDA-approved State certification agency and must prominently display their certificate. These actions are taken to ensure safe, accurate, and reliable mammography on a nationwide basis.

    The following sections of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) are not included in the burden tables because they are considered usual and customary practice and were part of the standard of care prior to the implementation of the regulations. Therefore, they resulted in no additional burden: 21 CFR 900.12(c)(1) and (3) and 900.3(f)(1). Section 900.24(c) was also not included in the burden tables because if a certifying State had its approval withdrawn, FDA would take over certifying authority for the affected facilities. Because FDA already has all the certifying State's electronic records, there wouldn't be an additional reporting burden.

    We have rounded numbers in the “Total Hours” column in all three burden tables. (Where the number was a portion of 1 hour, it has been rounded to 1 hour. All other “Total Hours” have been rounded to the nearest whole number.)

    We do not expect any respondents for § 900.3(c) because all four ABs are approved until April 2020.

    In the Federal Register of June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36924), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed collection of information. No comments were received.

    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

    Table 1—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden Activity/21 CFR Section/Form FDA No. Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual responses Average
  • burden per
  • response
  • Total hours 1 Total capital costs
  • (in dollars)
  • Total operating and
  • maintenance costs
  • (in dollars)
  • Notification of intent to become an AB—900.3(b)(1) 0.33 1 0.33 1 1 Application for approval as an AB; full 2—900.3(b)(3) 0.33 1 0.33 320 106 10,000 Application for approval as an AB; limited 3—900.3(b)(3) 5 1 5 30 150 AB renewal of approval—900.3(c) 0 1 0 15 1 AB application deficiencies—900.3(d)(2) 0.1 1 0.1 30 3 AB resubmission of denied applications—900.3(d)(5) 0.1 1 0.1 30 3 Letter of intent to relinquish accreditation authority—900.3(e) 0.1 1 0.1 1 1 Summary report describing all facility assessments—900.4(f) 330 1 330 7 2,310 77,600 AB reporting to FDA; facility 4—900.4(h) 8,654 1 8,654 1 8,654 4,327 AB reporting to FDA; AB 5—900.4(h) 5 1 5 10 50 AB financial records—900.4(i)(2) 1 1 1 16 16 Former AB new application—900.6(c)(1) 0.1 1 0.1 60 6 Reconsideration of accreditation following appeal—900.15(d)(3)(ii) 1 1 1 2 2 Application for alternative standard—900.18(c) 2 1 2 2 4 Alternative standard amendment—900.18(e) 10 1 10 1 10 Certification agency application—900.21(b) 0.33 1 0.33 320 106 208 Certification agency application deficiencies—900.21(c)(2) 0.1 1 0.1 30 3 Certification electronic data transmission—900.22(h) 5 200 1000 0.083 83 30,000 Changes to standards—900.22(i) 2 1 2 30 60 20 Certification agency minor deficiencies—900.24(b) 1 1 1 30 30 Appeal of adverse action taken by FDA—900.25(a) 0.2 1 0.2 16 3 Inspection fee exemption—Form FDA 3422 700 1 700 0.25 175 Total 11,777 40,000 82,155 1 Total hours have been rounded. 2 One time burden. 3 Refers to accreditation bodies applying to accredit specific full-field digital mammography units. 4 Refers to the facility component of the burden for this requirement. 5 Refers to the AB component of the burden for this requirement.
    Table 2—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden Activity/21 CFR Section Number of recordkeepers Number of records per recordkeeper Total annual records Average
  • burden per
  • recordkeeping
  • Total hours 1 Total capital costs
  • (in dollars)
  • Total operating and
  • maintenance costs
  • (in dollars)
  • AB transfer of facility records—900.3(f)(1) 0.1 1 0.1 0 1 Consumer complaints system; AB—900.4(g) 5 1 5 1 5 Documentation of interpreting physician initial requirements—900.12(a)(1)(i)(B)(2) 87 1 87 8 696 Documentation of interpreting physician personnel requirements—900.12(a)(4) 8,654 4 34,616 1 34,616 Permanent medical record—900.12(c)(4) 8,654 1 8,654 1 8,654 28,000 Procedures for cleaning equipment—900.12(e)(13) 8,654 52 450,008 0.083 37,351 Audit program—900.12(f) 8,654 1 8,654 16 138,464 Consumer complaints system; facility—900.12(h)(2) 8,654 2 17,308 1 17,308 Certification agency conflict of interest—900.22(a) 5 1 5 1 5 Processes for suspension and revocation of certificates—900.22(d) 5 1 5 1 5 Processes for appeals—900.22(e) 5 1 5 1 5 Processes for additional mammography review—900.22(f) 5 1 5 1 5 Processes for patient notifications—900.22(g) 3 1 3 1 3 30 Evaluation of certification agency—900.23 5 1 5 20 100 Appeals—900.25(b) 5 1 5 1 5 Total 237,223 28,000 30 1 Total hours have been rounded.
    Table 3—Estimated Annual Third-Party Disclosure Burden 1 Activity/21 CFR Section Number of
  • respondents
  • Number of
  • disclosures per
  • respondent
  • Total annual disclosures Average
  • burden per
  • disclosure
  • Total hours 2 Total operating and
  • maintenance costs
  • (in dollars)
  • Notification of facilities that AB relinquishes its accreditation—900.3(f)(2) 0.1 1 0.1 200 20 50 Clinical images; facility 3—900.4(c), 900.11(b)(1) and (2) 2,885 1 2,885 1.44 4,154 Clinical images; AB 4—900.4(c) 5 1 5 416 2,080 230,773 Phantom images; facility 3—900.4(d), 900.11(b)(1) and (2) 2,885 1 2,885 0.72 2,077 Phantom images; AB 4—900.4(d) 5 1 5 208 1,040 Annual equipment evaluation and survey; facility 3—900.4(e), 900.11(b)(1) and (2) 8,654 1 8,654 1 8,654 8,654 Annual equipment evaluation and survey; AB 4—900.4(e) 5 1 5 1,730 8,650 Provisional mammography facility certificate extension application—900.11(b)(3) 0 1 0 0.5 1 Mammography facility certificate reinstatement application—900.11(c) 312 1 312 5 1,560 24,000,000 Lay summary of examination—900.12(c)(2) 8,654 5,085 44,055,590 0.083 3,652,464 Lay summary of examination; patient refusal 5—900.12(c)(2) 87 1 87 0.5 44 Report of unresolved serious complaints—900.12(h)(4) 20 1 20 1 20 Information regarding compromised quality; facility 3—900.12(j)(1) 20 1 20 200 4,000 300 Information regarding compromised quality; AB 4—900.12(j)(1) 20 1 20 320 6,400 600 Patient notification of serious risk—900.12(j)(2) 5 1 5 100 500 19,375 Reconsideration of accreditation—900.15(c) 5 1 5 2 10 Notification of requirement to correct major deficiencies—900.24(a) 0.4 1 0.4 200 80 68 Notification of loss of approval; major deficiencies—900.24(a)(2) 0.15 1 0.15 100 15 25.50 Notification of probationary status—900.24(b)(1) 0.3 1 0.3 200 60 51 Notification of loss of approval; minor deficiencies—900.24(b)(3) 0.15 1 0.15 100 15 25.50 Total 3,691,842 24,259,921 1 There are no capital costs associated with this collection of information. 2 Total hours have been rounded. 3 Refers to the facility component of the burden for this requirement. 4 Refers to the AB component of the burden for this requirement. 5 Refers to the situation where a patient specifically does not want to receive the lay summary of her exam.
    Dated: August 15, 2016. Peter Lurie, Associate Commissioner for Public Health Strategy and Analysis.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19808 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages (ACICBL)

    Dates and Times: September 19, 2016

    Place: Webinar/Conference Call

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The ACICBL provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (Secretary) concerning policy, program development, and other matters of significance related to interdisciplinary, community-based training grant programs authorized under sections 750—759, Title VII, Part D of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act. The Advisory Committee focuses on the targeted program areas and/or disciplines for Area Health Education Centers, geriatrics, allied health, chiropractic, podiatric medicine, social work, graduate psychology, and rural health.

    The purpose of the ACICBL meeting is to continue discussions on the ACICBL 16th report which is focused on enhancing community-based clinical training.

    Agenda: The ACICBL agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/acicbl/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Requests to make oral comments or provide written comments to the ACICBL should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call and webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments. Interested parties should refer to the meeting subject as the HRSA Advisory Committee on Interdisciplinary, Community-Based Linkages.

    • The conference call-in number is 1-800-619-2521. The passcode is: 9271697.

    • The webinar link is https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/acicbl.

    Contact: Anyone requesting information regarding the ACICBL should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, Room 15N39, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443-0430; or (3) send an email to [email protected]

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19814 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Service Administration Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public Law 92-463), notice is hereby given of the following meeting:

    Name: Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry (ACTPCMD).

    Dates and Times: September 9, 2016.

    Place: Webinar/Conference Call Component.

    Status: The meeting will be open to the public.

    Purpose: The ACTPCMD provides advice and recommendations on a broad range of issues relating to grant programs authorized by Title VII, Part C, sections 747 and 748 of the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). During the September 9, 2016 meeting, the Committee will continue work on the ACTPCMD 14th report integrating behavioral health content into primary care medicine and oral health training program.

    Agenda: The ACTPCMD agenda will be available 2 days prior to the meeting on the HRSA Web site at http://www.hrsa.gov/advisorycommittees/bhpradvisory/actpcmd/index.html.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Requests by members of the public to make oral comments or provide written comments to the ACTPCMD should be sent to Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, using the address and phone number below. Individuals who plan to participate on the conference call and webinar should notify Dr. Weiss at least 3 days prior to the meeting, using the address and phone number below. Interested parties should refer to the meeting subject as the HRSA Advisory Committee on Training in Primary Care Medicine and Dentistry or ACTPCMD.

    • The conference call-in number is 1-800-619-2521. The passcode is 9271697.

    • The webinar link is https://hrsa.connectsolutions.com/actpcmd.

    Contact: Anyone requesting information regarding the ACTPCMD should contact Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official within the Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, in one of three ways: (1) Send a request to the following address: Dr. Joan Weiss, Designated Federal Official, Bureau of Health Workforce, Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 15N39, Rockville, Maryland 20857; (2) call (301) 443-0430; or (3) send an email to [email protected]

    Jason E. Bennett, Director, Division of the Executive Secretariat.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19815 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4165-15-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory Committee AGENCY:

    National Vaccine Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    As stipulated by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of Health and Human Services is hereby giving notice that the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC) will hold a meeting September 20, 2016. The meeting is open to the public. However, pre-registration is required for both public attendance and public comment. Individuals who wish to attend the meeting and/or participate in the public comment session should register at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings. Participants may also register by emailing [email protected] or by calling (202) 690-5566 and providing their name, organization, and email address.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held on September 20, 2016. The meeting times and agenda will be posted on the NVAC Web site at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings as soon as they become available.

    ADDRESSES:

    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, the Great Hall, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201.

    The meeting can also be accessed through a live webcast the day of the meeting. For more information, visit http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    National Vaccine Program Office, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Room 715-H, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20201. Phone: (202) 690-5566; email: [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Pursuant to Section 2101 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300aa-1), the Secretary of Health and Human Services was mandated to establish the National Vaccine Program to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases through immunization and to achieve optimal prevention against adverse reactions to vaccines. The NVAC was established to provide advice and make recommendations to the Director of the National Vaccine Program on matters related to the Program's responsibilities. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as Director of the National Vaccine Program.

    The September 2016 NVAC meeting will include a discussion of the 2010 National Vaccine Plan Mid-course Review. The NVAC's Mid-course Review Working Group and the Maternal Immunization Working Group will also present their findings and recommendations for deliberation and vote by the Committee. Members will also receive an update on the recently released CDC Strategic Framework for Global Immunizations. Please note that agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. Information on the final meeting agenda will be posted prior to the meeting on the NVAC Web site: http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac.

    Public attendance at the meeting is limited to the available space. Individuals who plan to attend in person and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the National Vaccine Program Office at the address/phone listed above at least one week prior to the meeting. For those unable to attend in person, a live webcast will be available. More information on registration and accessing the webcast can be found at http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/meetings/upcomingmeetings.

    Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide comments at the NVAC meeting during the public comment periods designated on the agenda. Public comments made during the meeting will be limited to three minutes per person to ensure time is allotted for all those wishing to speak. Individuals are also welcome to submit their written comments. Written comments should not exceed three pages in length. Individuals submitting written comments should email their comments to the National Vaccine Program Office ([email protected]) at least five business days prior to the meeting.

    Dated: August 4, 2016. Bruce Gellin, Executive Secretary, National Vaccine Advisory Committee, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health, Director, National Vaccine Program Office.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19847 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4150-44-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health National Human Genome Research Institute Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Human Genome Research Institute.

    The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Human Genome Research Institute, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, National Human Genome Research Institute.

    Date: September 7-8, 2016.

    Time: September 07, 2016, 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, Regency Annex Room (Ballroom Level), 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.

    Time: September 08, 2016, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and performance, and competence of individual investigators.

    Place: National Institutes of Health, Building 10, Room B1C211 (FAES Room 1), 10 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Contact Person: Monica Berger, Executive Secretary, Office of the Scientific Director, National Human Genome Research Institute, 50 South Drive, Bldg. 50, Rm. 5222, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-294-6873, [email protected].

    In the interest of security, NIH has instituted stringent procedures for entrance onto the NIH campus. All visitor vehicles, including taxicabs, hotel, and airport shuttles will be inspected before being allowed on campus. Visitors will be asked to show one form of identification (for example, a government-issued photo ID, driver's license, or passport) and to state the purpose of their visit.

    (Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.172, Human Genome Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: August 15, 2016. Sylvia L. Neal, Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19771 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES National Institutes of Health Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods; Announcement of Meeting; Request for Comments SUMMARY:

    This notice announces a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Alternative Toxicological Methods (SACATM). SACATM advises the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM), the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), and the Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. The meeting is open to the public, and registration is requested for both public attendance and oral comment and required to access the webcast. Information about the meeting and registration is available at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822.

    DATES:

    Meeting: September 27, 2016; it begins 8:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) and continues until adjournment.

    Written Public Comment Submissions: Deadline is September 13, 2016. Registration for Meeting and/or Oral Comments: Deadline is September 20, 2016.

    Registration to View Webcast: Deadline is September 27, 2016. Registration to view the meeting via the webcast is required.

    ADDRESSES:

    Meeting Location: Rodbell Auditorium, Rall Building, NIEHS, 111 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709.

    Meeting Web page: The preliminary agenda, registration information, and background materials should be posted at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822 by August 16, 2016.

    Webcast: The meeting will be webcast; the URL will be provided to those who register for viewing.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Lori White, Designated Federal Officer for SACATM, Office of Liaison, Policy, and Review, Division of NTP, NIEHS, P.O. Box 12233, K2-03, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Phone: 919-541-9834, fax: 301-480-3272, email: [email protected] Hand Deliver/Courier address: 530 Davis Drive, Room K2124, Morrisville, NC 27560.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Preliminary Agenda and Other Meeting Information: A preliminary agenda, roster of SACATM members, and background materials should be available by August 16, 2016, on the SACATM meeting Web site (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822) and available upon request from the Designated Federal Officer. Public comments and any additional information will be posted when available. Following the meeting, summary minutes will be prepared and available on the SACATM Web site or upon request from the Designated Federal Officer.

    Meeting and Registration: This meeting is open to the public with time scheduled for oral public comments. The public may attend the meeting at NIEHS, where attendance is limited only by the space available, or view the webcast. Registration is required to view the webcast; the URL for the webcast will be provided in the email confirming registration. Individuals who plan to attend and/or provide oral comments are encouraged to register at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822 by September 20, 2016, to facilitate planning for the meeting. Individuals are encouraged to access the Web site to stay abreast of the most current information regarding the meeting. Visitor and security information for those attending in person is available at niehs.nih.gov/about/visiting/index.cfm. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation to participate in this event should contact Ms. Robbin Guy at phone: 919-541-4363 or email: [email protected] TTY users should contact the Federal TTY Relay Service at 800-877-8339. Requests should be made at least five business days in advance of the event.

    Request for Comments: Both written and oral public input on the agenda topics is invited. Written comments submitted in response to this notice should be received by September 13, 2016. Comments will be posted on the SACATM meeting Web site and persons submitting them will be identified by their name and affiliation and/or sponsoring organization, if applicable. Persons submitting written comments should include their name, affiliation (if applicable), and sponsoring organization (if any) with the document. Guidelines for public comments are at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/guidelines_public_comments_508.pdf.

    Time is allotted during the meeting for the public to present oral comments on the agenda topics. Public comments can be presented in-person at the meeting or by teleconference line. There are 50 lines for this call; availability is on a first-come, first-served basis. The lines will be open from 8:30 a.m. until adjournment on September 27, although SACATM will receive public comments only during the formal public comment periods, as indicated on the preliminary agenda. Each organization is allowed one time slot per agenda topic. Each speaker is allotted at least 7 minutes, which if time permits, may be extended to 10 minutes at the discretion of the SACATM chair.

    Persons wishing to present oral comments are encouraged to register using the SACATM meeting registration form (http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/32822) by September 20, 2016. Registrants should indicate the topic(s) on which they plan to comment and whether they will present comments in-person or via the teleconference. The access number for the teleconference line for public comments will be provided to registrants by email prior to the meeting. Registrants are requested to, if possible, send a copy of their statement to [email protected] by September 20, 2016, to enable review by SACATM, NICEATM, ICCVAM, and NIEHS/NTP staff prior to the meeting. Written statements can supplement and may expand the oral presentation. Registration for on-site oral comments will also be available on the meeting day, although time allowed for comments by these registrants may be limited and will be determined by the number of persons who register at the meeting. If registering on-site and reading from written text, please bring 30 copies of the statement for distribution and to supplement the record.

    Background Information on ICCVAM, NICEATM, and SACATM: ICCVAM is an interagency committee composed of representatives from 16 federal regulatory and research agencies that require, use, generate, or disseminate toxicological and safety testing information. ICCVAM conducts technical evaluations of new, revised, and alternative safety testing methods with regulatory applicability and promotes the scientific validation and regulatory acceptance of toxicological and safety-testing methods that more accurately assess the safety and hazards of chemicals and products and that reduce, refine (decrease or eliminate pain and distress), or replace animal use. The ICCVAM Authorization Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 285l-3) established ICCVAM as a permanent interagency committee of the NIEHS under NICEATM.

    NICEATM administers ICCVAM, provides scientific and operational support for ICCVAM-related activities, and conducts independent validation studies to assess the usefulness and limitations of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies. NICEATM and ICCVAM work collaboratively to evaluate new and improved test methods and strategies applicable to the needs of U.S. federal agencies. NICEATM and ICCVAM welcome the public nomination of new, revised, and alternative test methods and strategies for validation studies and technical evaluations. Additional information about ICCVAM and NICEATM can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/iccvam and http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/niceatm.

    SACATM was established in response to the ICCVAM Authorization Act [Section 285l-3(d)] and is composed of scientists from the public and private sectors. SACATM advises ICCVAM, NICEATM, and the Director of the NIEHS and NTP regarding statutorily mandated duties of ICCVAM and activities of NICEATM. SACATM provides advice on priorities and activities related to the development, validation, scientific review, regulatory acceptance, implementation, and national and international harmonization of new, revised, and alternative toxicological test methods. Additional information about SACATM, including the charter, roster, and records of past meetings, can be found at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/167.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. John R. Bucher, Associate Director, National Toxicology Program.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19774 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard [Docket No. USCG-2016-0724] Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies AGENCY:

    Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

    ACTION:

    Request for applications.

    SUMMARY:

    The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee. The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard and the Department of Homeland Security on various matters relating to the safe operation of commercial fishing industry vessels. Applicants selected for service on the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee via this solicitation will not begin their respective terms until May 2017.

    DATES:

    Completed applications should reach the Coast Guard on or before October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Applicants should send a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee that identifies which membership category the applicant is applying under, along with a resume detailing the applicant's related experience for that category via one of the following methods:

    By mail: Commandant (CG-CVC), Attn: Fishing Vessel Safety, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7501, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20593-7501.

    By fax: 202-372-8377, ATTN: Mr. Jack Kemerer.

    By email: [email protected].

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Mr. Jack Kemerer, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, telephone at 202-372-1249, fax at 202-372-8377, or email at [email protected]

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee established in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Title 5, U.S.C. Appendix). The Coast Guard chartered the Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee to provide advice on issues related to the safety of commercial fishing industry vessels regulated under chapter 45 of title 46, United States Code, which includes uninspected fish catching vessels, fish processing vessels, and fish tender vessels. (See 46 U.S.C. 4508.)

    The Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee meets at least once a year. It may also meet for other extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees or working groups may communicate throughout the year to prepare for meetings or develop proposals for the committee as a whole to address specific tasks.

    Each member serves for a term of three years. An individual may be appointed to a term as a member more than once, but not more than two terms consecutively. All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary from the Federal Government, although travel reimbursement and per diem may be provided for called meetings.

    The Coast Guard will consider applications for five (05) positions that expire or become vacant in May 2017 in the following categories:

    (a) Individuals who represent the Commercial Fishing Industry (two positions);

    (b) An individual who represents the General Public (one position), particularly an independent expert or consultant in maritime safety;

    (c) An individual who represents education or training professionals related to fishing vessel, fish processing vessel, or fish tender vessel safety, or personnel qualifications (one position).

    (d) An individual who represents underwriters that insure commercial fishing industry vessels (one position).

    If you are selected as a member who represents the general public, you will be appointed and serve as a Special Government Employee as defined in section 202(a) of Title 18, U.S.C. As a candidate for appointment as a Special Government Employee, applicants are required to complete a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report (OGE Form 450). The Coast Guard may not release the reports or the information in them to the public except under an order issued by a Federal court or as otherwise provided under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Only the Designated Coast Guard Ethics Official or his or her designee may release a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report. Applicants can obtain this form by going to the Web site of the Office of Government Ethics (www.oge.gov), or by contacting the individual listed in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Applications for a member who represents the general public which are not accompanied by a completed OGE Form 450 will not be considered.

    Registered lobbyists are not eligible to serve on federal advisory committees in an individual capacity. See “Revised Guidance on Appointment of Lobbyist to Federal Advisory Committees, Boards, and Commissions” (79 CFR 47482, August 13, 2014). The position we list for a member who represents the general public would be someone appointed in their individual capacity and would be designated as a Special Government Employee as defined in 202(a), Title 18, U.S.C. Registered lobbyists are lobbyists as defined in 2 U.S.C. 1602 who are required by 2 U.S.C 1603 to register with the Secretary of the Senate and Clerk of the House Representatives.

    The Department of Homeland Security does not discriminate in selection of Committee members on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, political affiliation, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability and genetic information, age, membership in an employee organization, or any other non-merit factor. The Department of Homeland Security strives to achieve a widely diverse candidate pool for all of its recruitment actions.

    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, send your cover letter and resume to Mr. Jack Kemerer, Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee Alternate Designated Federal Officer, via one of the transmittal methods in the ADDRESSES section by the deadline in the DATES section. All email submittals will receive an email receipt confirmation.

    Dated: August 15, 2016. V.B. Gifford, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19805 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5916-N-13] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Training Evaluation Form AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistance Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. This is not a toll-free number. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Training Evaluation Form.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0271.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Form Number: HUD 50945.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: Executive Order 13571, “Streamlining Service Delivery and Improving Customer Service,” issued on April 27, 2011, states “The public deserves competent, efficient, and responsive service from the Federal Government. Executive departments and agencies (agencies) must continuously evaluate their performance in meeting this standard and work to improve it.” Executive Order 12862 “Setting Customer Service Standards,” issued on September 11, 1993, requires agencies that provide significant services directly to the public to identify and survey their customers, establish service standards and track performance against those standards, and benchmark customer service performance against the best in business.

    To that end, the Office of Public and Indian Housing (PIH) will use a standardized training assessment instrument to evaluate learners' reactions to training or technical assistance programs. With the information collected, PIH will measure, evaluate, and compare the performance of its various training programs over time. The design of this form follows industry-accepted best practices, allowing additional comparisons to other training programs in business and government.

    Examples of how the Training Evaluation Form is currently being used and will be used are: To inspect HUD insured and assisted properties, prospective contract inspectors are required to successfully complete HUD Uniform Physical Condition Standards (UPCS) inspection training. The training consists of a pre-requisite computer-based component followed by an instructor-led component, each of which is evaluated using the Training Evaluation Form. To become familiar with the UPCS inspection process and requirements, thereby facilitating and enhancing maintenance of properties and preparation for upcoming contract inspections, public housing agency (PHA) employees and multifamily property owners and agents (POAs) are able to take a computer-based UPCS training, which is also evaluated using the Training Evaluation Form.

    PIH proposes to use the training form in the future to evaluate training offered to contract inspectors who will be conducting Uniform Physical Condition Standards-Voucher (UPCS-V) inspections of 2.2 million Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher units.

    PIH also proposes to use the training form in the future for all other training offered to PIH program participants and stakeholders on major regulatory changes. These sessions may be held as technical assistance seminars, conferences, briefings, or online webinars.

    Respondents (i.e., affected public): The training evaluation form will be completed by members of the public and individuals at state and local government entities who participate in a HUD training course.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of response Responses per annum Burden hour per response Annual burden hours Hourly cost per response Annual cost
    Training Eval. Form 64,590 1 64,590 .033 2,123 $24.83 $52,937 Total 64,590 1 64,590 .033 2,123 24.83 52,937
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director for Policy, Program and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19849 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5915-N-07] 60 Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection for Public Comment on the: ConnectHome Challenge Performance Reporting AGENCY:

    Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503; fax: 202-395-5806. Email: [email protected]

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email Anna Guido at [email protected] or telephone 202-402-3400. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. This is not a toll-free number. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD has submitted to OMB a request for approval of the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: ConnectHome Challenge Performance Reporting.

    OMB Approval Number: Pending.

    Type of Request: New collection.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The purpose of this effort is to support communities who “take-up” the ConnectHome Challenge to close the digital divide among HUD-assisted households. The ConnectHome Challenge will call on Mayors, County Executives, Tribal Leaders, Housing Agencies and other Housing Providers, and other community leaders to agree to close the digital divide among HUD-assisted households.

    In signing on to The ConnectHome Challenge, a community is committing, among other things, to: (1) Establish (possibly in collaboration with their local knowledge institutions) baseline estimates of the percent of HUD-assisted households with in-home high-speed internet that is not reliant on a smartphone; (2) collaborate with local stakeholders to establish performance targets for increasing in-home high-speed internet adoption; (3) establish and share with HUD the local strategies for achieving in-home high-speed internet adoption targets; and (4) develop and execute an implementation plan and share progress with HUD.

    Respondents (describe): HUD anticipates that 150 to 300 communities will participate in the ConnectHome Challenge. Because “community” will be defined differently by ConnectHome Challenge participants, HUD will attempt to promote collaboration across overlapping geographical entities (e.g., participant cities falling within participant counties, participants with the same city distinguished by type of housing provider, and other possible scenarios).

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 300.

    Estimated Number of Responses: 2,700 [Connectivity Estimate (300 * 4) + Implementation Plan (300 * 1) + Progress Reporting and Plan Updates (300 * 4)].

    Frequency of Response: Quarterly (Connectivity Estimate and Progress Reporting and Plan Updates) or Annually (Implementation Plan Development).

    Average Hours per Response: 90 minutes for Connectivity Estimate, 90 minutes for Progress Reporting and Plan Updates, 6 hours for Implementation Plan Development.

    Total Estimated Burdens: 5,400 hours.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Frequency of
  • response
  • Responses
  • per annum
  • Burden hour
  • per response
  • Annual burden
  • hours
  • Hourly cost
  • per response
  • Annual cost
    Connectivity Estimate 300 4 1200 1.5 1800 $30.00 $54,000.00 Implementation Plan Development 300 1 300 6 1800 30.00 54,000.00 Progress Reporting and Plan Updates 300 4 1200 1.5 1800 30.00 54,000.00 Total 900 5400 30.00 162,000.00
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 10, 2016. Katherine M. O'Regan, Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19871 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5916-N-15] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Section 8 Management Assessment Program AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP).

    OMB Control Number: 2577-0215.

    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.

    Agency Form Numbers: HUD-52658.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: On an annual basis (or every two years for small agencies) PHAs are required to submit a SEMAP certification (form HUD-52648) electronically into the Information Management System/Public and Indian Housing Information Center (IMS/PIC). There is a maximum of 15 indicators that are either verified through PIC data or an on-site or off-site confirmatory review. HUD uses the PHA's SEMAP certification, together with other available data, to assess PHA management capabilities and deficiencies, and to assign an overall performance rating to each PHA administering a HCV program. HUD rates a PHA on each SEMAP indicator, completes a PHA SEMAP profile identifying any program management deficiencies and assigns an overall performance rating. A PHA's written report of correction of a SEMAP deficiency is used as documentation that the PHA has taken action to address identified program weaknesses. Where HUD assigns an overall performance rating of troubled, the PHA's corrective action plan is used to monitor the PHA's progress on program improvements.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Agencies.

    Estimated Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • Responses per
  • respondent
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Hours per
  • response
  • Total hours Regulatory
  • reference
  • SEMAP Certification 2,167 1 2,167 12 26,004 985.101 Corrective Action Plan 80 1 80 10 800 985.107(c) Report on Correction of SEMAP Deficiency 542 1 542 2 1,084 985.106 Total Annual Burden 27,888
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19852 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5972-FA-01] Announcement of Funding Awards; Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security Grants; Fiscal Year 2016 AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Announcement of funding awards.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with Section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department. The public was notified of the availability of the Emergency Safety and Security funds with PIH Notice 2016-03 (Notice), which was issued March 9, 2016. Additionally, Public Housing Authorities (PHAs) were notified of funds availability via electronic mail and a posting to the HUD Web site. PHAs were funded in accordance with the terms of the Notice. This announcement contains the consolidated names and addresses of this year's award recipients under the Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security grant program.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For questions concerning the Emergency Safety and Security awards, contact Ivan Pour, Director, Office of Capital Improvements, Office of Public Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-1640. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may access this number via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security program provides grants to PHAs for physical safety and security measures necessary to address crime and drug-related emergencies. More specifically, in accordance with Section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437g) (1937 Act), and The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2016 (Pub. L. 114-113), (FY 2016 appropriations), Congress appropriated funding to provide assistance to “public housing agencies for emergency capital needs including safety and security measures necessary to address crime and drug-related activity as well as needs resulting from unforeseen or unpreventable emergencies and natural disasters excluding Presidentially declared disasters occurring in fiscal year [2016].”

    The FY 2016 awards in this Announcement were evaluated for funding based on the criteria in the Notice. These awards are funded from the set-aside in the FY 2016 appropriations. In accordance with Section 102 (a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat.1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545), the Department is publishing the names, addresses, and amounts of the 24 awards made under the set aside in Appendix A to this document.

    Dated: August 14, 2016. Lourdes Castro Ramírez, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing. Appendix A Capital Fund Emergency Safety and Security Program FY2016 Awards Name/Address of applicant Amount
  • funded
  • Project description
    HA City of Fort Payne, 203 13th Street NW., Fort Payne, AL 35967-3129 $140,120 Security Cameras. The Housing Authority of the City of Huntsville, 200 Washington Street NE., Huntsville, AL 35804 247,367 Security Cameras, Lighting, Locks, and Security Storm Doors. Cottonwood Housing Authority, P.O. Box 356, Cottonwood, AL 36320-0356 65,000 Security Camera Systems, Locks, and Lighting. HA Opp, 800 Barnes St., Opp, AL 36467-3258 250,000 Security Cameras, Lighting, Fencing and Doors. HA Bessemer, 1515 Fairfax Ave., Bessemer, AL 35020-6648 247,250 Security Cameras and Lighting. HA Tallassee, 904 Hickory Street, Tallassee, AL 36078-1719 250,000 Security Cameras, Fencing, and Lighting. Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino, 715 E. Brier Dr., San Bernardino, CA 92408-2841 225,000 Security Cameras, Security Cameras, Fencing, and Lighting. Housing Authority of City of East St. Louis, 700 N. 20th St., East St. Louis, IL 62205 250,000 Security Camera System and Lighting. The Housing Authority of the County of Hardin, P.O. Box 322, Elizabethtown, IL 62931-0322 250,000 Security Cameras. The Housing Authority of the City of Evansville, 402 Court St., Suite B, Evansville, IN 47708-1340 250,000 Security Cameras, Doors, and Lighting. The Housing Authority of the City of Elkhart, 1396 Benham Ave., Elkhart, IN 46516-3341 250,000 Security Cameras. The Housing Authority of Nicholasville, 601 Broadway, Nicholasville, KY 40356-1417 192,000 Security Cameras, Fencing, Lighting, and Doors. Housing Authority of the City of Alexandria, 2558 Loblolly Lane, Alexandria, LA 71306-1219 178,625 Security Cameras and Lighting. The Havre De Grace Housing Authority, 101 Stansbury Court, Havre De Grace, MD 21078-2641 246,000 Security Cameras, Lighting, and Doors. The Marquette Housing Commission, 316 Pine Street, Marquette, MI 49855-4250 100,500 Security Cameras, Lighting, and Locks. The HRA of Two Harbors, 505 1st Avenue, Two Harbors, MN 55616-1553 55,000 Security Cameras, entry system, and lighting at the Bayview Terrace to improve security and monitoring. The Housing Authority of the City of Forest, 518 North 4th Avenue, Forest, MS 39074-3627 230,000 Security Cameras, Entry System, Fencing, and Lighting. The Plainfield Housing Authority, 510 East Front Street, Plainfield, NJ 07060-1450 250,000 Security Cameras, Doors, and Lighting. The Town of Oyster Bay Housing Authority, 115 Central Park Road, Plainview, NY 11803-2027 248,569 Security Cameras. The Peekskill Housing Authority, 807 Main Street, Peekskill, NY 10566-2040 250,000 Security Cameras, Security Alarm System, Doors, and Lighting. The Harrisburg Housing Authority, 351 Chestnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101-2756 250,000 Security Cameras and Lighting. The Housing Authority of the County of Luzerne, 250 First Ave., Kingston, PA 18704-5808 76,000 Security Cameras. The Covington Housing Authority, 1701 Shoaf Street, Covington, TN 38019-3342 250,000 Security Cameras. Austin Housing Authority, 1124 S. IH35, Austin, TX 78704 250,000 Security Camera System, Lighting, and Fencing.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19860 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5957-N-01] User Fee Schedule for the Technical Suitability of Products Program—Revisions in the User Fees Assessed to Manufacturers of Materials and Products AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This notice revises the User Fee Schedule for the Technical Suitability of Products program published as a notice along with a final rule on August 9, 1984, and later revised in notices published on January 22, 1985, August 1, 1990, and May 1, 1997. This revised schedule increases fees and amends the fee schedule stated in the May 1, 1997 notice.

    DATES:

    Effective date: September 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Pamela Beck Danner, Administrator, Office of Manufactured Housing Programs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 9168, 451 7th Street SW., Washington, DC 20410; email [email protected] or telephone (202) 708-6423. (This is not a toll-free number.) Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Under the authority of Section 7(j) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act (42 U.S.C. 3535(j)), which permits the Department to “establish fees and charges for inspection, project review and financing service, . . . and other beneficial rights, privileges, licenses, and services” it provides, the Department issued a final rule on August 9, 1984 (49 FR 31854), codified at 24 CFR 200.934, establishing a system of fees to be charged to manufacturers of products and materials used on structures approved for mortgages or loans insured under the National Housing Act (12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). Products and materials used in structures are approved via the Technical Suitability of Products (TSP) program under the authority of section 521 of the National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1735e.

    Under the rule, manufacturers that seek HUD acceptance of their materials and products under the TSP program will be charged fees for initial applications, renewals, and revisions with respect to review of documentation demonstrating technical suitability. Paragraph (c) of 24 CFR 200.934 provides, in relevant part, that the Department will “establish and amend” the fee schedule by publication of a notice in the Federal Register.

    The Department has not amended the present fee schedule since May 1, 1997 (62 FR 23783). Income received as a result of the present User Fee Schedule does not maintain the current minimum level of support for the ongoing TSP program and requires adjustment to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the program. A fee increase is necessary for the following reasons: (1) To maintain partial recovery of program costs, since fees have not been adjusted for nearly 20 years; (2) to compensate the Department more adequately for the significant labor involved in processing “revisions,” which require substantially more work than “renewals”; (3) to bring the Department's fees more in line with, although significantly lower than, other similarly-missioned nationally recognized technical evaluation programs (such as the International Code Council Evaluation Service); and (4) to recognize the fact that TSP renewals are for a 3-year period, which is a longer duration than provided by other nationally recognized evaluation programs.

    Accordingly, notice is hereby given that the Department is revising the fee schedule published in the notice of May 1, 1997 (62 FR 23783), as set forth below. Note that the Department is discontinuing issuance of State Letters of Acceptance (SLA) and Mechanical Engineering Bulletins (MEB). This modification reflects a change in Departmental procedures which authorized the Department's State Offices to issue SLAs; MEBs, which covers separate utility cores or nonstandard mechanical systems, i.e. modular utility cores, kitchens and baths, are no longer issued by HUD under the TSP program. This notice also clarifies that the revision and basic renewal fees apply to Structural Engineering Bulletins (SEBs) and Materials Releases (MRs).

    The complete fee schedule, as revised, is as follows:

    (i) Initial Applications

    Structural Engineering Bulletins (SEBs)—$6,000.

    Materials Releases (MRs)—$6,000.

    Use of Materials Bulletins—Administrator Review for Acceptance (ARAs)—$4,400.

    (ii) Revisions

    Structural Engineering Bulletins (SEBs)—$3,000.

    Materials Releases (MRs)—$3,000.

    (iii) Basic Renewal Fee Without Revision

    The following fee schedule, as revised, will be assessed every three years for renewal without change:

    Structural Engineering Bulletins (SEBs)—$1,200.

    Materials Releases (MRs)—$1,200.

    Authority:

    Sections 7 (d) and (j), Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d) and (j), and 24 CFR 200.934(c).

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Janet M. Golrick, Associate General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Housing.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19868 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5907-N-34] Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Juanita Perry, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 7266, Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 402-3970; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708-2565 (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), call the toll-free Title V information line at 800-927-7588 or send an email to [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: August 11, 2016. Brian P. Fitzmaurice, Director, Division of Community Assistance, Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19516 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5916-N-14] 60-Day Notice of Proposed Information Collection: Family Report, MTW Family Report AGENCY:

    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, PIH, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.

    DATES:

    Comments Due Date: October 18, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at [email protected] for a copy of the proposed forms or other available information. Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Arlette Mussington, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives, PIH, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW., (L'Enfant Plaza, Room 2206), Washington, DC 20410; telephone 202-402-4109, (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Mussington.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.

    A. Overview of Information Collection

    Title of Information Collection: Family Report, MTW Family Report.

    OMB Approval Number: 2577-0083.

    Type of Request: Extension of currently approved collection.

    Form Number: Form HUD 50058 Family Report, and HUD 50058 MTW Family Report.

    Description of the need for the information and proposed use: The Office of Public and Indian Housing of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding to Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) to administer assisted housing programs. Form HUD-50058 MTW Family Reports solicit demographic, family profile, income and housing information on the entire nationwide population of tenants residing in assisted housing. The information collected through the Form HUD-50058 MTW will be used to monitor and evaluate the Office of Public and Indian Housing, Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration program which includes Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 8 Project Based Certificates and Vouchers, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation and Moving to Work (MTW) Demonstration programs.

    Tenant data is collected to understand demographic, family profile, income, and housing information for participants in the Public Housing, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher, Section 8 Project Based Certificate, Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation, and Moving to Work Demonstration programs. This data also allows HUD to monitor the performance of programs and the performance of public housing agencies that administer the programs.

    Reason for PRA

    • MTW Agencies are providing housing assistance through a wide variety of interesting and creative programs that fall outside of sections 8 and 9 need to be able to report households served through these programs into PIC.1

    1 PIH Notice 2011-45 (HA), issued August 15, 2011, clarifies HUD policies, Federal statutes and regulations that apply to local, non-traditional activities implemented under the Moving to Work (MTW) demonstration program.

    • The Moving to Work (MTW) PIC Module is currently unable to capture all of the households served through MTW activities because the HUD 50058 MTW Form in PIC does not have a code for reporting Local, Non-Traditional assisted families in the PIC system.

    • Agencies have not been reporting these families into PIC and this makes it difficult to accurately account for the number of MTW families being served.

    Background

    • The MTW statute (1996 Appropriations Act, Section 204) states that an agency may combine its funding as provided under Sections 8 and 9 to provide housing assistance and services for low-income families. At the outset of the demonstration, a number of MTW agencies used this flexibility to design activities that went outside the bounds of the eligible activities of Sections 8 and 9 of the 1937 Act. Though the Standard MTW Agreement did not contain this flexibility, HUD committed to MTW agencies during negotiations that any provision permitted under an agency's original MTW agreement that was legal could be retained under the Standard Agreement.

    • On October 1, 2009, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a letter to MTW agencies regarding the availability of the broader uses of funds authority, under the Moving to Work (MTW) program. The letter provided a brief description of the required steps that must be completed in order for agencies to access this additional MTW authorization.

    Revision to HUD 50058 MTW—PIC System Change

    • Create a Local, Non-Traditional Assistance “LN” program code categorization in Section 1.C Form 50058-MTW to track households that are provided assistance through local, non-traditional MTW programs in addition to public housing, tenant-based and project-based assistance.

    • Add Local, Non-Traditional Assistance to the heading of Section 21 of Form 50058-MTW to allow detailed reporting on this type of assistance.

    Respondents (i.e. affected public): Public Housing Agencies, State and local governments, individuals and households.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 4,149.

    Information collection Number of
  • respondents
  • (PHA)
  • (with
  • responses)
  • * Average
  • number of
  • responses per
  • respondent
  • (with
  • responses)
  • Total annual
  • responses
  • Minutes per
  • response
  • Total hours Regulatory
  • reference
  • (24 CFR)
  • * See attached
  • Form HUD-50058 New Admission 4,114 87 355,984 40 237,323 Form HUD-50058 Recertification 4,114 583 2,398,340 20 799,447 Form HUD-50058 MTW New Admission 35 529 13,515 40 3,010 Form HUD-50058 Recertification MTW 35 4018 140,630 20 46,876 Total 4,149 2,874,934 1,081,685 * Average Number of Responses per Respondents = Total Annual Responses/Number of Respondents. Estimated annualized hourly cost to respondents (PHA); Form HUD-50058: To report using Form HUD-50058 Family Report, it will cost the average PHA $1,051 annually to enter and submit all data for New Admission and $3,483 annually for Recertification.
    B. Solicitation of Public Comment

    This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:

    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;

    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

    (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.

    Authority:

    Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Merrie Nichols-Dixon, Deputy Director, Office of Policy, Programs and Legislative Initiatives.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19850 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR-5921-N-12] Implementation of the Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended; Amended System of Records Notice, Asset Disposition and Management System (ADAMS) AGENCY:

    Office of Housing, HUD.

    ACTION:

    Amended system of records notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a (e)(4)), as amended, the Department's Office of Housing propose to amend and reissue a current system of records notice (SORN): Asset Disposition and Management System (ADAMS). The notice amendment includes administrative updates to refine details published under the categories of individuals covered, categories of records, authority for maintenance, storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access, contesting records procedures, and records source categories. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The existing scope, objectives, and business processes in place for the program remain unchanged. The amended SORN deletes and supersedes the ADAMS SORN published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2014 at 79 FR 10829-10830. The updated notice will be included in the Department's inventory of SORNs.

    DATES:

    Effective Date: This notice action shall be effective immediately, which will become effective September 19, 2016.

    [Comments Due Date]: September 19, 2016.

    ADDRESSES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this notice to the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10276, Washington, DC 20410. Communications should refer to the above docket number and title. Faxed comments are not accepted. A copy of each communication submitted will be available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays at the above address.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Helen Goff Foster, Chief Privacy Officer/Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number 202-402-6838 (this is not a toll-free number). Individuals who are hearing- and speech-impaired may access this number via TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    This notice updates and refines previously published information pertaining to ADAMs in a clear and easy to read format. The amended notice conveys administrative updates to the notice's categories of individuals covered, categories of records, routine uses, storage, safeguards, retention and disposal, system manager and address, notification procedures, records access and contesting procedures, and records source captions. The Privacy Act places on Federal agencies principal responsibility for compliance with its provisions, by requiring Federal agencies to safeguard an individual's records against an invasion of personal privacy; protect the records contained in an agency system of records from unauthorized disclosure; ensure that the records collected are relevant, necessary, current, and collected only for their intended use; and adequately safeguard the records to prevent misuse of such information. This notice demonstrates the Department's focus on industry best practices and laws that protect interest such as personal privacy and law enforcement records from inappropriate release. This notice states the name and location of the record system, the authority for and manner of its operations, the categories of individuals that it covers, the type of records that it contains, the sources of the information for the records, the routine uses made of the records, and the types of exemptions in place for the records. The notice also includes the business address of the HUD officials who will inform interested persons of how they may gain access to and/or request amendments to records pertaining to themselves.

    The amended notice does not meet threshold requirements set forth by Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(r). Therefore, a report was not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

    Authority:

    5 U.S.C. 552a; 88 Stat. 1896; 42 U.S.C. 3535(d).

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Helen Goff Foster, Chief Privacy Officer/Senior Agency Official for Privacy. System of Records No.:

    HSNG.SF/HUF.01.

    SYSTEM NAME:

    Asset Disposition and Management System (ADAMS)—P260.

    SYSTEM LOCATION:

    The physical system is hosted at the contractor's primary and disaster recovery sites: Yardi Systems, Inc., 430 South Fairview Avenue, Santa Barbara, CA 93117, Sunguard, 1001 E. Campbell Road, Richardson, TX 75081, and CenturyLink, 200 N. Nash Street, El Segundo, CA 90245. The above locations host the Department's design and development, testing and production, and disaster recovery instances for ADAMS. ADAMS is accessible at workstations located at the following locations: Department of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410, and at HUD field and regional office locations: 1 HUD Atlanta Homeownership Center, Five Points Plaza, 40 Marietta Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, HUD Philadelphia Homeownership Center, The Wanamaker Building, 100 Penn Square East, Philadelphia, PA 19107, HUD Denver Homeownership Center, Processing and Underwriting, 20th floor, 1670 Broadway, Denver, CO 80202, HUD Santa Ana Homeownership Center, Santa Ana Federal Building, 34 Civic Center Plaza, Room 7015, Santa Ana, CA 92701.

    1http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=append2.pdf.

    CATEGORIES OF INDIVIDUALS COVERED BY THE SYSTEM:

    Individuals covered by ADAMS are: (1) Homebuyers (mortgagors) of REO properties, (2) successful bidders (purchasers) of HUD Real Estate Owned (REO) properties, (3) HUD Single Family Property Disposition Program Management and Marketing (M&M) contractors. Successful bidders are referred to as purchasers on the form HUD-2548, Sales Contract Property Disposition Program, and include the following groups: (1) FHA-approved real estate brokers, (2) Investors, (3) Registered, eligible non-profit organizations, (4) Public housing agencies, and (5) Other government agencies (State and local). The M&M contractor group include: (1) Mortgagee Compliance Managers (MCM), (2) Field Service Managers (FSM), and (3) Asset Managers (AM).

    CATEGORIES OF RECORD IN THE SYSTEM:

    Categories of records in the system include:

    (1) Homebuyers Information: Name, address, Social Security number (SSN), and race/ethnicity characteristics. This information is also gathered by non-profit and government submissions.

    (2) Successful Bidders Information: Business name and address, Employer Identification Number (EIN), Tax Identification Number (TIN), or SSN, broker's phone number, SAMS name and address identification number (NAID), FHA case number, property address, date purchaser(s) signed sales contract (Form HUD-9548), date sales contract accepted by HUD, purchase price; purchaser type, appraisal information, tax payments, sales offer information, HUD-1, contract information, vendor information, and financial transactions.

    (3) Additional Nonprofit and Government (state and local) Information: Internal Revenue Service (IRS) letters for determination of nonprofit status, articles of Organization, mortgage notes, W-9, SAMS-1111, property report documentation (Median Income certification).

    (4) Management and Marketing (M&M) Contractors Information: Business name and address; EIN, TIN, or SSN; phone number; SAMS NAID; FHA case number; property address; date purchaser(s) signed sales contract (Form HUD-9548); date sales contract accepted by HUD; purchase price; purchaser type; mortgage notes, W-9, SAMS-1111, property report documentation (Median Income certification) and limited information about the homebuyers: Name, address, SSN, and race/ethnicity characteristics.

    In addition, ADAMS contains files on property appraisals, tax payments, purchase sales offer information, HUD-1, purchase contract information, vendor information, and property preservation and protection invoice information, FHA property listings, and property agent contact information.

    AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM:

    National Housing Act as amended (12 U.S.C. 1702 et seq.), Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations Part 200.194, Placement of Nonprofit Organization on Nonprofit Organization Roster, The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3543, National Housing Act, Section 235(b), Public Law 479, 48 Stat. 12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq., Section 165 (a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, Public Law 100-242, Section 904 of the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988, Public Law 100-628.

    PURPOSE:

    ADAMS is a case management system for HUD owned and HUD managed single-family properties under HUD's Property Disposition and REO Discount Sales Programs. ADAMS was introduced into production in 2010. ADAMS supports HUD Headquarters and Homeownership Center (HOC) staff and HUD's Management and Marketing (M&M) contractors to track single-family properties from their acquisition by HUD through the steps necessary to resell the properties. In addition, M&M contractors manage the HUD Property Disposition Sales Program and the REO Discount Sales Programs (Good Neighbor Next Door (GNND), Asset Control Area (ACA) Sales, and $1 Homes). ADAMS is used to:

    • Obtain, store, and display case-level information about properties acquired by or in custody of HUD.

    • Track events and information describing the status of real property from the date of conveyance to the Department through several stages of management, marketing, and disposition, to final reconciliation of sale proceeds.

    • Retain data relative to contracts, contractors, and vendors that support the property disposition program.

    • Calculate property management, marketing, and incentive fees earned by M&M contractors, closing agents, and special property inspection (SPI) contractors, and generate disbursement transmittals.

    • Calculate M&M contractor payment incentives and disincentives.

    • Generate disbursement transmittals for payment of other property-related expenses such as pass-through expenses and property taxes.

    • Verify eligibility to participate in the REO program.

    • Validate that no conflicts of interest exist among non-profit/other government agencies' board members, employees, business partners, and homebuyers.

    • Validate that discounted HUD-REO homes were sold to eligible buyers.

    • Determine that participating agencies have not exceeded profit limits on the re-sale of HUD-REO homes purchased through the discount program.

    • Support Good Neighbor Next Door Sales Programs (GNND) compliance control tasks for pre-sales/pre-registration, sales/pre-closing, and post-closing.

    ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND THE PURPOSE OF SUCH USES:

    In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. Section 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system may be disclosed outside HUD as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:

    1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons to the extent such disclosures are compatible with the purpose for which the records in this system were collected, as set forth by Appendix I 2 —HUD's Routine Uses Inventory published in the Federal Register.

    2http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=routine_use_inventory.pdf.

    2. To General Accounting Office (GAO) for audit purposes.

    3. To Management and Marketing contractors for processing the sale of HUD Homes.

    4. To Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate possible fraud revealed in the course of servicing efforts to allow HUD to protect the interest of the Secretary.

    5. To Appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:

    a. HUD suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in a system of records has been compromised;

    b. HUD 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 systems or programs (whether maintained by HUD or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information;

    c. HUD determines that the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm for purposes of facilitating responses and remediation efforts in the event of a data breach.

    6. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) or to the General Services Administration for records management inspections conducted under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.

    7. To a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.

    POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: Storage:

    Records in this system are stored electronically in secure facilities. Electronic files are stored in case files on secure servers. Electronic files are replicated at a disaster recovery offsite location in case of loss of computing capability or other emergency at the primary facility. ADAMS does not have paper records.

    RETRIEVABILITY:

    Records are retrieved using computer search by the FHA case number, property address (including other geographical characteristics such as contract area, property state/city/county/zip code, Homeownership Center), or contractor ID or name, or non-profit/government agency name.

    SAFEGUARDS:

    Records are maintained in a secured computer network. Access is limited to authorized personnel. ADAMS access requires two levels of logins to access the system. The first login uses HUD Siteminder system to verify that the user has active HUD authorization. The second login uses ADAMS internal security system to set permissions for data access and system functionality.

    RETENTION AND DISPOSAL:

    In accordance with General Records Schedule 1.1, Financial Management and Reporting Records, Items 010 and 011, the records are maintained for six years or when business use ceases. Paper records are not in use. Backup and Recovery digital media will be destroyed or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST SP 800-88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization” (September 2006).

    SYSTEM OWNER AND ADDRESS:

    Ivery Himes, Director, Office of Single Family Asset Management, Room 9178, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410.

    NOTIFICATION AND RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES:

    For information, assistance, or inquiry about the existence of records, contact Helen Goff Foster, Chief Privacy Officer/Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, telephone number (202) 402-6838. When seeking records about yourself from this system of records or any other HUD system of records, your request must conform with the Privacy Act regulations set forth in 24 CFR part 16. You must first verify your identity, meaning that you must provide your full name, current address, and date and place of birth. You must sign your request, and your signature must either be notarized or submitted under 28 U.S.C. 1746, a law that permits statements to be made under penalty of perjury as a substitute for notarization. In addition, your request should:

    a. Explain why you believe HUD would have information on you.

    b. Identify which Office of HUD you believe has the records about you.

    c. Specify when you believe the records would have been created.

    d. Provide any other information that will help the FOIA staff determine which HUD office may have responsive records.

    If your request is seeking records pertaining to another living individual, you must include a statement from that individual certifying their agreement for you to access their records. Without the above information, the HUD FOIA Office may not be able to conduct an effective search, and your request may be denied due to lack of specificity or lack of compliance with applicable regulations.

    CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

    The Department's rules for contesting contents of records and appealing initial denials appear in 24 CFR part 16, Procedures for Inquiries. Additional assistance may be obtained by contacting Helen Goff Foster, Chief Privacy Officer/Senior Agency Official for Privacy, 451 Seventh Street SW., Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410, or the HUD Departmental Privacy Appeals Officers, Office of General Counsel, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20410.

    RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

    Purchasers, Non-profit and State, local Government entities, M&M contractors, and HUD employees, HUD Form 9548.

    EXEMPTIONS FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE ACT:

    None.

    [FR Doc. 2016-19870 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Geological Survey [GX16GG009950000] Announcement of National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council AGENCY:

    U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of meeting.

    SUMMARY:

    Pursuant to Public Law 106-503, the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council (NEPEC) will hold its next meeting by phone. The Committee is comprised of members from academia and the Federal government. The Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Director of the USGS on earthquake predictions and related scientific research.

    In this brief meeting by phone, the Council will receive updates on the status of pertinent activities of the Earthquake Hazards Program, and will deliver its recommendations on the testing of earthquake prediction hypotheses.

    DATES:

    The meeting will be held from 12 Noon to 2:00 p.m. EDT on September 1, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Dr. Michael Blanpied, U.S. Geological Survey, MS 905, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, Virginia 20192, (703) 648-6696, [email protected].

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Meetings of the National Earthquake Prediction Evaluation Council are open to the public. Those wishing to attend may contact Dr. Blanpied for further information. Those wishing to provide a brief statement to the Council may do so with prior arrangement.

    William Leith, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquake and Geologic Hazards.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19804 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4338-11-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [LLAZ910000.L17110000.XP0000 16X 6100.241A] State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting AGENCY:

    Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of public meetings.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Arizona Resource Advisory Council (RAC) will meet in Phoenix, Arizona, as indicated below.

    DATES:

    The Arizona RAC business meeting will take place on September 15, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. The RAC working group meeting will take place on September 14, 2016 from 8:30 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. Both meetings are open to the public.

    ADDRESSES:

    The meeting will be held at the BLM Arizona State Office located at One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Adam Eggers, Arizona RAC Coordinator at the Bureau of Land Management, Arizona State Office, One North Central Avenue, Suite 800, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4427, 602-417-9500. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during normal business hours.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the BLM, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in Arizona. Planned agenda items include a welcome and introduction of Council members; BLM State Director's update on BLM programs and issues; commercial recreation leases outreach update; fire and aviation update; BLM “Balance Point: Managing the health, diversity, and productivity of America's public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations” presentation; RAC committee reports; RAC questions on BLM District Manager reports and other items of interest to the RAC. Members of the public are welcome to attend the RAC meetings. A public comment period is scheduled for September 15 from 2:30-3:00 p.m. for any interested members of the public who wish to address the Council on BLM programs and business. Depending on the number of persons wishing to speak and time available, the time for individual comments may be limited. Written comments may also be submitted during the meeting for the RAC's consideration. The final meeting agenda will be available two weeks prior to the meeting and posted on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/res/rac.html. Additionally, directions to the meeting site and parking information may be found on the BLM Web site at: http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/res/pub_room/location.html. Individuals who need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the RAC Coordinator listed above no later than two weeks before the start of the meeting.

    Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, the RAC has been designated as the Recreation RAC and has the authority to review all BLM and Forest Service recreation fee proposals in Arizona. The Recreation RAC will review the Paria Canyon Business Plan at this meeting.

    Raymond Suazo, Arizona State Director.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19818 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Ocean Energy Management [Docket No. BOEM-2016-0047; MMAA104000] Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), Gulf of Mexico (GOM), Oil and Gas Lease Sales for 2018 AGENCY:

    Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.

    ACTION:

    Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

    SUMMARY:

    Consistent with the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), BOEM is announcing its intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for proposed GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 (2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS) as scheduled in the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program (2017-2022 Proposed Program). This Notice of Intent (NOI) serves to announce the EIS scoping process for the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS. The 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS will tier from the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS.

    Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344) requires the development of an OCS oil and gas leasing program every five years. The Program sets forth a schedule of lease sales designed to best meet the Nation's energy needs. The lease sales proposed in the GOM in the 2017-2022 Proposed Program are areawide sales encompassing both the Western and Central Planning Areas, and a portion of the Eastern Planning Area not subject to Congressional moratorium. These planning areas are located off the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. By proposing lease sales that offer all available GOM acreage, BOEM seeks to provide more opportunity for industry to bid on rejected, relinquished, or expired OCS lease blocks and facilitate better planning to explore resources that straddle the U.S./Mexico boundary. During the pre-lease sale process, the size of any individual lease sale could be reduced, and a smaller area offered for leasing, should circumstances warrant. For example, an individual lease sale could be focused on a single GOM Planning Area as in the 2012-2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Regulations implementing NEPA encourage agencies to analyze similar or related proposals in one EIS (40 CFR 1508.25). Since both lease sales would be held in 2018 and the ensuing OCS activities are similar, BOEM will prepare a single Supplemental EIS for two lease sales proposed to be held in the GOM in 2018 (Lease Sales 250 and 251). The 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS will tier from the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS and focus on new information released since the publication of the 2017-2022 GOM Multisale EIS. This EIS approach allows for subsequent NEPA analyses to focus on changes in the proposed lease sales and on new issues and information. Analyzing two proposed lease sales within one Supplemental EIS will eliminate the repetition of annual Supplemental EISs for each proposed lease sale. The resource estimates and scenario information for the Supplemental EIS will include a range that encompasses the resources and activities estimated for either or both of the proposed lease sales. At the completion of this Supplemental EIS process, a decision will be made for Lease Sale 250. Thereafter, a separate decision will be made for Lease Sale 251. No final decision will be made on any individual lease sale until the end of the Supplemental EIS process to allow for full consultation with Federal agencies, affected states, and the public.

    The 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS analysis will focus on the potential environmental effects from oil and natural gas leasing, exploration, development, and production on all available acreage in the GOM, including the Western and Central Planning Areas, and the portion of the Eastern Planning Area not subject to Congressional moratorium. In addition to the no action alternative (i.e., cancel the lease sale), other alternatives will be considered for each proposed lease sale, such as offering individual or multiple planning areas for lease or deferring certain areas from the proposed lease sales in addition to those alternatives considered in the 2017-2022 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program.

    Scoping Process: This NOI serves to announce the scoping process for identifying issues and potential alternatives for consideration in the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS. Throughout the scoping process, Federal agencies, state, tribal, and local governments, and the general public have the opportunity to help BOEM determine significant resources and issues, impact-producing factors, reasonable alternatives, and potential mitigating measures to be analyzed in the Supplemental EIS and to provide additional information. BOEM will also use the NEPA commenting process to initiate the section 106 consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq.), as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3).

    Pursuant to the regulations implementing the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), BOEM will hold public scoping meetings for the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS. BOEM's scoping meetings will be held at the following places and times:

    • Gulfport, Mississippi: Tuesday, September 6, 2016, Courtyard by Marriott, Gulfport Beachfront MS Hotel, 1600 East Beach Boulevard, Gulfport, Mississippi 39501; one meeting, beginning at 4:00 p.m. CDT and ending at 7:00 p.m. CDT;

    • Mobile, Alabama: Wednesday, September 7, 2016, Renaissance Mobile Riverview Plaza Hotel, 64 South Water Street, Mobile, Alabama 36602; one meeting, beginning at 4:00 p.m. CDT and ending at 7:00 p.m. CDT;

    • Houston, Texas: Tuesday, September 13, 2016, Houston Marriott North, 255 North Sam Houston Pkwy East, Houston, Texas 77060; one meeting, beginning at 4:00 p.m. CDT and ending at 7:00 p.m. CDT; and

    • New Orleans, Louisiana: Thursday, September 15, 2016, Wyndham Garden New Orleans Airport, 6401 Veterans Memorial Blvd., Metairie, Louisiana 70003; one meeting, beginning at 4:00 p.m. CDT and ending at 7:00 p.m. CDT.

    Cooperating Agencies: BOEM invites other Federal agencies, and state, tribal, and local governments to consider becoming cooperating agencies in the preparation of the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS. BOEM invites qualified government entities to inquire about cooperating agency status for this Supplemental EIS. Following the guidelines from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), qualified agencies and governments are those with “jurisdiction by law or special expertise.” Potential cooperating agencies should consider their authority and capacity to assume the responsibilities of a cooperating agency and should remember that an agency's role in the environmental analysis neither enlarges nor diminishes the final decisionmaking authority of any other agency involved in the NEPA process. Upon request, BOEM will provide potential cooperating agencies with a written summary of expectations for cooperating agencies, including time schedules and critical action dates, milestones, responsibilities, scope and detail of cooperating agencies' contributions, and availability of predecisional information. BOEM anticipates this summary will form the basis for a Memorandum of Agreement between BOEM and any cooperating agency. Agencies should also consider the “Factors for Determining Cooperating Agency Status” in Attachment 1 to CEQ's January 30, 2002, Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies: Cooperating Agencies in Implementing the Procedural Requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. This document is available on the Internet at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQ-CoopAgenciesImplem.pdf.

    BOEM, as the lead agency, will not provide financial assistance to cooperating agencies. Even if an organization is not a cooperating agency, opportunities will exist to provide information and comments to BOEM during the normal public input stages of the NEPA process.

    Comments: Federal agencies, tribal, state, and local governments, and other interested parties are requested to comment on the scope of the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS, significant issues that should be addressed, and alternatives that should be considered. Comments can be submitted in any of the following ways:

    1. In written form enclosed in an envelope labeled “Comments on the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS” and mailed (or hand carried) to Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 623E), BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394; or

    2. Through the regulations.gov web portal: Navigate to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket No. BOEM-2016-0047. Click on the “Comment Now!” button to the right of the document link. Enter your information and comment, then click “Submit.”

    BOEM does not consider anonymous comments. Please include your name and address as part of your submittal. BOEM makes all comments, including the names and addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that BOEM withhold their names and/or addresses from the public record; however, BOEM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state your preference prominently at the beginning of your comment. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

    DATES:

    Comments should be submitted no later than September 19, 2016.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For information on the 2018 GOM Lease Sales 250 and 251 Supplemental EIS, the submission of comments, or BOEM's policies associated with this notice, please contact Mr. Gary D. Goeke, Chief, Environmental Assessment Section, Office of Environment (GM 623E), BOEM, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123-2394, telephone 504-736-3233.

    Authority:

    This NOI is published pursuant to the regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) implementing the provisions of NEPA.

    Dated: August 12, 2016. Abigail Ross Hopper, Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19861 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Preliminary)] Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) From Korea; Determination

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of dioctyl terephthalate (“DOTP”) from Korea, provided for in subheading 2917.39.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”).2

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    2 Commissioner F. Scott Kieff dissenting.

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigation

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigation. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of an affirmative preliminary determination in the investigation under section 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determination is negative, upon notice of an affirmative final determination in that investigation under section 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigation need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigation. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigation.

    Background

    On June 30, 2016, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport, Tennessee filed a petition with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of DOTP from Korea. Accordingly, effective June 30, 2016, the Commission, pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)), instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of July 7, 2016 (81 FR 44329). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made this determination pursuant to section 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determination in this investigation on August 15, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4630 (August 2016), entitled Dioctyl Terephthalate (DOTP) from Korea: Investigation No. 731-TA-1330 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 16, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19817 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1333 (Preliminary)] Finished Carbon Steel Flanges From India, Italy, and Spain; Determinations

    On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigations, the United States International Trade Commission (“Commission”) determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”), that there is a reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India, Italy, and Spain provided for in subheading 7307.91.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (“LTFV”) and that are alleged to be subsidized by the government of India.

    1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).

    Commencement of Final Phase Investigations

    Pursuant to section 207.18 of the Commission's rules, the Commission also gives notice of the commencement of the final phase of its investigations. The Commission will issue a final phase notice of scheduling, which will be published in the Federal Register as provided in section 207.21 of the Commission's rules, upon notice from the Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) of affirmative preliminary determinations in the investigations under sections 703(b) or 733(b) of the Act, or, if the preliminary determinations are negative, upon notice of affirmative final determinations in those investigations under sections 705(a) or 735(a) of the Act. Parties that filed entries of appearance in the preliminary phase of the investigations need not enter a separate appearance for the final phase of the investigations. Industrial users, and, if the merchandise under investigation is sold at the retail level, representative consumer organizations have the right to appear as parties in Commission antidumping and countervailing duty investigations. The Secretary will prepare a public service list containing the names and addresses of all persons, or their representatives, who are parties to the investigations.

    Background

    On June 30, 2016, Weldbend Corporation, Argo, Illinois and Boltex Mfg. Co., L.P., Houston, Texas filed petitions with the Commission and Commerce, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of LTFV imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India, Italy, and Spain and subsidized imports of finished carbon steel flanges from India. Accordingly, effective June 30, 2016, the Commission, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)), instituted countervailing duty investigation No. 701-TA-563 and antidumping duty investigation Nos. 731-TA-1331-1333 (Preliminary).

    Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigations and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register of July 7, 2016 (81 FR 44328). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on July 21, 2016, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel.

    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to sections 703(a) and 733(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(a) and 1673b(a)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on August 15, 2016. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4631 (August 2016), entitled Finished Carbon Steel Flanges from India, Italy, and Spain: Investigation Nos. 701-TA-563 and 731-TA-1331-1333 (Preliminary).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: August 16, 2016. Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission.
    [FR Doc. 2016-19816 Filed 8-18-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
    INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Notice of Receipt of Complaint; Solicitation of Comments Relating to the Public Interest AGENCY:

    U.S. International Trade Commission.

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products, DN 3167; the Commission is soliciting comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or complainant's filing under § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 210.8(b)).

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at http://edis.usitc.gov, and will be available for inspection during official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, D